1306 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Folks that want different stories and endings are welcome to write Fanfic. For myself, am content with the DA series writing viewed currently.

[TEWR]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Auto-defeats and cutscene defeats are aggravating, and lazy game design.  There should never be an encounter that the character automatically loses. 

If you're going to put an NPC in a situation where they might be attacked, you have to be willing to lose them.

If you're not willing to lose them, never leave them exposed to attack. 

Fair point. In which case the blackmail scenario I proposed earlier is the best way to leave Petrice alive, if Bioware wanted to have Petrice show up at the quest's conclusion. The player is then given a good, solid reason on every playthrough why she must stay alive.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Elhanan wrote...

Folks that want different stories and endings are welcome to write Fanfic. For myself, am content with the DA series writing viewed currently.

The point went that way.  If you hurry, you might catch it. 

It's a game, not a book or a movie or a play.  You can't put your precious little story ahead of the player's sense of agency. 

When you do, you're not making a game any more, you're making an "interactive cinematic experience" -- in other words, worthless junk.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 16 mars 2012 - 03:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elhanan wrote...

A problem with allowing the Players to kill key characters is the tale may stop in it's tracks.

If it's poorly written, sure.

If one may kill Petrice, then others may wish similar options to kill the Arishock, Elthina, the Viscount, Meredith, etc; any of which are major characters for latter roles in the story.

Yes, but we apparently already accept that not everyone is attackable.  The problem here is that the game specifically gives Hawke a reason to want Petrice dead, but won't let him act on that desire.

I would argue that the climax of Act II is also an excellent opportunity to let the player try to kill Meredith.  If he succeeds, just have her replaced in the story by a different zealot leading the Templars.

And in the end, someone always complains, so I opt for the choice with the intended story.

I just don't think the intended story is a terribly important aspect of the game's design.  The coherence of the setting is far more important.  Player agency is far more important.  The "intended story" is nothing more than background for the gameplay.

[jbrand2002uk]

batlin wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

This just in: Some that played DAO discover they do not like FRPG's, or pasrts thereof....

Not everyone liked DAO for any number of reasons, and were not planning on getting this or any sequel; why I stopped watching Harry Potter after the first film.

Judging from the sales figures though, the some that disliked Origins pale in comparison to the some disliked DA2.

Sales figures are irrelevant to the quality of the game or someones enjoyment awards are also irrelevant lets take two movies as an example 
1) Gone with the Wind:- held records for box office sales and Awards recieved at time of Relase and yet is one of the most slow paced boring and inaccurate movies ever made.
2) The Artist, the latest silent movie has many rave reviews and has won many Oscars however the story is bland and is full of mediocre and poor perfomances by a cast of Has beens and Nobodys which may have been acceptable in 1915 but is sadly out of date in the 21st century.

DAO may have many positive reviews and have many awards to its name, this proves nothing other than a select group of individuals working for magazines etc liked it more than any other RPG that was on offer at the time of release, and lets not forget these are the same reviewers who will eagerly overate a game in the vain hope that at some future date their positive review will garner them an exclusive review/preview or interview.

Also its misleading to compare the sales figures as an indicator of success as DAO spent 4 years in development as opposed to DA2's 1.5 years.Therefore DAO's costs were higher, much higher, regardless all sales figures prove is that more people bought individual units of the software it does not indicate whether or not all those individuals enjoyed the game or thought it was good.

I for example bought DAO on release played it once and was so utterly bored with it not only did i not bother to register it I laminated my disc and used it as a coffee coaster, some years later i bought DA2 thouroughly enjoyed it and decided to give DAO another chance so i bought a new copy of the Ultimate edition now while i have enjoyed DAO more than i did originally i still do not enjoy it anywhere near as much as the the orignall KOTOR 1 or the sequel KOTOR 2 or even DA2.

The main reason for this is simple in all the aforementioned games combat is an integral and indeed very important part of these games in general you spend more time fighting then you do talking though in DAO the balance between the 2 is likely 50/50 or 60/40 in favour of talking, while the combat in DA2 is a tad too fast for my liking the pace of the KOTOR games is just about right however in DAO its so slow and clunky with so much shuffling it excruciatingly painful thats assuming you can actually get through a level like the circle of magi tower without it crashing at least twice and this is with 5 patches( come on BW sort it out will you).

While DA2 isnt as well put together as alot of RPG's I find it far more enjoyable the DAO and far more replayable and you know what even in 1.0 form it never crashed once and still hasnt upto and including the latest 1.5 patch 

[TheStrand221]

The infuriating thing about Petrice isn't even that you can't kill her, it's that you can't do anything. Try to convince the honest members of the chantry? Warn the Viscount (even if you have to wait until after the Deep Roads expedition)? You aren't given the option to even try and fail to do something about a woman who has not only tried to kill you but basically admitted to wanting to start a war on false pretenses and drown Kirkwall in an orgy of violence.

And people wonder why Hawke comes across as an impotent, feckless dolt.

[Elhanan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If it's poorly written, sure.

Yes, but we apparently already accept that not everyone is attackable.  The problem here is that the game specifically gives Hawke a reason to want Petrice dead, but won't let him act on that desire.

I would argue that the climax of Act II is also an excellent opportunity to let the player try to kill Meredith.  If he succeeds, just have her replaced in the story by a different zealot leading the Templars.

I just don't think the intended story is a terribly important aspect of the game's design.  The coherence of the setting is far more important.  Player agency is far more important.  The "intended story" is nothing more than background for the gameplay.

Personally, I do not consider DAO poorly written, and slaying Loghain, Flemeth, Bhelen, Harrowmont, Archie, etc before their time may have rruined that story; same with almost any RPG..

Again, if the so-called fans want it their way, write it themselves as Fanfic.

From what I recall, many wanted Harrowmont dead , and had means to do that themselves, but appeared to be satisfied with the outcome

And from what I read on the forums, many believe I have not got much sense at all; yet I was able to follow the story of DA2. Doesn't speak well of some others around here; does it....

Modifié par Elhanan, 16 mars 2012 - 04:32 .

[Elhanan]

TheStrand221 wrote...

The infuriating thing about Petrice isn't even that you can't kill her, it's that you can't do anything. Try to convince the honest members of the chantry? Warn the Viscount (even if you have to wait until after the Deep Roads expedition)? You aren't given the option to even try and fail to do something about a woman who has not only tried to kill you but basically admitted to wanting to start a war on false pretenses and drown Kirkwall in an orgy of violence.

And people wonder why Hawke comes across as an impotent, feckless dolt.

I got even by having my female Hawke Mage wear the same Chantry robes; ugly things, but know Petrice would have just hated that....

[TheStrand221]

Elhanan wrote...

I got even by having my female Hawke Mage wear the same Chantry robes; ugly things, but know Petrice would have just hated that....

Nice.


By the way, as this is somewhat germane to the topic of Dragon Age's "direction", were there ever any threads or information put out about the development process for the series after the 2004 E3 preview?

pc.ign.com/articles/514/514514p1.html

I'm just curious about the development of the series and lore in general, and a lot seemed to have change from that early point.  Even with DA2 I know there was supposedly a lot of discussion about Hawke being a lycanthrope that was ultimately abandoned.

Modifié par TheStrand221, 16 mars 2012 - 04:44 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

TheStrand221 wrote...

The infuriating thing about Petrice isn't even that you can't kill her, it's that you can't do anything. Try to convince the honest members of the chantry? Warn the Viscount (even if you have to wait until after the Deep Roads expedition)? You aren't given the option to even try and fail to do something about a woman who has not only tried to kill you but basically admitted to wanting to start a war on false pretenses and drown Kirkwall in an orgy of violence.

And people wonder why Hawke comes across as an impotent, feckless dolt.

I can't blame Hawke for the obvious flaws in the game's plotting and such.  


Along the same lines, though, you're also not allowed to continue presuing the necromancer in any way, and again, you have to wait for the predetermined storyline to come to you, and there's nothing you can do to prevent any of what comes along.

[TEWR]

Personally, I do not consider DAO poorly written, and slaying Loghain, Flemeth, Bhelen, Harrowmont, Archie, etc before their time may have rruined that story; same with almost any RPG..

Difference being though at the time of Ostagar, Loghain isn't a threat to the Warden. The Warden has no reason to try and kill Loghain.

Same with Flemeth. She's never a threat in the games when you meet her. She doesn't give you any sense of being a threat.

Bhelen I'll grant, especially for a Dwarf Noble in the Origin story. Harrowmont was never a threat though.

But contrast this to Petrice, who in every playthrough will tell you of her intentions. You then know she's a threat. The people in DAO don't tell you their intentions -- well, the Archdemon does but good luck finding him easily -- and thus you have no reason to kill them.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Elhanan wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If it's poorly written, sure.

Yes, but we apparently already accept that not everyone is attackable.  The problem here is that the game specifically gives Hawke a reason to want Petrice dead, but won't let him act on that desire.

I would argue that the climax of Act II is also an excellent opportunity to let the player try to kill Meredith.  If he succeeds, just have her replaced in the story by a different zealot leading the Templars.

I just don't think the intended story is a terribly important aspect of the game's design.  The coherence of the setting is far more important.  Player agency is far more important.  The "intended story" is nothing more than background for the gameplay.

Personally, I do not consider DAO poorly written, and slaying Loghain, Flemeth, Bhelen, Harrowmont, Archie, etc before their time may have rruined that story; same with almost any RPG..

Again, if the so-called fans want it their way, write it themselves as Fanfic.

You seem to be fixated on the story.  This isn't about story, the main focus of a game should not be to tell a fixed story at the expense of player agency and gameplay. 

What you're still not getting is that we're not disappointed in being denied the chance to kill every character we come across on a random whim. 

It's about motive and opportunity.  Don't give the PC motive and opportunity to kill an NPC, and then block the act by fiat. 

The PC in DA:O does not have motive and opportunity to kill the characters you listed off, other than maybe Bhelen/Harrowmont, for most of the story.  When they do have motive and opportunity, then there's no mysterious "oh wait we need that character later" block in place. 

Petrice provides motivation to kill her, and the little shack with nothing but Sir Useless protecting her is the opportunity.  That Hawke is forced to let her walk away because "we need her later" is transparent and cheap.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elhanan wrote...

Personally, I do not consider DAO poorly written, and slaying Loghain, Flemeth, Bhelen, Harrowmont, Archie, etc before their time may have rruined that story; same with almost any RPG..

But again, DAO didn't give the player cause to want to kill those characters (with the possible exception of Bhelen, but within the context of Orzammar society I can see why the Dwarf Noble shouldn't try it).

There is every reason to want to deal with Petrice.

That's the problem.  The situation with Bhelen was far more complex than the situation with Petrice, so there were more reasons to investigate any given option.  But with Petrice, I can see no justification for Hawke's inaction.  I don't understand at all why Hawke would simply let Petrice keep plotting without warning someone or trying to stop her.

And from what I read on the forums, many believe I have not got much sense at all; yet I was able to follow the story of DA2.

Great, so why does Hawke just stand idly by while Petrice starts a war?

And more importantly, why does every possible Hawke do that?  What reason is there that Hawke cannot even consider action against Petrice?

[Plaguemaster]

Deus Ex: Human Revolution's Gameplay Director Apologizes for Boss Fights
Good example of respectful behaviour of developers. Notice that he apologized for a hugely successful game. I doubt we will ever see something even similar to such behaviour here. At best, developers will tell us that it is our own fault that we don't like their "innovations".

[TEWR]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

(with the possible exception of Bhelen, but within the context of Orzammar society I can see why the Dwarf Noble shouldn't try it).

Not to go too far off-topic but....

While I'm iffy on killing Bhelen at that moment -- though Dwarven society would allow for the Dwarf Noble to prove his "innocence" by calling for an Honor Proving upon being accused of the crime, were he to do it -- the Dwarf Noble should at least be able to call out Bhelen on his real motives when Bhelen "warns" the DN.

I find the DN Origin to be my favorite origin story, but I'm always forced to play a Dwarf Noble that can't truly be politically savvy in that situation when it's obvious -- it was to me anyway on my first DN playthrough -- who gains the most.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 mars 2012 - 05:17 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

My plan on my first DN playthrough was to take Bhelen's accusations directly to Trian, because I didn't believe Bhelen, but nor was I confident enough he was lying to confront him about it, so I was hoping to leave that to Trian. But then Trian tried to kill me, and by then it was too late to kill Bhelen.

I thought the whole sequences worked wonderfully. I can see why it might be annoying to someone who was convinced from the start that Bhelen was lying, but I don't really see evidence to support that perception early enough in the game for it to matter, thus making the situation not relevantly similar to how DA2 handled Petrice.

Once again, ambiguity wins the day.

[Elhanan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But again, DAO didn't give the player cause to want to kill those characters (with the possible exception of Bhelen, but within the context of Orzammar society I can see why the Dwarf Noble shouldn't try it).

There is every reason to want to deal with Petrice.

That's the problem.  The situation with Bhelen was far more complex than the situation with Petrice, so there were more reasons to investigate any given option.  But with Petrice, I can see no justification for Hawke's inaction.  I don't understand at all why Hawke would simply let Petrice keep plotting without warning someone or trying to stop her.
Great, so why does Hawke just stand idly by while Petrice starts a war?

And more importantly, why does every possible Hawke do that?  What reason is there that Hawke cannot even consider action against Petrice?

Forget Bhelen, Petrice, etc; options are nice, but not required. In the narrative. There is no problem; some dialogue allows for more reason to doubt her veracity than others, but she lives.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elhanan wrote...

Forget Bhelen, Petrice, etc; options are nice, but not required. In the narrative. There is no problem; some dialogue allows for more reason to doubt her veracity than others, but she lives.

But why?  Fropm Hawke's perspective, Hawke's own actions don't make any sense.

That's the problem.  If I'm roleplaying my character, I view the in-game events solely from his perspective.  Hawke doesn't know there's a story being told, so the demands of the narrative are unknown to him.

Why does Hawke never react to Petric?  What reasons does Hawke have never to do such a thing?

[Elhanan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's the problem.  If I'm roleplaying my character, I view the in-game events solely from his perspective.  Hawke doesn't know there's a story being told, so the demands of the narrative are unknown to him.

Why does Hawke never react to Petric?  What reasons does Hawke have never to do such a thing?

Hawke does react differently thru options; simply does not kill her. Unable to locate short vid clips of Sheperding Wolves scenes to view variations.

[jbrand2002uk]

I dont see what all the complaining is about TBH in an RPG yes player agency is all well and good but isnt to be prioritised over the story, you may disagree with the way the story was written but that does not make it bad or wrong, total player agency is never possible in a game unless you write that game yourself. Player agency is not some god given right in an RPG it is a gift there is no mandatory requirement of how much player agency you are entitled to this is down to the writer or writers and their creative vision its not up to us to decide how much agency our character has when we are playing a product written by someone other than ourselves.

I'm not arrogant enough to tell others how to write their fan fiction and neither should we be arrogant enough to think its our right to tell Bioware how to write theirs.If you like the story thats fine and if you dont like it thats fine also YMMV.

If you want more player agency then write a fanfic otherwise just leave BW to do their job that they have been doing for over a decade and write stories whether you agree with their direction or not

[TEWR]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

My plan on my first DN playthrough was to take Bhelen's accusations directly to Trian, because I didn't believe Bhelen, but nor was I confident enough he was lying to confront him about it, so I was hoping to leave that to Trian. But then Trian tried to kill me, and by then it was too late to kill Bhelen.

I thought the whole sequences worked wonderfully. I can see why it might be annoying to someone who was convinced from the start that Bhelen was lying, but I don't really see evidence to support that perception early enough in the game for it to matter, thus making the situation not relevantly similar to how DA2 handled Petrice.

Once again, ambiguity wins the day.

I disagree. It's too convenient for him to warn me and thus screams suspicious. Trian is the heir to the throne, but people know he would make a horrible king. So the Assembly would rather pick the DN, who is the better candidate for the throne and can prove it a few times throughout the origin by: Killing Bruntin Vollney and entering the Provings held in his/her own honor.

Who gains the most from having the heir out of the picture as well as the preferred pick for the throne, if he can get the DN to kill Trian? Bhelen. Had it come from someone else, I might not have even suspected Bhelen. But Bhelen was the one that warned me and as a result it was just too convenient.

And while Lord Dace may also warn me of a threat, in my first playthrough of the DN origin I had played him and said that the surface caste should be respected, but no more -- despite my Dwarf Noble wanting to improve the plight of both the casteless and surface Dwarves. 

But even had I assisted Lord Dace -- knowingly or unknowingly -- this would've only strengthened my conviction that Bhelen was plotting something.

Dwarven politics operates on double-speak and trickery. A Dwarven politician must always be wary of what someone that isn't his Second tells him/her. So I think there is enough to not only suspect Bhelen of his duplicity, but call him out on it. Even if Bhelen denied such an accusation, I could still have called him out on it. And my roleplaying would have been preserved.

Even if there's not enough information to support such a claim, sometimes one has to go purely on what their gut tells them.

Obviously, my original plan was to call him out on it. But when I discovered that wasn't an option to choose from, I had changed my plan to be pretty much your original plan.

Just like one can also see that Howe is planning something in the Human Noble Origin, if one wishes Arl Howe luck in the battles. His demeanor and the way he responded to what the HN said seems to imply that something unfortunate is going to happen -- possibly to Castle Cousland or the Cousland line. Something that is linked to Arl Howe. But you can't really do much to act on such a suspicion.

Granted, when I first played the HN Origin -- which was actually the first origin I picked when I got Origins -- I assumed it was more blackmail then treachery. But I still wanted to take a few precautions like reassigning guards to different posts, even if it didn't change anything in the narrative. I didn't want to call out Arl Howe because I'm standing in front of my father at the time -- so it'd be very rude to do so, even if I was right -- but I should be able to take other action throughout the castle that can be construed as roleplaying that persona.

At that time though, as soon as I finished the HN origin I turned off the game and started the DN origin. I wanted to play the origins first before moving on to the main game.

So I found both origins to be -- while great certainly -- lacking in a few certain dialogue options/actions key to roleplaying certain mindsets. Never mind the rather big plot hole that exists if you're a Dwarf Noble returning to Orzammar. But I've discussed that one already in the Spoiler section, and I'm delving too far off topic right now. I have a tendency to do that sadly.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program....

Elhanan wrote...

Hawke does react differently thru options; simply does not kill her. Unable to locate short vid clips of Sheperding Wolves scenes to view variations.

All he does is say "I should kill you!", to which Petrice doesn't give a valid reason why he should abstain from performing such an action.

She tells us her intentions, she tells us the Chantry doesn't know what she's doing, and Darktown is linked to the hovel and IIRC was often used as a means of disposing of corpses.

The motive and opportunity are there, and as Sylvius stated the narrative is something Hawke is not aware of. Hawke has only one thought going through his head: Petrice should be killed by my hands. But he isn't given a good reason why he shouldn't kill her.

It amounts to him going "LOL okay." imo.

That is immersion breaking for those that want to kill Petrice. Those that wanted to kill her should be presented with a sufficient reason why doing so is not a good course of action, and then everything is okey-dokey. She lives, the narrative goes on, and roleplaying remains intact.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 mars 2012 - 08:42 .

[TheStrand221]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

I'm not arrogant enough to tell others how to write their fan fiction and neither should we be arrogant enough to think its our right to tell Bioware how to write theirs.If you like the story thats fine and if you dont like it thats fine also YMMV.

 

If it's fine for some people to not like it, why is it inappropriate to discuss why they don't like it on BSN?  This thread doesn't seem to be full of flames, so what's the problem?  What is so arrogant about that?

In a game series where you can kill your own companions, fairly major participants in the story, or even ignore them altogether it strikes people as quite glaring that you can't do anything against a character so blatantly dangerous and hostile.  If they really didn't want her killed there are dozens of ways they could have put Petrice out of Hawke's reach, as others here have mentioned, rather than leave her at Hawke's mercy in Lowtown.

Also, you can like something and still criticize aspects of it.  I liked Deus Ex:HR quite a bit, but I think parts of the story toward the end were a bit weak, in that I wanted more interaction and better writing for some of the characters.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Forget Bhelen, Petrice, etc; options are nice, but not required. In the narrative. There is no problem; some dialogue allows for more reason to doubt her veracity than others, but she lives.

But why?  Fropm Hawke's perspective, Hawke's own actions don't make any sense.

That's the problem.  If I'm roleplaying my character, I view the in-game events solely from his perspective.  Hawke doesn't know there's a story being told, so the demands of the narrative are unknown to him.

Why does Hawke never react to Petric?  What reasons does Hawke have never to do such a thing?

Exactly.   Hawke doesn't know there's "a story".  Hawke only knows what Hawke the character knows.  When Hawke isn't allowed to act on Hawke's knowledge because "it would hurt the story", you've created a large incongruity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

I dont see what all the complaining is about TBH in an RPG yes player agency is all well and good but isnt to be prioritised over the story

Yes it is.  The story is nothing more than background that fleshes out the setting.

Player agency is not some god given right in an RPG it is a gift there is no mandatory requirement of how much player agency you are entitled to this is down to the writer or writers and their creative vision its not up to us to decide how much agency our character has when we are playing a product written by someone other than ourselves.

In a roleplaying game, the point of the game is roleplaying.  Being unable to make decisions on behalf of your character is the lack of roleplaying.

If you want more player agency then write a fanfic otherwise just leave BW to do their job that they have been doing for over a decade and write stories whether you agree with their direction or not

Before DA2, they were giving us player agency.  BG, BG2, NWN, KotOR, JE, and DAO are chock-full of player agency (JE less than the others, but it's still there).

[Melca36]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

I dont see what all the complaining is about TBH in an RPG yes player agency is all well and good but isnt to be prioritised over the story, you may disagree with the way the story was written but that does not make it bad or wrong, total player agency is never possible in a game unless you write that game yourself. Player agency is not some god given right in an RPG it is a gift there is no mandatory requirement of how much player agency you are entitled to this is down to the writer or writers and their creative vision its not up to us to decide how much agency our character has when we are playing a product written by someone other than ourselves.

I'm not arrogant enough to tell others how to write their fan fiction and neither should we be arrogant enough to think its our right to tell Bioware how to write theirs.If you like the story thats fine and if you dont like it thats fine also YMMV.

If you want more player agency then write a fanfic otherwise just leave BW to do their job that they have been doing for over a decade and write stories whether you agree with their direction or not

With all due respect. Its just sounds you want everything handed to you in your games.

Its not about arrogance. Everybody likes things their own way. Its how the world works.

The developers have acknowledged missteps with DA:2 and promised the next game that will not pander to one fanbase.  Its called balance.