1306 réponses à ce sujet

[batlin]

Meris wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

This is an interesting point. I'd submit that there are some fantasy settings that lend themselves well to political/economical struggle (Bas-Lag, for instance), but THEDragonAgeSetting is not one of them. A stated or unstated goal of the setting was to tell a standard fantasy story, and telling a political story for it highlights the weaknesses of the setting and fails to utilize the setting's strengths.

Don't be silly. Most of DA:O' story was about social political elements. There's a reason why Loghain and the Archdemon are commonly regarded as antagonists on equal standing and why only 2 of the Origin stories delve deep within the darkspawn menace.

Of course politics are a factor in DA:O's story, but there's more to it than just that.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Meris wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

This is an interesting point. I'd submit that there are some fantasy settings that lend themselves well to political/economical struggle (Bas-Lag, for instance), but THEDragonAgeSetting is not one of them. A stated or unstated goal of the setting was to tell a standard fantasy story, and telling a political story for it highlights the weaknesses of the setting and fails to utilize the setting's strengths.

Most of Origins' story was about social political elements.

Really? Because I thought it was about making Moral Choices ™ while gearing up to kill the foozle. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The political elements were pretty minimal, IMO - you very rarely had a scenario with more than two sides (which the player would explicitly choose between.) The social and political elements aren't nearly as fleshed out as they are in fantasy settings where they are a major focus (examples: Bas-Lag, again, or ASOIAF) or even in other video games like New Vegas or Witcher 2. Once again, this was an okay decision to make, but it is a decision that should have informed the type of story they chose to tell using that setting.

[Das Tentakel]

Meris wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

This is an interesting point. I'd submit that there are some fantasy settings that lend themselves well to political/economical struggle (Bas-Lag, for instance), but THEDragonAgeSetting is not one of them. A stated or unstated goal of the setting was to tell a standard fantasy story, and telling a political story for it highlights the weaknesses of the setting and fails to utilize the setting's strengths.

Most of Origins' story was about social political elements.

Politics played a part in DA:O, certainly, but I would posit the intrigues and the issues were kept at a fairly basic level and not all that well-executed. Loghain is a political nincompoop, Orzammar had a simple binary conflict between two pretenders, the Arl of Redcliffe supported the heir by blood, Alistair. It's more or less functional, but it wasn't of a complexity or level of finesse to inspire confidence for, say, intrigues in a city-state.
It felt rather small, to be honest.

And maybe that isn't a bad thing for a fantasy game. I personally love complex intrigues, but political history is my specialisation and I am certainly not representative in that regard. Better keep it basic and simple.

[batlin]

DarkAmaranth1966 wrote...

I think the problem some have is that they expected DA2 to be an expansion pack for DAO rather than a new game. Had that been EA/Bioware's intent, it would have been sold as an EP, not a new game, which it was. Same for DA3, when it comes out, it will be a new game, not an expansion for the games we already have.

IMO EP = Upgraded, new story, new location SAME Player Character.
New Game = New Story, New graphics, new voices, new locations, NEW Player Character.
DA2 Was a new game, not an EP for DAO.

While both could use some more DLC and improvements, neither is wrong or broken, just different.

A game doesn't need to be an expansion pack in order to continue the story. or keep what people liked about the original game intact.

Take Mass Effect. There really isn't much difference between ME1 and ME2. Even the stories are similar: "Go to these planets in any order and accomplish this objective at each in order to prepare for the climax of the game.

Would you make the argument that ME2 is just an expansion pack?

Modifié par batlin, 03 mars 2012 - 05:54 .

[Meris]

batlin wrote...

Meris wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

This is an interesting point. I'd submit that there are some fantasy settings that lend themselves well to political/economical struggle (Bas-Lag, for instance), but THEDragonAgeSetting is not one of them. A stated or unstated goal of the setting was to tell a standard fantasy story, and telling a political story for it highlights the weaknesses of the setting and fails to utilize the setting's strengths.

Don't be silly. Most of DA:O' story was about social political elements. There's a reason why Loghain and the Archdemon are commonly regarded as antagonists on equal standing and why only 2 of the Origin stories delve deep within the darkspawn menace.

Of course politics are a factor in DA:O's story, but there's more to it than just that.

Never said that there's nothing more than exploring societies in DA:O, just that there's a lot of that. So much that its ludicrous to say that the setting is weak in the regard.

[Xilizhra]

[quote]Frankly I'm at a loss as to what marvels there were in DA2 that we didn;t already see in DA:O. The Deeproads?[/quote]
At least DA2's Deep Roads weren't put together in such a fantastically awful manner. And the Primeval Thaig was a wholly new thing.

[quote]In Origins we uncovered secrets about the Dalish[/quote]
We uncovered the secret of one Keeper's feud with humans, using magic not specific to the Dalish. 2 has a bare few more hints in it.

[quote] fought through the Fade[/quote]
Which we did in 2 as well, again with rather better game design, also introducing a new mage concept.

[quote] delved into the tomb of Andraste[/quote]
And skimmed over it while learning the truth of none of it.

[quote]found the Anvil of the Void[/quote]
Ditto.

[quote]and even dealt with Dwarven politics (which everyone who praises DA2's story should be giddy about).[/quote]
Acceptable, but not what you were praising earlier.

[quote]DA:O's setting was vast[/quote]
Not really. It's one country with a couple of token nonhuman places thrown in.

[quote] the cultures encountered were greatly different from each other[/quote]
Kind of, but we also got a better view of qunari culture in 2, and the mage/templar issue is nearly its own cultural problem.

[quote]and every quest felt like you were truly in a new plae.[/quote]
Well, the Deep Roads quickly makes you feel like the entire world consists of that.

[quote]Whereas in DA2 the most alien place you ever visit are the couple hallways in the Deeproads.[/quote]
And they're far more alien than anything in Origins.

[quote] I cannot fathom how anyone can truthfully say they thought Dragon Age 2 had a more interesting settign than DA:O, especially when the setting in DA2 is more or less present in DA:O along with so much more. [/quote]
I find looking deeply at one place to often be more interesting than shallowly looking at a bunch of them.

[quote]Of course you knew the Archdemon was sapient in DA:O...the darkspawn themselves are smart enough to forge weapons and armor and craft ballistas, and Alistair says that some Grey Wardens can understand what the Archdemon is saying in their dreams. Obviously is the Archdemon speaks, it's sapient.[/quote]
And devoid of personality and motivation. It helps little.

[Meris]

This discussion is moot. This thread is about what design decisions were wrong to cause Dragon Age II's reception amongst fans of Origins to be less, much less, than ideal and you are discussing the story.

Its not just that this particular topic is arguable as Hell and absolutely subjective,

"The story was more vast in X because of A) and C)"

"Well, I disagree because of D) E) and F)"

"Well, because of G) I believe smaller scale is better"

"COUNTER ARGUMENT"

And so on...

but also that if Dragon Age II really told such a worse story than DA:O its still leagues away than most of the rest of the industry. If there's one thing in BioWare I'd hesitate to critique its the writing team.

Modifié par Meris, 03 mars 2012 - 06:03 .

[Das Tentakel]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Meris wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

This is an interesting point. I'd submit that there are some fantasy settings that lend themselves well to political/economical struggle (Bas-Lag, for instance), but THEDragonAgeSetting is not one of them. A stated or unstated goal of the setting was to tell a standard fantasy story, and telling a political story for it highlights the weaknesses of the setting and fails to utilize the setting's strengths.

Most of Origins' story was about social political elements.

Really? Because I thought it was about making Moral Choices ™ while gearing up to kill the foozle. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The political elements were pretty minimal, IMO - you very rarely had a scenario with more than two sides (which the player would explicitly choose between.) The social and political elements aren't nearly as fleshed out as they are in fantasy settings where they are a major focus (examples: Bas-Lag, again, or ASOIAF) or even in other video games like New Vegas or Witcher 2. Once again, this was an okay decision to make, but it is a decision that should have informed the type of story they chose to tell using that setting.

Ha, Master Yognaut, you were just ahead of me.

There are definitely politically more complex settings. I haven't read Mieville's novels yet, but there are plenty of other SF and Fantasy settings, from Dune and the Vorkosigan novels to Martin's books or pen & paper settings like Harn or Tekumel.
As a matter of fact, in a typical high-to-late medieval German principality politics were way more complicated than Thedas' - if the politics of DA:O have an inspiration in fantasy or history, I think it lies in a very (VERY) simplified copying of English/Scottish history and Martin's books.
But again, no problem by itself. But it does suggest that the Bioware writers are, and the setting they created is, not particularly suited for a political game. Then again, I think they never set out to do so.

[eroeru]

Xilizhra wrote...
but it's not a villain so much as a force of nature that can be stabbed.

I actually find this a point of merit. Such an Archdemon contributed to the Epicness and heroic nature of Origins. Which was a good thing, mind you, even if some players have grown tired of it (though I myself believe the heroic approach, if played out well, is not at all cliche'd nowadays - we get far more "ordinary" flicks, epicness with wit is sadly a dying breed).

[Everwarden]

 To answer the title question: Probably not. We can't know for sure, because if they did accept that Dragon Age 2 was a failure on (almost) every level they would still get their asses fired if they fessed up to it. I find it really unlikely that Bioware has learned anything here apart from the fact that they have a handful of meaniehead fans who won't call a rushed mess 'brilliant and innovative'.

Modifié par Everwarden, 03 mars 2012 - 06:12 .

[Xilizhra]

eroeru wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
but it's not a villain so much as a force of nature that can be stabbed.

I actually find this a point of merit. Such an Archdemon contributed to the Epicness and heroic nature of Origins. Which was a good thing, mind you, even if some players have grown tired of it (though I myself believe the heroic approach, if played out well, is not at all cliche'd nowadays - we get far more "ordinary" flicks, epicness with wit is sadly a dying breed).

Epicness with wit? Meaning what?

[Meris]

Das Tentakel wrote...
As a matter of fact, in a typical high-to-late medieval German principality politics were way more complicated than Thedas' - if the politics of DA:O have an inspiration in fantasy or history, I think it lies in a very (VERY) simplified copying of English/Scottish history and Martin's books.
But again, no problem by itself. But it does suggest that the Bioware writers are, and the setting they created is, not particularly suited for a political game. Then again, I think they never set out to do so.

I do remember some statements how they draw more of Martin's than Tolkien's.

To be fair, outside of the academic life I don't see many entertainment aide that deal in a level of poltiical intrigue that can rival real life and what real life academics can extrapolate from real life. I never expected anything like that from an RPG, since such games are always part heroic fantasy and, as such, things might get a little simplified from the PC's viewpoint - in other words, a lot of politics are left implied instead of shown.

The way the pact of power in Ferelden is described implied something much more elaborate than BioWare probably could afford to show. That way I believe the problem is with the medium or how the franchise tells the story, not the setting itself.

[Pasquale1234]

Xilizhra wrote...
The only one I can really think of that was unique to Origins was Andraste's ashes, and we learned nothing about them at all beyond what they could do.

Did you read any of the codex entries, pay attention to the Guardian or the spirits in the Gauntlet, talk to any of the Chantry offiicials about their beliefs, listen to Leliana's stories about Andraste, or talk to the cult in Haven?  That whole history was presented in game.

If you're interested, here is a wiki entry:  http://dragonage.wik...m/wiki/Andraste

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 03 mars 2012 - 06:29 .

[Xilizhra]

Did you read any of the codex entries, pay attention to the Guardian or the spirits in the Gauntlet, talk to any of the Chantry offiicials about their beliefs, listen to Leliana's stories about Andraste, or talk to the cult in Haven? That whole history was presented in game.

The whole mythology was presented in-game. Relatively little history survived.

[eroeru]

Xilizhra wrote...

eroeru wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
but it's not a villain so much as a force of nature that can be stabbed.

I actually find this a point of merit. Such an Archdemon contributed to the Epicness and heroic nature of Origins. Which was a good thing, mind you, even if some players have grown tired of it (though I myself believe the heroic approach, if played out well, is not at all cliche'd nowadays - we get far more "ordinary" flicks, epicness with wit is sadly a dying breed).

Epicness with wit? Meaning what?

Meaning the wit of the dialogue, and the writing of Daivid Gaider in particular.

[Zanallen]

Monica83 wrote...

Its easy ask around this:

Is dragon age 2 a masterpiece? An unforgettable RPG? A game with the destiny to stay in history like a legend?

And then count the people that laugth you in face after that question..

Dragon age 2 is also recognised as a disappointing game and a rushed one and you have just to look around to see how many people dislikes it...

About being people afraid to change or that dislike innovation (i don't see how dragon age 2 is innovative)..

Call people that dislike the game in that way its just dumb.. You can't blame people that dislikes a poor executed and a poor of content rushed game full of bugs and call them people that are afraid to change! its just trolling...

There are people around that liked dragon age 2.. I personaly consider it a masterpiece of garbage.. But there are people that liked it an i accepted it.. Its just a matter of tastes..

The true hate is born because they don't started a new IP.. They just taked a sequel and turned in something completely different..

It's normal if some costumer are in anger,,And honestly i hope bioware learned the lession.. But i doubt it... I know EA

Definitely seems like it, considering you are still complaining about it a year later.

[K_Tabris]

AlexXIV wrote...

Tbh I really think those vocal 'I love DA2' people are probably all about romances. Kind of funny how one relatively small portion of content can mean everything to some people. That said, yes, it is commonly accepted that they went too far, if not in the wrong direction. Of course if you expect that everyone here one the forums agrees on anything then you could not be more wrong, so yes, there will be alot of people defending DA2 to the last breath. But I think you don't need to be a genius or the most unbiased person in the world if you just look at the plain facts and know that DA2 suffered from a rushed development because obviously somehow there was not enough time/money to polish the game like a sequel of DA:O deserved.

Possibly?  Or just love in characters on general.

I might be one of the 'vocal' crowd, but not for this reason.  The main reason is probably nostalgia, and I fell in love with the framed narractive approach.  What most people object to, the limited choices, recycled environments, and the flippy, action-oriented combat are all things I don't mind or eve love about the game.  FOr example, I absolutely loved the combat, and lo and behold, the combat is very similar to Jade Empire.  If there are any complaints coming from ths gamer girl, one of the cwords should have been named in honor of Fortune's Favorite:whistle:

As far as it being rushed, there is no doubt, but plenty of games and other kinds of products are rushed.  In the end, after a patch or two(?) this was largely fixed.  A benefit of the Internet, I guess.  After all, you can't patch a rushed novel.

Cstaf wrote...
Well i defintly think that BioWare went the wrong way and that DA2 is no where near as good as the first one. Obviously wether a game is good or not is subjective. I don't think that people who enjoyed DA2 are wrong, i just think they enjoy other aspects of a game than i do. I haven't gotten the sense from the "DA2 haters" on these boards that they are so full of themselves that they can't understand some people enjoying the approach BioWare went with this game.

 

*SHOCKED*  A balanced view, requoted.  This is the truth of it.  Most people on the BSN, unfortunately, get too aggressive and almost apologist about their views.  Especially for a video game, not that video games aren't important, but this medium is pure entertainment, not a cure to find cancer, as some people treat it as =/


I am not saying people can't say that this was an aweful game, but most people that do come onto these boards with complaints really don't allow for the fact that it is just a different style of game that didn't meet there expectations. There's a big difference.

[JeeWeeJ]

Zanallen wrote...

Definitely seems like it, considering you are still complaining about it a year later.

Or dedicated Bioware fans (or Biodrones, whatever you want to call them ) are concerned where Bioware is taking a beloved franchise and try to make themselves heard, now that the initial sh*tstorm has died down.

Honestly, I can't remember a single noteworthy situation from DA2, and that is something I'm not used to with a Bioware game... So yes, call me a concerned consumer!

[Meris]

NovinhaShepard wrote...

As far as it being rushed, there is no doubt, but plenty of games and other kinds of products are rushed.  In the end, after a patch or two(?) this was largely fixed.  A benefit of the Internet, I guess.  After all, you can't patch a rushed novel.

You know, that's a bit of a exageration.

[Pasquale1234]

Xilizhra wrote...

Did you read any of the codex entries, pay attention to the Guardian or the spirits in the Gauntlet, talk to any of the Chantry offiicials about their beliefs, listen to Leliana's stories about Andraste, or talk to the cult in Haven? That whole history was presented in game.

The whole mythology was presented in-game. Relatively little history survived.

Were you expecting something else relative to a supernatural artifact from a figure regarded as a deity in a fantasy setting?

[batlin]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

At least DA2's Deep Roads weren't put together in such a fantastically awful manner. And the Primeval Thaig was a wholly new thing.[/quote]

The Deeproads in DA2 are by and large just a series of red hallways. DA:O had those, but it also had huge Thaigs, caverns, and crevases. There's really no comparison here.

[quote]We uncovered the secret of one Keeper's feud with humans, using magic not specific to the Dalish. 2 has a bare few more hints in it.[/quote]

We didn;t learn any more about the Dalish than we did in DA:O. All we leared about is that specific tribe.

[quote]Which we did in 2 as well, again with rather better game design, also introducing a new mage concept.[/quote]

I'll grant that the Fade in DA2 is marginally less tedious than it was in DA:O

[quote]And skimmed over it while learning the truth of none of it.[/quote]

You're kidding, right? Exactly what truth do you think was left out?

[quote]Ditto.[/quote]

Cool

[quote]Acceptable, but not what you were praising earlier.[/quote]

There's nothing wrong with politics, it just makes a ho-hum overarching story.

[quote]Not really. It's one country with a couple of token nonhuman places thrown in.[/quote]

And DA2 is one city with a few outlying areas. Please don't try to deny that the setting is less vast in DA2.

[quote]Kind of, but we also got a better view of qunari culture in 2, and the mage/templar issue is nearly its own cultural problem.[/quote]

True, the Qunari get fleshed out more than they were in DA:O, but we never get to see their culture, their arcitecture, etc. They're just located in another part of Kirkwall surrounded by samey brown buildings. And really, we already knew how Qunari are thanks to Sten. How the Qunari act isn't at all a surprise at that point.
[quote]Well, the Deep Roads quickly makes you feel like the entire world consists of that.[/quote]

Huh?

[quote]And they're far more alien than anything in Origins[/quote]

Yeah, all those red hallways sure are alien after spending 10 hours in them.

[quote]I find looking deeply at one place to often be more interesting than shallowly looking at a bunch of them.[/quote]

Kirkwall is no more "deep" than Denerim was. The only difference is there were more places to go.

[quote]And devoid of personality and motivation. It helps little.[/quote]

I guess "taking over the world" is no longer a valid motivation.

Modifié par batlin, 03 mars 2012 - 07:20 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Meris wrote...

but also that if Dragon Age II really told such a worse story than DA:O its still leagues away than most of the rest of the industry.

Not really, no.

Take stuff that was pretty central the same year in the same genre. You had Witcher 2, Human Revolution, le Bastion, Fallout New Vegas (late October 2010), etc. So Dragon Age 2 was a disappointing story in a pretty good year for narrative-driven ARPGs.

Modifié par Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut, 03 mars 2012 - 07:44 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

NovinhaShepard wrote...

FOr example, I absolutely loved the combat, and lo and behold, the combat is very similar to Jade Empire.

Ouch.

[Xilizhra]

The Deeproads in DA2 are by and large just a series of red hallways. DA:O had those, but it also had huge Thaigs, caverns, and crevases. There's really no comparison here.

Indeed not. The Origins Deep Roads dragged on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on...

We didn;t learn any more about the Dalish than we did in DA:O. All we leared about is that specific tribe.

Not much of an advantage for Origins.

You're kidding, right? Exactly what truth do you think was left out?

I seriously doubt that the stuff about the Maker is literally true.

And DA2 is one city with a few outlying areas. Please don't try to deny that the setting is less vast in DA2.

Vast, no. Deep, quite possibly.

I guess "taking over the world" is no longer a valid motivation.

Not by itself, no. It's boring.

[Barrendall]

crawfs wrote...

Barrendall111 wrote...

Story-wise I enjoyed DAII immensely. Yes, the recycled maps and the over-the-top melee animations were a little annoying but I didn't let it ruin my rpg experience. (The mage animations were an improvement however) I settled it in my head to enjoy the story and my choices as much as possible and ergo I wasn't disappointed.

My problem with this statement by epople saying "I enjoyed the story" is that there was no clear goal to be completed, let me clarify:

- In DA:O your goal after becoming a grey warden is to gather an army and stop the blight (pretty straightforward)
- In the Mass Effect series your goal is to prepare for and stop the reaper invasion.

I could go on with few more examples but I think you get the point. NOw the problem with Dragon age 2 was that there was no clear goal.

***SPOILERS BRIEF SUMMARY OF DA2***

Act 1 was essentially "make money" not really much of a plot at all.

Act 2 was just constant back and forth between the leader of Kirkwall (forgotten the name) and the Qunari Arishok which ended with battle started by the Qunari but what dealt with quite quickly and had no real affect on anything. Again you COULD argue that you have "a clear goal here" but my point is there are no "long term goals" in DA2

Act 3 was fluffing about between mages and templars which was pretty much the same as Act 2 except it involved two different groups

***END SPOILERS***

so basically there are no long term goals in DA2 making the story all but non-existant without and overall goal there is no plot or story to be had.

Hmm...I understand your point of view, but Hawke wasn't a man on some wild world shattering mission.  He was just a guy trying to get himself and his family by in the world.  This is just a story of one man's (or woman's) life as told by a friend or a companion and how he or she's actions affected the history of Kirkwall.  It's more of a journal that you play out rather some linear mission.