1306 réponses à ce sujet

[Sacred_Fantasy]

robertthebard wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Nothing is interesting about being an average Joe. We did that everyday in our life. We work, we get paid we buy our necessities etc. So why bother showing that in video games too? What so interesting about being an average joe who fail in everything? Heck even in real life, most average joe are way more successful than Hawke with their own lives. Most people won't bother to live in dangerous place and risk their family knowing they canot do anything about it. Only a fool would do that. And that's what Hawke is.

...and yet, here we are, argueing away, instead of having a forum of discussion about the game by people who like the game.  In a 3 month old troll post about direction, several versions of which are locked in the history of this forum alone.  I haven't read back on any of the other general discussion forums yet.  You don't like the game, but you don't mind trashing it, or people that disagree with you about it.  Cool.  Just don't expect that it's going to make anyone change their ideas about it.  I don't care if you like it or not.  I've pointed this out numerous times.  I don't have to read your posts in General/Global chat in game, so your opinion has zero impact on my game play.  If you don't like it, do what I advise people in MMO's to do, and what I did to Atari with NWN2, move on.  It's not like the standard excuse in MMO's applies, obviously your not staying around to chat with your friends in game.  I presented my opinion to Atari in clear and certain terms, I didn't buy their sequels, for about 6 years, when I could bargain bin them, and I was bored.

I'm responding because you are targeting my post even you don't quote it spesifically. For example concerning predictable plotline with regard to Isabela's betrayal. If you don't care about my opinion then why bother to response? You can trash my opinion (indirectly)  but you refused to acknowledge counter argument? So here is the thing, if you don't want to discuss, then ignore my post. Don't try to dodge with general response. .  

[The Hierophant]

robertthebard wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Yeah, I'm still waiting for a link that shows 700k gamers hated DA2, but that position has been put forward in this very thread, or implied anyway.  I guess it's just another one of those "entitled" opinions, yes?

Huh? No idea what you are talking about. I was referring directly to what the other guy said. 

Saying the reason that a significant amount of people dont like a game is because they couldnt play as their character in the previous game is beyond ridiculous. Now excuse me while I go sit over there & roll my eyes..

I have spent the last half hour or so going over the first 10 pages of this particular forum, going over topic titles, and hitting any BioWare posts, and so far, "I can't import my Warden" seems to be the predominant complaint, along with VA'ing in general.  You can, if you wish, go back and confirm or deny what's presented if you wish, but the general consensus, in as far as I came back forward through time in those threads is:  It's not Origins, or a continuation thereof, therefore it sucks.

So you're going to straw man every person who criticized DA2 as warden fanboys? What about the criticisms of the copy pasted dungeons? What about the players inability to engage a companion in dialogue, even though you are not in combat?  What happened to the ability of equipping companions with armor? How about the lack of  variation in combat scenarios where every other battle consists of waves of parachuting mooks. Why does the library in Fereldan's mage circle have more detail in it  than the whole of Kirkwall?
These are some criticisms of DA2, and none of them deal with the warden. Also please stop with straw manning, & ad hominems, they are logical fallacies and shouldn't be used in any debate.

[eroeru]

And also, making a 180 degrees change from said values can be awful not simply because "it is different", but rather because "it is different in this-and-this way that's not at all enjoyable any more, *descriptions follow*".



For example, the simplification of combat, "art" and dialogue. Many people, including myself, felt that the game mocks you, is unengaging, uninspiring, and well simply put stupid.

Furthermore, it does so IGNORING the principles and values they had in their previous games, which makes for 60 dollars thrown in a garbage can, for some people. Or worse, a situation where they feel they need to play through a game they do not enjoy, simply because it's the product of a otherwise good company and sequel to a brilliant RPG.

To elaborate on the "combat, art and dialogue" bit:
Combat removed strategy (which is a prerequisite for more involving and thoughtful gameplay), with muddling up the previously discrete-action system, where it is clearly seen what's happening (thus one can plan things, and "take clearly understood overview and control of the situation", as happens in chess).
Art... well, most people can agree that DA2's darkspawn, and the inspirational material for the art-work in general came from (more) light-hearted modern comics/cartoons.
Dialogue - well, there's less involvment with the absolutely defined and clear-functioned answers. You actually had to think things over with the dialogue in Origins. DA2 "inspires" one to auto-choose answers, always the same way, with NO surprise or merit to it.

These are characteristics that people (especially the ones who loved Origins) would NOT enjoy, in itself (sic!).
The obvious link with the previous game is a matter of fact that bolstered DA2's sales UNETHICALLY,  and is the reason people compare the two, legitimately, as it was a sequel done by the same company (but not the same team, wholly). 

Modifié par eroeru, 03 juin 2012 - 07:42 .

[robertthebard]

The Hierophant wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Yeah, I'm still waiting for a link that shows 700k gamers hated DA2, but that position has been put forward in this very thread, or implied anyway.  I guess it's just another one of those "entitled" opinions, yes?

Huh? No idea what you are talking about. I was referring directly to what the other guy said. 

Saying the reason that a significant amount of people dont like a game is because they couldnt play as their character in the previous game is beyond ridiculous. Now excuse me while I go sit over there & roll my eyes..

I have spent the last half hour or so going over the first 10 pages of this particular forum, going over topic titles, and hitting any BioWare posts, and so far, "I can't import my Warden" seems to be the predominant complaint, along with VA'ing in general.  You can, if you wish, go back and confirm or deny what's presented if you wish, but the general consensus, in as far as I came back forward through time in those threads is:  It's not Origins, or a continuation thereof, therefore it sucks.

So you're going to straw man every person who criticized DA2 as warden fanboys? What about the criticisms of the copy pasted dungeons? What about the players inability to engage a companion in dialogue, even though you are not in combat?  What happened to the ability of equipping companions with armor? How about the lack of  variation in combat scenarios where every other battle consists of waves of parachuting mooks. Why does the library in Fereldan's mage circle have more detail in it  than the whole of Kirkwall?
These are some criticisms of DA2, and none of them deal with the warden. Also please stop with straw manning, & ad hominems, they are logical fallacies and shouldn't be used in any debate.

Assuming you've read my posts anywhere else, you will see that there is no strawman, for I have listed these issues myself as things I didn't care for, but which doesn't equal disliking the game.  Here's the biggest strawman in this thread though, if you want one to beat on:  DA2 sold less copies than Origins because nobody liked it.  Now, this isn't my position, it is, however the reason I define this thread as a troll thread, since this is the premise that caused it's creation.  When I indicated it may have more to do with the hate posts on the forums, I was told that was BS.  So you're absolutely right, strawman arguements can't be used as a basis for fact, and since this thread is built upon one, what is it we're discussing?  Direction?  How does anyone that didn't buy the game know the direction unless they garnered information from somewhere?  Thank you for verifying my first post in this thread, however, it is much appreciated.

Note that I would provide links to the last 10 pages of this forum, but since you can just as easily click the numbers as I did, it would be pointless.  I didn't presume, or assume anything, I went and looked.  How about you, or did you just presume to "shoot down another fanboy"?  I have only owned the game for 3 weeks, I think that waiting until I was bored with other stuff, and then deciding to go ahead and look disqualifies me from fanboy, since the true fanboy would have bought it on pre-order, or within the first week or so.  Wait, I'd guess that's just another strawman, since that's the common "er, I don't know what to say to that, so it must be a strawman" response.

[The Hierophant]

eroeru wrote...



And also, making a 180 degrees change from said values can be awful not simply because "it is different", but rather because "it is different in this-and-this way that's not at all enjoyable any more, *descriptions follow*".



For example, the simplification of combat, "art" and dialogue. Many people, including myself, felt that the game mocks you, is unengaging, uninspiring, and well simply put stupid.

Furthermore, it does so IGNORING the principles and values they had in their previous games, which makes for 60 dollars thrown in a garbage can, for some people. Or worse, a situation where they feel they need to play through a game they do not enjoy, simply because it's the product of a otherwise good company and sequel to a brilliant RPG.

To elaborate on the "combat, art and dialogue" bit:
Combat removed strategy (which is a prerequisite for more involving and thoughtful gameplay), with muddling up the previously discrete-action system, where it is clearly seen what's happening (thus one can plan things, and "take clearly understood overview and control of the situation", as happens in chess).
Art... well, most people can agree that DA2's darkspawn, and the inspirational material for the art-work in general came from (more) light-hearted modern comics/cartoons.
Dialogue - well, there's less involvment with the absolutely defined and clear-functioned answers. You actually had to think things over with the dialogue in Origins. DA2 "inspires" one to auto-choose answers, always the same way, with NO surprise or merit to it.

These are characteristics that people (especially the ones who loved Origins) would NOT enjoy, in itself (sic!).
The obvious link with the previous game is a matter of fact that bolstered DA2's sales UNETHICALLY,  and is the reason people compare the two, legitimately, as it was a sequel done by the same company (but not the same team, wholly). 

Don't forget that in combat the human/elf enemies use DA:O's attack animations while the player characters have the faster, flashier animations. This creates an imbalance in combat that is slightly mitigated by giving the mooks high attack damage and health.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 03 juin 2012 - 08:27 .

[robertthebard]

eroeru wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I have spent the last half hour or so going over the first 10 pages of this particular forum, going over topic titles, and hitting any BioWare posts, and so far, "I can't import my Warden" seems to be the predominant complaint, along with VA'ing in general.  You can, if you wish, go back and confirm or deny what's presented if you wish, but the general consensus, in as far as I came back forward through time in those threads is:  It's not Origins, or a continuation thereof, therefore it sucks.

So why don't you spend the next half hour counting the people on this forum who do not feel that way? Oh I know why, cause it doesn't reinforce your opinion.  

Also, you havn't "presented" me anything. You just typed words, which I could potentially counter by saying the exact opposite, regardless of whether I actually bothered to look or not.

I loved Origins, I loved my Warden. I dislike DA2, I think hawke is meh. Yet I think the idea of a new protagonist each game is a great idea. Oops I just punched a hole in your logic. Yes there are some who want to play as their Warden some more, there are also some who want to play as Hawke again and you could do this with every game out there....

So you're position now is that there are nothing but complaint posts.  I can see where this dialog is going to go, absolutely nowhere, since you're "entitled" to interpret anything presented anyway you wish.  Enjoy your "entitlement".  I will no longer have to read it, unless somebody quotes you.

What's with the meaningless accusations? What does it mean if someone is (too) "entitled"? I know it's sarcasm (and that doesn't help in meaningfulness either), but we can say the exact same to you. We won't read your posts, enjoy your "entitlement" to them.

What is important about DA2 is that many many people genuinely felt they didn't like it. People felt insulted even, as fans. You amounting the reasons behind this as "the only reason was that this wasn't origins" is false really. No one is such an utter idiot as to exclusively reason "wow, this game is not Origins, so I don't like it". They at first feel they don't like it, which has specific reasons they can then try to put to words, and some (in my case, I'd say all) of these reasons don't presuppose playing the previous game. At the very least, you cannot say they always presuppose such. That's just simplifying reality unto some figment of your imagination or tautology you came up with.

I can do this as well. "People who like DA2 only like it because it isn't Origins". 

You're mocking people, not speaking about actual meaningful stuff with substance to it (i.e. acknowledgeing ALL matters of fact, even those that hold the opinions and qualifications of the "haters"), but rather shouting ad hominems where-ever you can. Soon enough people will start question if you're a "professional troll" hired by EA. 
(you do know they do that in their business - it's leaked a while ago, google it if you don't know well enough already)

Here's the kicker for me:  I initially responded to this thread with why I didn't buy it in the first place, and that I should have know better, based on experience with other game forums.  I was then told that that was BS, and that the reason it sold so few copies was nobody liked it.  I'm still scratching my head to figure out how so many people that didn't buy it could not buy it because they didn't like it, but of course, it had nothing to do with the forums, despite my listing that as the only reason I didn't buy it initially.  The "entitlement" is sarcasm, directed at a particular poster who feels that people that like the game feel "entitled".  It's funny the reaction that garners from people that don't like their own responses pointed back at them, isn't it?

I have listed my dislikes for the game in threads that discussed them.  Art isn't on my list, let alone high on it, but lack of oppurtunity to talk with companions is, as well as using the same map for 500 areas(exageration mine).  However, since the topic of this thread was direction, and I have addressed that, no, I don't feel like the direction is bad, and it's not like we didn't have adequate warning that this is where it was going to, straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.  That may well be why some people didn't buy it as well, I'm sure it is, reasonably, but that doesn't quantify "nobody liked it, so nobody bought it" when the reality may be closer to "some people didn't like it, and were really vocal about it on the forums (as vocal as one can be in a typed medium) so people opted out".  Which is, as I indicated, the exact reason I didn't buy it when it was released.

[jbrand2002uk]

Eroeru How can a comparison between the 2 games be legitimate if the 2nd is a 180 degree turn from the 1st that would be like comparing a stone to say water utterly pointless and self defeating

[The Hierophant]

robertthebard wrote...

Assuming you've read my posts anywhere else, you will see that there is no strawman, for I have listed these issues myself as things I didn't care for, but which doesn't equal disliking the game.  Here's the biggest strawman in this thread though, if you want one to beat on:  DA2 sold less copies than Origins because nobody liked it.  Now, this isn't my position, it is, however the reason I define this thread as a troll thread, since this is the premise that caused it's creation.  When I indicated it may have more to do with the hate posts on the forums, I was told that was BS.  So you're absolutely right, strawman arguements can't be used as a basis for fact, and since this thread is built upon one, what is it we're discussing?  Direction?  How does anyone that didn't buy the game know the direction unless they garnered information from somewhere?  Thank you for verifying my first post in this thread, however, it is much appreciated.

Note that I would provide links to the last 10 pages of this forum, but since you can just as easily click the numbers as I did, it would be pointless.  I didn't presume, or assume anything, I went and looked.  How about you, or did you just presume to "shoot down another fanboy"?  I have only owned the game for 3 weeks, I think that waiting until I was bored with other stuff, and then deciding to go ahead and look disqualifies me from fanboy, since the true fanboy would have bought it on pre-order, or within the first week or so.  Wait, I'd guess that's just another strawman, since that's the common "er, I don't know what to say to that, so it must be a strawman" response.

It's just that your last post looked straw mannish to me, so my fault for misinterpreting it that way. I do agree with you that if some one is going to post extravagant claims they should at back it up with proof. Imho DA2 is a  flawed sequel that's far from terrible despite some of my criticisms, and DA:O is a good game far from the immaculate masterpiece some people try to make it out to be.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 03 juin 2012 - 08:25 .

[eroeru]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Eroeru How can a comparison between the 2 games be legitimate if the 2nd is a 180 degree turn from the 1st that would be like comparing a stone to say water utterly pointless and self defeating

Being made by the same company who market it directly and clearly as a sequel (as shows the "2" in the title), maybe?

@
robertthebard 

Those are legitimate worries. 

I guess these forums can ruin good will and argumentations more often than enforce it.

[jbrand2002uk]

the 2 in the title only states the obvious ( its the 2nd game in the franchise) this does not state that its a sequel neither does having that in its title or being made by the same company automatically make any comparison legitimate or place any moral or legal obligation for it to be made anything like the previous game that would be like saying all Dungeon and Dragon games should be pen and paper because the 1st one was

[jbrand2002uk]

oh and most people are generally wise enough to ignore marketing

[vallore]

MissOuJ wrote...



To say that linear plot = passive character is bull. Seriously. If anything, the Warden is a passive character; hardly reacting to anything with more than a shrug. And really, we all know almost all of the Warden's desicions have one - and only one - motivation: the Blight. So, believe it or not, I actually find Hawke to be the more interesting character: s/he has more motivations, more personality, and more reasons to do what s/he does. Less plot control doesn't mean more passive character. True, Hawke's motivations are to some extent up to the player to decide, and if you really don't care for Leandra/Bethany/Carver/any of the companions/Kirkwall in general/any mage rights at all, then I can see how you'd consider Hawke a bland/passive character. But I think the writers and the plot gave me plenty of reasons to care, and if you personally donät agree, there's probably nothing I can do to change your mind, so the discussion is probably for nothing.

Hmmm; I wonder if we played the same games. My Warden was everything but passive, and had plenty of occasions to express other motivations besides the blight.

On the other hand, I hardly found any occasion to do so with Hawke.
I used family as an anchor, of why would Hawke care, but family just fades after the first part... except for the incident that makes Hawke fill more impotent and passive, by not being allowed to track a certain “you know whom” prior to that event.

Companions? They felt more like business associates to me, not the friends of DA:O. Most of the time, I could hardly discuss anything not mission related with them... At best, the companion would ramble about his particular obsession, (ye gods! stop complaining about mages/templars, Fenris/Anders! And leave that mirror alone for a minute, Merril!). Gone were the small chats about trivial things, like Morrigan’s mirror or Leliana’s choes...

LI? Felt rushed, and blunt, really. And ended abruptly. In Origins it felt far more natural, and didn’t actually ended...

The Mages vs Templars’ conflict? It had serious problems, imo. But more on that later.

And on the issue of the Templar/Mage conflict... Again, I think Act 3 is way too short and most of the background information for it comes in the form of Varric's exposition to Cassandra, which isn't really the way to do it in interactive medium, but to say Hawke just sat on his/her arse and ate bonbons all day when Kirkwall was going to hell isn't really accurate either. The thing the writers are trying to get accross is that the power imbalance has become so enourmous noone could've done anything to resolve the situation peacefully, and Anders took the matter to his own hands to force everyone to act. Meredith would've Annuled the Circle sooner or later - if you talk to the Templars in the Gallows in Act 3 you can hear she's already sent Val Royeaux for the Right. Anders actually gave her an out: he's to blame for the explosion (he makes it very clear) and the Circle had nothing to do with it. If Meredith wants justice, she'd only have to kill him. Instead, she goes for the Annulment. This, again, highlights the existing power imbalance which makes the peaceful resolution of the situation impossible - and I personally think this came accross marvelously. And I say it again, this is one of the reasons I love DA2 so much: the commentary on social issues. These kind of power imbalances exist in the real world as well, and it rases a question who are we supposed to blame when they finally boil over.

Personally, I felt the ending as a failure. Why?

The game wanted us to choose sides, presumably by choosing between supporting the larger issue of freedom to the mages or the security of the innocents. I did no such thing.

BY the time of the ending, I felt that the specific circumstances of this particular circle no longer reflected that issue, (for the reasons I will state below). So it all came across about if my Hawke was the kind of person that would participate in the butchery of a group for a crime they didn’t commit or not... but the game didn’t even acknowledged such option. You had to side with a group, and apparently be sympathetic with that group’s reasons.

I did read the codex and tried to find dialogue options - I still wasn't given a good reason to actually believe it when people said the equivalent of "lol elves thing they're people, how dumb". The only (half-arsed) explanation that we get to the elven oppression is that Tevinters were a**holes and wanted slaves, and then later the Chantry decided to do some proselytising which didn't end up so well for the elves. This is like a discussion on the Inquisition - pretty much everyone is in agreement that it was wrong and bad and something that shouldn't have happened at all. Real racism, prejudice and institutional oppression don't work that way and that's a very, very simplified and shallow way to frame the question of racial/social equality. DA2 did loads and loads better with this: you spend the game fighting both powertripping Templars and pretty damn dangerous mages - Hawke's mother is also killed by a powerful bloodmage, s/he can be a mage him/herself or his/her sister is one, his/her lover might be a mage... You're given a very, very personal reasons to agree/disagree with both sides of the issue.

Imo, the issue of “freedom for the few” vs “safety of the many (innocent),” resulted poorly, in DA2, due to a peculiar portrayal of mages; were most mages we came by would either be blood mages, or would later became one. To further stress the issue of the dangers of magic, many of those would also be possessed... this was overkill.

Imo, the dangers of magic were far better represented by Merril’s and Ander’s obsessions, than by the hordes of raving bloodmages that were constantly being thrown at us. The later, only made the drama into a caricature of what was supposed to be. To me, the circle of Kirkwall felt like an asylum for the criminal insane, guarded by (mostly) sadistic guards, under an insane asylum director... by the time of the ending, the supposed freedom vs security issue just didn’t had any relevance anymore, as far as I was concerned. It was simply an issue of a corrupt local institution, and the inability of Hawke to act upon the problem, due to the story imposed constraints.

To me, the ending question I felt needed to answer was not if Hawke was sympathetic to the mages plight or not, (this particular group of mages appeared to be mostly insane), the question was rather if I felt Hawke was the kind of person that would murder a group of people for a crime they didn’t commit, or not. But the game didn’t even acknowledge the possibility that anyone would not side with the Templars, for any other reason, than agreement with supporting mage freedom in general. (at least not in my playthrough).

If DA:O had actually embraced the elven oppression question similarly, you might, for example, lose money/items every time you visit the Alienage because of pick pockets (which you couldn't fight). There's even a pickpocketing minigame built into the game mechanics - why is it not used against the player to highlight the elven oppression which drives them to petty crimes because they can't make a living otherwise? Or why does bringing up Loghain's agreement with Tevinter slavers who only take elves cause outrage? Because if the nobility really thought that the elves "aren't really people" they wouldn't care or made excuses (like Loghain does) about how this is "a sad but neccessary sacrifice to make for the war effort".

So yes, I think DA2 has better dialogue on the issue of institutional oppression than DA:O, which never really gets pass the regular "fantastic racism" trope, which is sad because it still got pretty close.

Interestingly, In DAO you can watch a human being mugged in the alienage, or you can be conned by false destitute elves. But, if you are a local elf and a female, you can also be kidnapped by a lustful noble during your marriage, see a terrified friend die for the sin of being a terrified elf, or you can also express your anger and frustration in relation to humans on several occasions, or watch as a local friend is dumped into the street for not being able to pay the rent, or... well, I don’t think I need to go on. Fact is, I believe Bioware made a good job of portraying both the oppressive living conditions of the alianage and those of the dwarven casteless. DA2 with the mages? No, not at all.

[eroeru]

 

jbrand2002uk wrote...

oh and most people are generally wise enough to ignore marketing

 

Ethics don't have much to do how smart people are. If you steal from a person with Down's syndrome, whilst he thinks you're investing the money into magic beans, you would be behaving unethically. As would one who tricks "more simple-minded" people in other ways.

But as to the case at hand, I'm not saying Bioware had huge moral problems, nor that they deliberately "stole" something or "tricked" anyone, it's just that ACTUALLY they did present a product to people who felt "betrayed" by it. Making people feel bad about something, be it a video game or their looks, is not a good thing.

Besides, Bioware did explicitly state the overall connection to Origins. And the ways how they branded the product DID imply more than a strong "spiritual" connection (as in "spiritual successor"). Misinformation can be a grave sin, and moreso with influence, like with a company like Bioware.

Now, customers who have a long history praising and supporting a company would naturally feel bad if the company threw away the things it had stood for (the values that presented themselves also in games). Customers who feel bad, in this way, supported by numbers, have every right to moan, downgrade and argument as much as they like, if it's at all proportionate.

Modifié par eroeru, 03 juin 2012 - 08:56 .

[Melca36]

eroeru wrote...



And also, making a 180 degrees change from said values can be awful not simply because "it is different", but rather because "it is different in this-and-this way that's not at all enjoyable any more, *descriptions follow*".



For example, the simplification of combat, "art" and dialogue. Many people, including myself, felt that the game mocks you, is unengaging, uninspiring, and well simply put stupid.

I felt the same way. I did not hate DA:2 and thought it was good for the most part. It was NOT a great game though.

I felt like I was being taken for granted by the developers and EA.   I felt like they thought gamers would not notice the flaws. I don't like to be considered stupid and for $60 I don't want a game where 14 of the quests are FEDEX Quests.  I don't want a 15 minute trek in the Deep Roads.  I want depth.  Maybe some gamers like things handed to them but I don't.

That said, I did enjoy the Legacy DLC even better than the main game & thought it was a step in the right direction.

[MissOuJ]

robertthebard wrote...

This is the problem people seem to be having the most with DA2.  A realization that just dawned on me as well.  Hawke isn't a hero.  Hawke is one person caught in the middle of a bad situation, 2 actually, considering Act II and Act III.  He's not the only person that could have conceivably stopped the Arishok, but he was Johnny on the Spot when it went down, and was in a better position that some.  Right place at the right time, and that's all it comes down to.  Twice.  Well, maybe not twice, since there is no preventing the war.  No matter how influential one person may be, it's not likely that simply deposing Meredith is going to prevent the inevitable.  Events in the Last Straw are going to happen, no matter who the Knight Commander is, it's not like the Knight Commander was the target, now was it?  At any rate, fancy title not withstanding, Hawke was a refugee from Ferelden, and at best a minor noble in Kirkwall when Act III starts.  He/She was put there by his/her own actions, and really, until the end of Act II, he/she's just a refugee that made good.  You see, what Varric's narative shows, in no uncertain terms, is that despite the rhetoric the Chantry was led to believe, none of the events in game were planned, from the start.  Other than we know the game was written, and that they are going to happen eventually, but from Hawke's perspective, it all comes down to Johnny on the spot.

The Warden was thrust into a Hero's role at the end of Ostagar, no matter what.  There was no escaping destiny, and yet, this railroad to plot is applauded, while the railroad to plot in DA2, even though it's not based on a "the protaganist is a hero" is boo'd as the worst game design ever.  Go ahead though, side with the Archdemon as a City Elf.  Yes, Hawke went about the day to day business of trying to improve his/her lot in life, much as we all do, and wound up in some extraordinary circumstances.  Hawke responds to the poster about the Viscount's son not because he/she is concerned about the boy, but because it comes with a reward for success.  Hawke wants to be paid.  Hawke deals with the quest that leads up to All That Remains for the same reason, a poster that says "I'll pay you to figure this out".  All That Remains plays out to attempt to save family.  None of this is done to make Kirkwall a better place, it's all done for selfish motivations.  For shame, BioWare, for portraying an everyday Joe as somebody that could be an interesting protaganist.

So much this, especially the bolded part. DA:O is just as railroaded plotwise as DA2, if not moreso. I've become really bored with the "Chosen One/Destiny" routine in video games (and other media as well) so I was actually more than happy to see Hawke as a protagonist. I love my canon Warden (who is, in fact, an Amell), but I absolutely adore my canon Hawke: the odds he's beat and the hardships he's been through make him a really inspiring character. And seeing what he manages to accomplish during the course of DA2 and the end game in particular, I really cannot understand how anyone can consider Hawke a failure - as a character or as a fictional person. I know my Amell would be quite happy with her cousin.

But maybe the change was just too much for some of the Origins fans - and sure enough, you can't always please everyone. I just wish DA3 took the best parts of both games, mixed in some new ideas and turned it into one epic gaming experience.

And please, proper (functional) UI for all platforms, please. My awesome talents won't really help me if I'm unable to target the enemy...

[Cutlasskiwi]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

I don't even slightly agree it was the wrong direction. However, they did not get enough development time to really sell the ideas they were trying to fit in. Had they gotten another year development time...heck even another six months, many of the most common complaints would have been taken care of.

But as much as I love DA2, trying to fit in a 10 year storyline in a one year development window wasn't the best thought out plans. But it could have been amazing if they had the time to really do the differences when jumping forward.

So no, don't agree about it being the wrong direction.

This cutlass agrees with the above cutlass. 

I like the ideas behind DA2 even though some of them could have used a little longer time to implement. It also makes me very excited about the 'next big thing'.

[jbrand2002uk]

Thing is eroeru DA2 wasnt the first time BW did this DAO was hailed and publicised as the "spritual successor to Baldurs Gate many here who have played BG1 and 2 have openly said DAO is nothing like BG 1 and 2 its not "hardcore enough" in terms of mechanics etc yet nobody blasted DAO for misleading advertising etc yet DA2 gets blasted for it constantly.

There are elements in DA2 that annoy the hell out of me also however what annoys me even more is the widespread idea that it one rule for DAO and another rule for DA2 in many aspects i.e a railroaded story in DAO is acceptable and adds "character and charm" but a railroaded story in DA2 is "the Devil Incarnate".

[robertthebard]

The Hierophant wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Assuming you've read my posts anywhere else, you will see that there is no strawman, for I have listed these issues myself as things I didn't care for, but which doesn't equal disliking the game.  Here's the biggest strawman in this thread though, if you want one to beat on:  DA2 sold less copies than Origins because nobody liked it.  Now, this isn't my position, it is, however the reason I define this thread as a troll thread, since this is the premise that caused it's creation.  When I indicated it may have more to do with the hate posts on the forums, I was told that was BS.  So you're absolutely right, strawman arguements can't be used as a basis for fact, and since this thread is built upon one, what is it we're discussing?  Direction?  How does anyone that didn't buy the game know the direction unless they garnered information from somewhere?  Thank you for verifying my first post in this thread, however, it is much appreciated.

Note that I would provide links to the last 10 pages of this forum, but since you can just as easily click the numbers as I did, it would be pointless.  I didn't presume, or assume anything, I went and looked.  How about you, or did you just presume to "shoot down another fanboy"?  I have only owned the game for 3 weeks, I think that waiting until I was bored with other stuff, and then deciding to go ahead and look disqualifies me from fanboy, since the true fanboy would have bought it on pre-order, or within the first week or so.  Wait, I'd guess that's just another strawman, since that's the common "er, I don't know what to say to that, so it must be a strawman" response.

It's just that your last post looked straw mannish to me, so my fault for misinterpreting it that way. I do agree with you that if some one is going to post extravagant claims they should at back it up with proof. Imho DA2 is a  flawed sequel that's far from terrible despite some of my criticisms, and DA:O is a good game far from the immaculate masterpiece some people try to make it out to be.

I don't disagree with this, in the least bit.  I loved Origins, and loved hating Alistair, but while I haven't gotten as "invested" in 2, it's fun enough for me.  It's not so bad that I loaded it up, played for 5 minutes and put it away, although I do have games around here that ended up that way, boxes for my collection.

[eroeru]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

yet nobody blasted DAO for misleading advertising etc yet DA2 gets blasted for it constantly.

 

I think that already shows things are different with DA2. I strongly believe that this is more based on the actual decisions of the company than just a random unrational "pseudo-fan rage-fest".

jbrand2002uk wrote... 

There are elements in DA2 that annoy the hell out of me also however what annoys me even more is the widespread idea that it one rule for DAO and another rule for DA2 in many aspects i.e a railroaded story in DAO is acceptable and adds "character and charm" but a railroaded story in DA2 is "the Devil Incarnate".

Whilst in principle I agree with you, I think you're viewing things a bit too strictly. I think what people really say in those situations, is that the implementation was better for DAO, thus the "reailroadedness" becomes a pseudo-problem. If it does not show itself in a felt and obvious way, it's not relevant even.

[The Hierophant]

robertthebard wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Assuming you've read my posts anywhere else, you will see that there is no strawman, for I have listed these issues myself as things I didn't care for, but which doesn't equal disliking the game.  Here's the biggest strawman in this thread though, if you want one to beat on:  DA2 sold less copies than Origins because nobody liked it.  Now, this isn't my position, it is, however the reason I define this thread as a troll thread, since this is the premise that caused it's creation.  When I indicated it may have more to do with the hate posts on the forums, I was told that was BS.  So you're absolutely right, strawman arguements can't be used as a basis for fact, and since this thread is built upon one, what is it we're discussing?  Direction?  How does anyone that didn't buy the game know the direction unless they garnered information from somewhere?  Thank you for verifying my first post in this thread, however, it is much appreciated.

Note that I would provide links to the last 10 pages of this forum, but since you can just as easily click the numbers as I did, it would be pointless.  I didn't presume, or assume anything, I went and looked.  How about you, or did you just presume to "shoot down another fanboy"?  I have only owned the game for 3 weeks, I think that waiting until I was bored with other stuff, and then deciding to go ahead and look disqualifies me from fanboy, since the true fanboy would have bought it on pre-order, or within the first week or so.  Wait, I'd guess that's just another strawman, since that's the common "er, I don't know what to say to that, so it must be a strawman" response.

It's just that your last post looked straw mannish to me, so my fault for misinterpreting it that way. I do agree with you that if some one is going to post extravagant claims they should at back it up with proof. Imho DA2 is a  flawed sequel that's far from terrible despite some of my criticisms, and DA:O is a good game far from the immaculate masterpiece some people try to make it out to be.

I don't disagree with this, in the least bit.  I loved Origins, and loved hating Alistair, but while I haven't gotten as "invested" in 2, it's fun enough for me.  It's not so bad that I loaded it up, played for 5 minutes and put it away, although I do have games around here that ended up that way, boxes for my collection.

Lol one of the games i should've played for only 5 minutes was FF:Dirge of Cerberus. One of the worst games i ever played.

[vallore]

eroeru wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

yet nobody blasted DAO for misleading advertising etc yet DA2 gets blasted for it constantly.

 

I think that already shows things are different with DA2. I strongly believe that this is more based on the actual decisions of the company than just a random unrational "pseudo-fan rage-fest".

Indeed.

I would suggest that, it is possible that the overinflated importance given to Hawke’s relevance in Thedas by Marketing was, (well, partially at least), an attempt to introduce the player from the original perspective Cassandra had about Hawke’s role, (caused by the overly exaggerated tales, from Varric). Only later, when Varric is forced to tell a more accurate tale, do we learn the much more diminished role Hawke actually had…. If truly this was intended, it didn’t work.

[MissOuJ]

vallore wrote...

If DA:O had actually embraced the elven oppression question similarly, you might, for example, lose money/items every time you visit the Alienage because of pick pockets (which you couldn't fight). There's even a pickpocketing minigame built into the game mechanics - why is it not used against the player to highlight the elven oppression which drives them to petty crimes because they can't make a living otherwise? Or why does bringing up Loghain's agreement with Tevinter slavers who only take elves cause outrage? Because if the nobility really thought that the elves "aren't really people" they wouldn't care or made excuses (like Loghain does) about how this is "a sad but neccessary sacrifice to make for the war effort".

So yes, I think DA2 has better dialogue on the issue of institutional oppression than DA:O, which never really gets pass the regular "fantastic racism" trope, which is sad because it still got pretty close.

Interestingly, In DAO you can watch a human being mugged in the alienage, or you can be conned by false destitute elves. But, if you are a local elf and a female, you can also be kidnapped by a lustful noble during your marriage, see a terrified friend die for the sin of being a terrified elf, or you can also express your anger and frustration in relation to humans on several occasions, or watch as a local friend is dumped into the street for not being able to pay the rent, or... well, I don’t think I need to go on. Fact is, I believe Bioware made a good job of portraying both the oppressive living conditions of the alianage and those of the dwarven casteless. DA2 with the mages? No, not at all.

First of all, you get conned if you're an elf of Mage or Dalish origin. Second, showing how horrible the elves have it isn't really "good" portrayal of oppression. I could link a couple pages of historical discussion on the Inquisition: all of it pretty gory and disgusting on modern standards. That we can all agree on (hopefully).

Good portrayal of oppression has actual discussion on the existing power imbalance, its roots, and the so-called "reasons" of the oppressors/priviledged class. For example: in DA2 there are both Fenris and Sebastian in your party, both pretty vocally defending the existence of the Circle. If it were any other people, we'd be horrified by the oppression, loss of freedom and agency mages suffer. But, because of religious influences, old prejudices and superstitions, the system of power (Chantry & Templars - which get most of their funding from Circle of Magi shops which sell enchanted equipment made by the Tranquil) has all but convinced everyone all mages are abominations waiting to happen and that is reason enough to lock them all up and either kill or lobotomize those mages who refuse to agree to their rules.

There's nothing similar about the Casteless or the Elves in DA:O - even when DA:O actually has a good premise for explaining the elven oppression: the Cantry thinks they need to be saved, so naturally they are lesser beings until they convent to the Chant. But the city elves are shown to be Andrastians - the wedding ceremony at least is. What about old superstitions that reinforce the status quo - none are shown to exist. Elves are oppressed "just because". That's not how it works in real life and that's why DA:O never gets past the all-too-common "fantastic racism" trope. I wish it did, because it has all the ingredients of good social commentary, but it never quite comes together.

In DA2, on the other hand, the oppressors actualy defend themselves and frame their questions in such a way that you're almost forced to agree with them - like Meredith asking you pretty much "Wasn't your own mother killed by a blood mage? So how well did the freedom of mages work out for you?". Or Fenris, who actually (kinda) has point, but since he comes from a situation where the power dynamics are different, he brings a completely different set of questions into the conversation. There's actual depth - not just "We oppress mages because".

[trigger warning: discussion about sexual assault (although mild)]

I mean, Bann Vaughan even says something similar outright: "Sometimes elves get the idea they're people and they have to be put to their place". That's like outright saying "I kill kittens because I'm evil". True racist often preface their racism with the infamous "I'm not racist, but..." or "I don't really hate X people, but...". People try to rationalise their actions, good or bad.  If DA:O had actual commentary on either racism or violence against women (like in Vaughan's case) if you asked him why he raped an elven girl he's try to convince you "It was just a misunderstanding" and "in truth, she was really into it" and "later changed her mind" because "you know how those elven girls are, right?". Or if you asked about what's happening in the Alienage he'd reply something along the lines of "They're complaining about not getting for free what the rest of us work to get", "Try to get some sympathy although their problems are their own fault" and so forth.

Same with the Casteless: just commenting on how the Casteless are "cursed by the Ancestors" or "cursed by the Stone" would give a reason for the oppression: religion. In stead, none is given, and everybody seems to accept a situation which is problematic just because. There's some individual comments about "honour" (with the beggar girl with a child who wants to go back home but her parents won't take her in before she gets rid of the child) but again it's not really explained why. Look at the old Caste system in India: it had strong religious roots (people who were born in lower castes obviously did something bad in their previous life so this was their punishment - people who were born into the higher castes were rewarded for piousness in their previous life etc.) - there's no similar justification with the Casteless.

We (as human beings) love feeling justified in our opinnions, feeling superior and better than average: that's why oppression is such a difficult concept. Completely ignoring the reasoning behind the dominant institutions and just portraying the "gruesome reality" of the oppressed leaves a really bad taste in my mouth - and in that regard, I do believe DA2 did a better job in portraying how institutional oppression generally works. Of course, since the context is fictional, it can never be perfect, but I still think they did awesome job with this aspect of "dark fantasy" in DA2.

Also, there's a lot of bad stuff happening to Circle mages in DA2 too: Karl is made Tranquil (without proper authorisation, I might add), Ella is threatened with it (in addition to sexual assault; plus it's heavily implied Alrik has sexually assaulted multiple mages - just go talk to the mages in the Gallows), mages are beaten etc . You just don't witness most of it personally, and if you do, it's easy to convince yourself it should be left up to the higher authorities - which is why you can actually live in denial about it. It's called plausible deniability and it's exactly the reason why we - genuinely upstanding individuals - can live in societies where absolute attrocities are commited against individuals or groups without ever lifting a finger to fix the issue or even feeling bad about any of it. Scary, huh?

Modifié par MissOuJ, 03 juin 2012 - 10:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

sickpixie wrote...

batlin wrote...

As for the graphics issue, DA2 had less polygons than DA:O did. The graphics factually got worse in the sequel.

On the other hand, they improved the lighting and the colors. Granted the lighting is still bad in places because they were rushed and the color choices are still mostly unpleasant, but at least it isn't so monochromatic anymore.

I liked the monochromatic.  Ferelden was bleak and muddy, so the game looked bleak and muddy.

jbrand2002uk wrote...

most of the anti DA2 sentiment can be summed up as: DAO fanboys going wah wah stomp stomp i cant play as my Warden this game sucks derp derp, evidenced by those same self people criticising DA2 for the faults that they praise in DAO when this happens no logical person takes them seriously

Even if what you say is true, there is still some well-presented and principled criticism of DA2.  Rather than lumping all the critics together, maybe you could address some of that criticism.

My complaints certainly aren't based around a desire to play my Warden again.  I'd be happy to play any character I got to design and control.

Sadly, DA2 didn't allow that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

oh and most people are generally wise enough to ignore marketing

I don't think that's true, but I'll agree that their failure to do so is entirely their fault.