1306 réponses à ce sujet

[katiebour]

AudioEpics wrote...

For me it evolved mostly in the right direction, even though in small ways it was sometimes the wrong one. The following is purely my personal opinion, of course!

Right direction:
Graphics: Everything looks much sharper, crisper and smoother on Xbox. It also handles very fluently.
Story: sorry guys, but I think the Dragon Age II story was much more involving, emotional and inspiring than Origins' (which I also liked).
Interface: again, I speak as an Xbox player, but they made it much more elegant, accessible and smooth in my opinion.
Combat: It's faster and more intense but still has the tactical depth and group dynamics
Crafting: Crafting was more enjoyable to me this time around, although it felt too limited.
Dialogue: The voiced protagonist was a big step forward, making the whole feel much more alive. I also thought the dialogue wheel was presented here at its very best (better even than Mass Effect). I loved the icons.
Companions: while you could not interact with them as often, I felt the characters in Dragon Age II were stronger, more relatable and better written.
Day/night choice: It was such a little thing but I loved that!
Quests: Dragon Age II had shorter quests, and I preferred that. It also felt to me like there were more little optional sidequests, which gave me a bit of an "Elder Scrolls" feeling which I loved. The fact that as Hawke you inhabit the city, your friends live there and you really build up a life felt very fresh and involving.

Wrong direction:
Atmosphere: Kirkwall is awesome in its own way but I do miss the more mysterious, grim and ancient feeling environments that were in Dragon Age Origins. Dragon Age II has an interesting and unique aesthetic but I miss the "old world" feel a bit.
Customization: While I don't mind having to play as a human, I do hope that future Dragon Age games return to a wider choice of races.
Origins: I understand that you are playing a slightly more defined character here, but still, the origins were a big thing that made Dragon Age special. Adding some more unique content based on early choices in whatever way would have been cool.
Quest log/journal/codex: I had the feeling this was all a lot deeper and better handled in Origins.
Lack of new environments: everyone has said this.

Overall, as I have said before, I think Dragon Age II was a more gripping, powerful and mesmerizing experience than its predecessor and I loved it.

For the future, I hope Bioware puts some of the customization back in Dragon Age III and that they introduce things like an actual day/night cycle, guilds or factions and gambling or similar minigames. I loved Pazaak in Kotor, for example.

Beautiful post.

I played BG I and II, DA:O, DA:A, and DAII, and I've loved all of them.  It seems to me that the biggest difference between the BG/DA:O world is the "sandbox" feel- you can go where you want, do what you want(or not), make a million decisions great and small, and experience an epic world.  Very much the same feel as Skyrim- it's an Olympic-sized swimming pool but the water everywhere is two feet deep.  Where Origins went from two to six feet deep, so to speak, was in the excellent characterization and depth of your companions.  But everything else was pretty much "I am teh god-Warden, I call teh shots and I will save teh world."

DAII was much more narrowly focused, and the protagonist, rather than calling all the shots often reacted, in limited ways, to the story.  I found the characterization excellent and on-par with Origins, although I certainly wish we'd had more dialogue with our companions (YMMV, obviously.)

I found the DAII story to be much more emotionally engaging and heartrending because of the lack of choice- I enjoy playing a game where the protagonist is not quite so godlike.  Hawke's vulnerability and inability to control the situations in Kirkwall are reflective to me of how real people are swept up in events that they cannot change.  

For me DAII was a kiddie pool 20 feet deep- small, focused, and full of story.  Most of that story is wrapped up in our companions and their skewed and biased viewpoints- for example, from Fenris we get an examination of Tevinter, and how to traverse the wide distance from abused slave to free man.  From Anders we get a very painful and personal look into what it means to be a mage and second-class citizen of the world.  From Merrill we get a first-hand account of the tightrope she walks with blood magic, the desire to bring back the glory of the Dalish and to help the elves regain pride in themselves, etc.  Sebastian gives us the best face of the Chantry and its views.  And all of these stories conflict beautifully- Anders and Fenris hate each other because of their conflict regarding mages.  Anders and Merrill conflict over blood magic.  Sebastian and Aveline clash over class and religion- Isabela and Aveline give us the best rivalmance in game over what it means to be a strong woman in a man's world.  All of these characters are woven together like a beautiful, complex tapestry that is a microcosm of the world in which they live.

Kirkwall's geography is relatively unimportant because the story isn't driven by how many places you vist or how many dragons you kill.  What makes Kirkwall interesting are the people in it- the Qunari, the Hawke family, the Meredith/Elthina/Dumar triumvirate, the good and evil in both the templars and the mages.  And Hawke and his people are swept up in a tide beyond their control, by events that don't go the way you'd like them to no matter what armor you have or what level you are.  

Obviously the game had faults (mostly due as was said before to the rushed development cycle) but if Bioware is continuing in the direction of focused, character-driven story that is quality rather than quantity, then they will continue to have my business.  Whether or not they will continue to have yours is mostly a matter of whether or not you want to play that kind of game.  If not, well, there's always Skyrim (which I am playing and enjoying, although for completely different reasons than why I enjoyed DAII.)

This is all my opinion, YMMV, and if you disagree with me then that's absolutely fine.  Different strokes for different folks, hm? <3

[batlin]

katiebour wrote...

Beautiful post.

I played BG I and II, DA:O, DA:A, and DAII, and I've loved all of them.  It seems to me that the biggest difference between the BG/DA:O world is the "sandbox" feel- you can go where you want, do what you want(or not), make a million decisions great and small, and experience an epic world.  Very much the same feel as Skyrim- it's an Olympic-sized swimming pool but the water everywhere is two feet deep.  Where Origins went from two to six feet deep, so to speak, was in the excellent characterization and depth of your companions.  But everything else was pretty much "I am teh god-Warden, I call teh shots and I will save teh world."

DAII was much more narrowly focused, and the protagonist, rather than calling all the shots often reacted, in limited ways, to the story.  I found the characterization excellent and on-par with Origins, although I certainly wish we'd had more dialogue with our companions (YMMV, obviously.)

I found the DAII story to be much more emotionally engaging and heartrending because of the lack of choice- I enjoy playing a game where the protagonist is not quite so godlike.  Hawke's vulnerability and inability to control the situations in Kirkwall are reflective to me of how real people are swept up in events that they cannot change.

Like Ostagar? Like the Archdemon? Like the fate of the dwarves? The anvil of the void? There's a great deal of things the warden can't control if you paid attention to the epilogue.

For me DAII was a kiddie pool 20 feet deep- small, focused, and full of story.  Most of that story is wrapped up in our companions and their skewed and biased viewpoints- for example, from Fenris we get an examination of Tevinter, and how to traverse the wide distance from abused slave to free man.  From Anders we get a very painful and personal look into what it means to be a mage and second-class citizen of the world.  From Merrill we get a first-hand account of the tightrope she walks with blood magic, the desire to bring back the glory of the Dalish and to help the elves regain pride in themselves, etc.  Sebastian gives us the best face of the Chantry and its views.  And all of these stories conflict beautifully- Anders and Fenris hate each other because of their conflict regarding mages.  Anders and Merrill conflict over blood magic.  Sebastian and Aveline clash over class and religion- Isabela and Aveline give us the best rivalmance in game over what it means to be a strong woman in a man's world.  All of these characters are woven together like a beautiful, complex tapestry that is a microcosm of the world in which they live.

Frankly I'm stumped about how any of these characters are any more deep or complex than those in Origins. Fenris? He has single-minded hatred toward mages despite clear evidence that Tevinter mages are not like all mages, and he has several years to figure out this very obvious fact. Anders was actually dumbed-down from his appearance in Awakenings. In Awakenings he's still a troubled person with a lot of concern with the well-being of mages, but he isn't single-minded in his problems with the Chantry (as he understands that they are well-meaning) and hides his troubles with humor. DA2 took his character and made him a one-dimensional anti-chantry activist/terrorist. And before you judge his actions on his being merged with Justice, what he did to the Chantry in act 3 was most certainly not justice. Not all within the chantry are responsible for the actions of it, same as all of Germany isn't responsible for the actions of the ****s. Merril's actions too are illogical; you would have to be REALLY stupid in the Dragon Age universe to think that demons can be trusted in the least. and Merril, who had supposedly been trained her life to be a Keeper, the highest rank in Dalish society, should in no way think those actions were justified, no matter how naive she is. Last but not least, I see no way in which Aveline or Isabela are any stronger than Morrigan, Wynne or Leliana in a man's world. I'm not saying that you're wrong for liking DA2's characters more than DA:O's, it seems like in making comparisons you're attributing a lot of qualities to DA2's that simply don't exist.

Kirkwall's geography is relatively unimportant because the story isn't driven by how many places you vist or how many dragons you kill.  What makes Kirkwall interesting are the people in it- the Qunari, the Hawke family, the Meredith/Elthina/Dumar triumvirate, the good and evil in both the templars and the mages.  And Hawke and his people are swept up in a tide beyond their control, by events that don't go the way you'd like them to no matter what armor you have or what level you are.

There are a multitude of issues in DA:O that you get swept up in that are beyond your control. What is the difference between the Qunari, the templars vs. mages, etc and the Dales vs. the werewolves? The Circle tower being overrun with abominations? The dwarves electing a new king? Sure you eventually resolve them all, but that too is how it works in DA2. The only difference is that in DA:O you're given more choice of how to handle a situation after the fact.

Modifié par batlin, 13 mars 2012 - 04:31 .

[Elhanan]

batlin wrote...


Like Ostagar? Like the Archdemon? Like the fate of the dwarves? The anvil of the void? There's a great deal of things the warden can't control if you paid attention to the epilogue.


Frankly I'm stumped about how any of these characters are any more deep or complex than those in Origins. Fenris? He has single-minded hatred toward mages despite clear evidence that Tevinter mages are not like all mages, and he has several years to figure out this very obvious fact. Anders was actually dumbed-down from his appearance in Awakenings. In Awakenings he's still a troubled person with a lot of concern with the well-being of mages, but he isn't single-minded in his problems with the Chantry (as he understands that they are well-meaning) and hides his troubles with humor. DA2 took his character and made him a one-dimensional anti-chantry activist/terrorist. And before you judge his actions on his being merged with Justice, what he did to the Chantry in act 3 was most certainly not justice. Not all within the chantry are responsible for the actions of it, same as all of Germany isn't responsible for the actions of the ****s. Merril's actions too are illogical; you would have to be REALLY stupid in the Dragon Age universe to think that demons can be trusted in the least. and Merril, who had supposedly been trained her life to be a Keeper, the highest rank in Dalish society, should in no way think those actions were justified, no matter how naive she is. Last but not least, I see no way in which Aveline or Isabela are any stronger than Morrigan, Wynne or Leliana in a man's world. I'm not saying that you're wrong for liking DA2's characters more than DA:O's, it seems like in making comparisons you're attributing a lot of qualities to DA2's that simply don't exist.


There are a multitude of issues in DA:O that you get swept up in that are beyond your control. What is the difference between the Qunari, the templars vs. mages, etc and the Dales vs. the werewolves? The Circle tower being overrun with abominations? The dwarves electing a new king? Sure you eventually resolve them all, but that too is how it works in DA2. The only difference is that in DA:O you're given more choice of how to handle a situation after the fact.

Single minded hatred is not reasoned or logical; it is emotional, as is Fenris. Anders is also Justice; a bit more complex than a simple terrorist, as he had become Vengeance. Merrill did not trust demons; she had been convinced and lured into believing that she could control both them and herself. And Aveline was loyal as a friend, and not as a lover; a rather unique character given both games. Etc.

Bias taints reason and observation; possibly both within the game and in RL.

[batlin]

Elhanan wrote...

Single minded hatred is not reasoned or logical; it is emotional, as is Fenris. Anders is also Justice; a bit more complex than a simple terrorist, as he had become Vengeance. Merrill did not trust demons; she had been convinced and lured into believing that she could control both them and herself. And Aveline was loyal as a friend, and not as a lover; a rather unique character given both games. Etc.

Bias taints reason and observation; possibly both within the game and in RL.

Emotion is tempered with logic. Such single-mindedness shows utter lack in logic and Fenris and Anders come off as total idiots.

And Merril thinking she can control demons is no less idiotic than trusting they'll bend to her will without issue. And Leliana and Wynne are no less good friends than Aveline is.

[Elhanan]

batlin wrote...

Emotion is tempered with logic. Such single-mindedness shows utter lack in logic and Fenris and Anders come off as total idiots.

And Merril thinking she can control demons is no less idiotic than trusting they'll bend to her will without issue. And Leliana and Wynne are no less good friends than Aveline is.

Emotion should be tempered with logic, but often is not. Blind hatred is called that for a reason, and both Fenris and Anders suffer from this, and may not be saved if not influenced greatly by Hawke's leadership.

It is also called deception for a reason; ones mind (ie; logic) closed off to allow one's desires (ie; emotion) to lead. Merill believed what she wanted; not what was reasonable or logical.

Leliana is a friend, but influenced fairly easily into romance. And while I like Wynne, there are throngs of folks that may disagree with you over on the DAO forums concerning her friendship.

I enjoyed both games; same with the characters. Some like one game, and not the other. But belief that one's opinion is factual, and that equates to a logical conclusion may be as simplistic as Merill's world views; just a thought.

[batlin]

Elhanan wrote...

Emotion should be tempered with logic, but often is not. Blind hatred is called that for a reason, and both Fenris and Anders suffer from this, and may not be saved if not influenced greatly by Hawke's leadership.

Nope. No matter what you do, their actions aren't influenced one bit by Hawke. In Fenris' case, not until the very end. And even if one's biases and emotions are deep, Fenris had YEARS of his preconceptions being proven wrong and yet he holds on to his predjudices until the very end. He and Anders are unquestionably idiots.

It is also called deception for a reason; ones mind (ie; logic) closed off to allow one's desires (ie; emotion) to lead. Merill believed what she wanted; not what was reasonable or logical.

And yet supposedly she was trained to be a Keeper, well-versed in the Fade. Even that megalomaniac who created the abominations int he Circle tower knew he was giving himself over the the demons once he called them. Merril's actions were like her holding a gun to her head, pulling the trigger and being absolutely certain it wouldn't kill her. She's an idiot.

Leliana is a friend, but influenced fairly easily into romance. And while I like Wynne, there are throngs of folks that may disagree with you over on the DAO forums concerning her friendship.

How does Leliana's being easy to romance at all impact how strong she is? And in what ways are Wynne a bad friend unless you make evil choices?

Modifié par batlin, 13 mars 2012 - 05:45 .

[Elhanan]

batlin wrote...

Nope. No matter what you do, their actions aren't influenced one bit by Hawke. In Fenris' case, not until the very end. And even if one's biases and emotions are deep, Fenris had YEARS of his preconceptions being proven wrong and yet he holds on to his predjudices until the very end. He and Anders are unquestionably idiots.

And yet supposedly she was trained to be a Keeper, well-versed in the Fade. Even that megalomaniac who created the abominations int he Circle tower knew he was giving himself over the the demons once he called them. Merril's actions were like her holding a gun to her head, pulling the trigger and being absolutely certain it wouldn't kill her. She's an idiot.

How does Leliana's being easy to romance at all impact how strong she is? And in what ways are Wynne a bad friend unless you make evil choices?

er... at the very end for Fenris or Anders would be 'one bit'. And preconceptions, prejudgements, bias, and hatred often do not seek validity; only enabling confirmation and possible acceptance. Having molten lyrium poured on to one's skin might be a powerful event causing hatred to burn somewhat brighter than logic. And underestimating either Anders or Fenris as idiots may be why they seemingly succeed in venting their hatred.

Merrill was misguided, and led with her heart, but she is no idiot. She is easily manipulated and rather naive and foolish, but is not lacking intelligence.

Leliana is swayed by charismatic influence; be it her mentors and/ or lovers. The Warden may sway how she will live her life, as either Assassin or Chantry lass; no small differnce there.

Wynne is a bit set in her beliefs, and while open to some things, she is closed minded to others. When she intervenes into the Warden's love life, she does so based on her own experience, and does not heed the possibility of being incorrect until after the fact. And if one disposes of some urn of ashes, she quits. Not all heed the Chant, after all.

[Anomaly-]

Elhanan wrote...

Hawke is the Hero of Varric's tale, and based on what we discover of the Dwarf in game, such conquests appear to be common place. And my guess is that no matter the telling, the respect (or fear) for both Hawke and/ or Aveline will not allow Varric to sully their memory and friendship with such tales.

But he has no reservations about doing so with the others? I can't help but feel like the whole narrative thing is too convenient an excuse for bad design and plot holes.

My other point is if one does not wish a Romantic interlude; don't look for it.

What if one does wish it, but wants at least a bit of a challenge? Whatever happened to "the chase"?

Don't know if they can fail or not, as I did not have interest in anyone besides Aveline. But if one wants to be shot down in an epic fail, avoid RPG's and stick with RL....

RPG's are supposed to mimic real life, particularly in regards to characters and interactions, which has always been something of a staple of Bioware RPG's. Besides, I think one would much rather experience such rejection in a game than in real life, wouldn't you?

[batlin]

Elhanan wrote...

er... at the very end for Fenris or Anders would be 'one bit'. And preconceptions, prejudgements, bias, and hatred often do not seek validity; only enabling confirmation and possible acceptance. Having molten lyrium poured on to one's skin might be a powerful event causing hatred to burn somewhat brighter than logic. And underestimating either Anders or Fenris as idiots may be why they seemingly succeed in venting their hatred.

You say that like any of their significant choices can be changed. Why does it take a huge act of terrorism that, by all accounts should only affirm Fenris' predjudice to finally be able to convince him to join the mage's side, when seven years of previous convincing cannot? How you're saying their predjudices works is greatly inconsitest with how they act.

But let's ignore the relative intelligence of the two for a moment, because it's all beside the point. Anders and Fenris are one-dimensional characters. Their characters revolve entirely around their hatred of the chantry and mages, respectively. Regardless of whether they have a good reason for it, they're still one-note. That makes them objectively boring characters.

Merrill was misguided, and led with her heart, but she is no idiot. She is easily manipulated and rather naive and foolish, but is not lacking intelligence.

You know, descriptors like naive, foolish, and manipulatable are symptoms of a lack of intelligence. You're arguing is semantics.

Leliana is swayed by charismatic influence; be it her mentors and/ or lovers. The Warden may sway how she will live her life, as either Assassin or Chantry lass; no small differnce there.

Wynne is a bit set in her beliefs, and while open to some things, she is closed minded to others. When she intervenes into the Warden's love life, she does so based on her own experience, and does not heed the possibility of being incorrect until after the fact. And if one disposes of some urn of ashes, she quits. Not all heed the Chant, after all.

So then Leliana isn't strong because she's easily influenced, and Wynne isn't strong because she's not?

[Elhanan]

Anomaly- wrote...

But he has no reservations about doing so with the others? I can't help but feel like the whole narrative thing is too convenient an excuse for bad design and plot holes.

What if one does wish it, but wants at least a bit of a challenge? Whatever happened to "the chase"?

RPG's are supposed to mimic real life, particularly in regards to characters and interactions, which has always been something of a staple of Bioware RPG's. Besides, I think one would much rather experience such rejection in a game than in real life, wouldn't you?

Or perhaps your bias clouds other views and opinions; a bit like Fenris and Anders.

[Elhanan]

batlin wrote...

You say that like any of their significant choices can be changed. Why does it take a huge act of terrorism that, by all accounts should only affirm Fenris' predjudice to finally be able to convince him to join the mage's side, when seven years of previous convincing cannot? How you're saying their predjudices works is greatly inconsitest with how they act.

But let's ignore the relative intelligence of the two for a moment, because it's all beside the point. Anders and Fenris are one-dimensional characters. Their characters revolve entirely around their hatred of the chantry and mages, respectively. Regardless of whether they have a good reason for it, they're still one-note. That makes them objectively boring characters

You know, descriptors like naive, foolish, and manipulatable are symptoms of a lack of intelligence. You're arguing is semantics.

So then Leliana isn't strong because she's easily influenced, and Wynne isn't strong because she's not?

Hawke cannot stop Anders from igniting a war, but he can be allowed to see the futility of it. And Fenris can be confronted with his two hatreds: Mages and slavery, and can be guided to make a decsion between them. Sometimes it takes a monumental event to change minds; either personally or in a global way. Lives are changed by such things, and this is reflected in game.

You see one dimensional characters that are boring; others see depth and complexity.

Q: What makes your opinion factual and objective? Rhetorical, because it is not. Perhaps like others; like Fenris and Anders, your bias clouds judgement.

Leliana is a meaningful character - among my favorites - but appears to be easily manipulated by those in authority above her. Wynne is a strong character, but is revealed as prejudicial in thought, and has to be shown her errors. To her credit, she is willing to admit mistakes, but is prone towards this mindset.

Again, I enjoy both games, and most characters. But this thread is not about them specifically; only trying to indicate that they may not be as shallow as some believe. personally, hope to see more of Varric, Flemeth, Leliana, and othersin DA3.

[Bizantura]

For me it is not so much a question of wright or wrong direction.
I didn't like DA2 mostly because I couldn't relate to the caracters. Poor Anders what did they do to you, for me he is not Anders I used to know. Nothing but a whining angry idiot.

For me Aveline and Varric where the only adults in the game, the rest infantile irritating priks.

Because of that no intrest in romance wich is a large incentive for playing for me anyways.

I understand the need for streamlining to reach a broader audience, but well there is steamlining and streamlining!! And there I cringe when they say when they are fully examening the skyrimeske way. Bethesda may tweak there games in babysteps but stay tru to the genre.

Ultametly there is no wrong or wright only sales figures and there DAO did far better than DA2. I liked Bioware because of there good story telling, romance possibilities and tweaking of protagonist and they are well in there rights to streamline that as I am in not liking it.

[Anomaly-]

Elhanan wrote...
Or perhaps your bias clouds other views and opinions; a bit like Fenris and Anders.

What bias would that be? And what do they have to do with anything? I think you may be confusing me with the other guy.

[Mr Fixit]

Just wanted to say that Elhanan did a very nice and, in the words of admiral Cain, dare I say, beautiful examination of certain NPCs' psychologies.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 13 mars 2012 - 09:02 .

[batlin]

Elhanan wrote...

Hawke cannot stop Anders from igniting a
war, but he can be allowed to see the futility of it. And Fenris can be
confronted with his two hatreds: Mages and slavery, and can be guided to
make a decsion between them. Sometimes it takes a monumental event to
change minds; either personally or in a global way. Lives are changed by
such things, and this is reflected in game.

So what you're telling me is that if someone in 1930's Poland were militantly predjudiced toward Germans, and years later when the German blitzkreig came through and conqered the country, that person would possibly see the error of his predjudice and work with the Germans? 

You see one dimensional characters that are boring; others see depth and complexity.

How so? I've provided numerous examples of how they're one dimensional, all you've done is provide justification for their one character trait. Whether or not their predjudices are justified doesn't change that it is, in fact, their single character trait.

Q:
What makes your opinion factual and objective? Rhetorical, because it
is not. Perhaps like others; like Fenris and Anders, your bias clouds
judgement.

They're objectively one-note. This isn't a bias, their character traits simply do not go far beyond the fact that they have hatred toward the chantry/mages.

Let's try this: I'd like you to describe Anders and Fenris without saying what they look like or what their role or profession in the game is. Real people have a great deal of traits; so how many do Fenris and Anders have?

Leliana is a meaningful character - among my favorites
- but appears to be easily manipulated by those in authority above her.
Wynne is a strong character, but is revealed as prejudicial in thought,
and has to be shown her errors. To her credit, she is willing to admit
mistakes, but is prone towards this mindset.

So Leliana is not strong nor a good friend like Aveline because she can be swayed. You do agree then that Wynne is strong, but then say she has prejudices. Against what? Romance? All she does is express that someone with responsibility would probably have to choose between love and duty. She's not wrong.

Again, I enjoy both
games, and most characters. But this thread is not about them
specifically; only trying to indicate that they may not be as shallow as
some believe. personally, hope to see more of Varric, Flemeth, Leliana,
and othersin DA3.

I was responding to one post that compared the characters of both games together. I know this isn't completely on-topic.

Modifié par batlin, 13 mars 2012 - 09:00 .

[TEWR]

And Merril thinking she can control demons is no less idiotic than trusting they'll bend to her will without issue.

she doesn't think she can control them. She thinks she can outwit them. There's a big difference between the two concepts, despite what you want to believe.

[batlin]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

she doesn't think she can control them. She thinks she can outwit them. There's a big difference between the two concepts, despite what you want to believe.

Yes, outwit them for the purpose of controlling them. How is that different from what I said?

[TEWR]

Yes, outwit them for the purpose of controlling them. How is that different from what I said?

No. Outwit them for the purpose of outwitting them. She doesn't want to control demons and she's never once professed that was what she wanted to do. She just wants to outwit them by gaining valuable information and then betraying them before they betray her.

And she's not wrong on the concept. Demons are not invincible beings that can't be tricked.

Deceit does not equal control.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 13 mars 2012 - 11:37 .

[eroeru]

katiebour wrote...

AudioEpics wrote...

Dialogue: The voiced protagonist was a big step forward, making the whole feel much more alive. I also thought the dialogue wheel was presented here at its very best (better even than Mass Effect). I loved the icons.
Companions: while you could not interact with them as often, I felt the characters in Dragon Age II were stronger, more relatable and better written.

I found the DAII story to be much more emotionally engaging and heartrending because of the lack of choice- I enjoy playing a game where the protagonist is not quite so godlike.  Hawke's vulnerability and inability to control the situations in Kirkwall are reflective to me of how real people are swept up in events that they cannot change.  

@AudioEpics
You loved the icons as they were better done?? Are "icons" really that important in a dialogue? For me, the most important thing is believability, and strictly-defined buttons for an answer were awful in that regard.
Yes, companions seemed stronger - and also very unrealistic and less intelligent. (at least from a non-american cultural view-point)

@katiebour
The protagonist wasn't godlike?? If he didn't have the reign-fire-on-all (allies uneffected) abilities and animations, this would indeed be a good point. But he was de facto "awsumly" godlike. Only that his mentality was that of a ****** who thinks he can mess into all affairs and thus amend them. He seemed unintelligent no matter the option I chose (the sarcastic and mean ones being the awful ones) - I had no idea why everybody would listen to him sputtering gibberish.

Also, you believe that in real life your choices lack?? For Chrissake, you have nearly infinite choices in the very loose framework of life, and infinitely unclear functions to your actual dialogue/talks (only that it is unprobable that some of them would lead you straight to extraordinary wealth and real political power - unless you'd have superpowers that let you deal with any threat, be it a military one or otherwise).

Modifié par eroeru, 13 mars 2012 - 12:08 .

[eroeru]

It's very many who don't want to play a comic-book. I for one.
These people want to play a believable (as in captivating and with good "performances" - as opposed to the "wtf reaction") and witty, realistic yet gritty fantasy (though it's fine if there's comic-like exaggerations in some characters, they still need to feel like I could possibly meet them myself, in real life - all of DA2 was out of the question while Origins remains true to all of these fine principles).

There just aren't many games that throw you in a near-life experience with something marvellous in it. At the moment, I can say the closest is Morrowind, while Origins and The Witcher gave a very similar vibe, with some extraordinarily writing in them. All of these are games that did exceptionally well also in sales (and continue to do so). Oy, Bioware! Focus on making something with everlasting quality, something that earns praise in times to come, which makes for glorious PR. You've already done it with Origins and Baldur's Gate (the main reason behind the life on the forums and the number of games sold). Should you not work on that game-making much much more over?

Modifié par eroeru, 13 mars 2012 - 12:23 .

[batlin]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

No. Outwit them for the purpose of outwitting them. She doesn't want to control demons and she's never once professed that was what she wanted to do. She just wants to outwit them by gaining valuable information and then betraying them before they betray her.

And she's not wrong on the concept. Demons are not invincible beings that can't be tricked.

Deceit does not equal control.

You're still arguing semantics. She wanted to use demons. The means by which she does it is irrelevant.

Modifié par batlin, 13 mars 2012 - 12:24 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Oh look, another thread becomes an off-topic venue for baseless Merrill-bashing based on skewed, half-informed "facts" and the word of another character in the game -- a character whose own pride and superstition made her first the dupe and then the possessed tool of a demon herself.

Merethari -- "The demon was going to possess you! I know because it told me! So I let it possess me!"

Some Players -- "Merrill is such an idiotic fool!"

WTF.

[Killjoy Cutter]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Yes, outwit them for the purpose of controlling them. How is that different from what I said?

No. Outwit them for the purpose of outwitting them. She doesn't want to control demons and she's never once professed that was what she wanted to do. She just wants to outwit them by gaining valuable information and then betraying them before they betray her.

And she's not wrong on the concept. Demons are not invincible beings that can't be tricked.

Deceit does not equal control.

It's as if some players are taking the Qunari possition that even talking to a demon means you've been too dangerously exposed to live...  sheesh.

[Elhanan]

Anomaly- wrote...


What bias would that be? And what do they have to do with anything? I think you may be confusing me with the other guy.

Possible bias towards DA2, or in some posters, bias for DAO may lead to clouded judgement over some characterizations.
In a like manner, Fenris and Anders have such venom towards opposing factions that they seem to be blind to reason and logic until a major event compels them to reaccess their views.
 
The Anders of DAA is not the same Anders of DA2; he is also Justice, and the two are becoming Vengeance. The first is well accepted for the endearing humor, and the latter is sometimes dismissed as one dimensional, possibly overlooking the complexity of the possession. and the character presented.

[Elhanan]

batlin wrote...

So what you're telling me is that if someone in 1930's Poland were militantly predjudiced toward Germans, and years later when the German blitzkreig came through and conqered the country, that person would possibly see the error of his predjudice and work with the Germans? 

How so? I've provided numerous examples of how they're one dimensional, all you've done is provide justification for their one character trait. Whether or not their predjudices are justified doesn't change that it is, in fact, their single character trait.

They're objectively one-note. This isn't a bias, their character traits simply do not go far beyond the fact that they have hatred toward the chantry/mages.

Let's try this: I'd like you to describe Anders and Fenris without saying what they look like or what their role or profession in the game is. Real people have a great deal of traits; so how many do Fenris and Anders have?

So Leliana is not strong nor a good friend like Aveline because she can be swayed. You do agree then that Wynne is strong, but then say she has prejudices. Against what? Romance? All she does is express that someone with responsibility would probably have to choose between love and duty. She's not wrong.

I was responding to one post that compared the characters of both games together. I know this isn't completely on-topic.

Nice historical strawman; perhaps another time....

Fenris; an Elf that approaches many trials and tests of self and others in a logical manner, much similar to what is displayed in the Quanari leader, is emotionally blinded to see that Mages are also slaves. Hawke's leadership may help in Fenris to re-examine this idea, but only after the known world is plunged into war.

Aveline is like Leliana and Wynne in that they are all good hearted woman. But where Leliana is easily manipulated, and Wynne is set in her ways, Aveline is strong of both spirit and mind concerning her friends; not so shielded and objective when concerning those of her affection.