410 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

Cstaf wrote...

I don't think it would have been a good or great game if the development cycle would have been longer. Since the changes to the franchise that i disliked the most would have persisted, such as combat, voice prot and lack of customization. If the development cycle would have been longer i think what they would have improved, which they have also acknowledged as an issue, wouid have been the map re-cycling. Now i thought the map re-cycling was bad but not a game-breaker. I just think the overall direction to a more cinematic aproach was the problem and that was something that would have been in the game no matter how long the game would have been in development. But that's just my opinion.

^This.

Any other game factor - story, level design, combat, customization, polish, you name it - doesn't mean jack when you can't role-play the protag in a role-playing game, and it just becomes an exercise in frustration.

[Sifr]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Any other game factor - story, level design, combat, customization, polish, you name it - doesn't mean jack when you can't role-play the protag in a role-playing game, and it just becomes an exercise in frustration.

So, the reason fans dislike that Hawke has that you cannot roleplay a protagonist with three personalities that are given to you?

But we enjoy characters in other Bioware games like Mass Effect where you are either Pargon, Renegade, or a Paragade Shepard, who we choose the backstory but ultimately that means nothing when we essentially are roleplaying a set character?

Not to compare the two games, but at the same time, a lot of us play both and it seems baffling to me that fans throw such hate at Dragon Age 2 while enjoying the same basic roleplaying aspects and experience in Mass Effect?

[PinkShoes]

Media is subjective. You cant argue against someone not liking something. I didn't like it, i think if i hadn't played DAO i would have liked it more. It wasn't awful but compared to DAO i personally felt it let itself down and Bioware forgot their fanbase, and i don't think we will ever get back to what made DAO something amazing. That saying i don't think DA3 will be bad i think Bioware has listened to us, they understand why some didn't like it they took in the criticism and i like how they do talk with their fans.

DA2 was an average game if you don't compare it to DAO imho. I can play it when im bored but i get annoyed by a lot and i cant look passed the things that annoy me like i could for DAO which was not a perfect game it had its faults but i could look passed them because the good stuff was that good.

In DA2 every single one of my characters sound the same its weird. I wish we had more voices and/or the choice to be silent. None of the environments are original it all looks the same and simply put it all looks way too boring and way too clean even in the slums it just doesn't look dirty. The graphics are better but i actually do like DAO's graphics more and think they just need a good ol polish. The combat is so much fun i enjoyed the combat a lot it does need to be slowed done a bit but all in all the combat was fun. The enemies were so damn easy it was boring. I miss how the fire ball knocked you back it looked painful! The mages in DA2 are actually more annoying than anything. I wish we could give our companions a specialization. I never use Merrill because she couldn't heal where as i gave Morrigan some healing spells and damage spells. I like how your party members have their own look, im glad in DA3 we will be able to put armor on them but they will still have their own unique look. I missed talking to my companions, i missed learning about them, i think that is basically what killed the game for me.

Also, Hawke was a set character. It was decided that he would have a rivalry with his brother and close to his sister well i liked carver a lot more than Bethany some liked Bethany more and some didn't like either of them. Where was the choice there. I didn't feel emotionally connected to ANYONE. No one. I either sorta liked them or they sorta pissed me off. DAO i loved morrigan some people hated her so much but people really felt something. When Alistair took your place to kill the archdemon, man that killed me i was nearly in tears! I couldn't do it again! There is no emotional connection with anyone in DA2.

Now like i said media is subjective. I didn't really like it a lot of people didn't really like it and some liked it. Its up to you if your not gunna like something but you cant say "well people shouldn't hate it cause i loved it!"

[zyntifox]

Sifr1449 wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Any other game factor - story, level design, combat, customization, polish, you name it - doesn't mean jack when you can't role-play the protag in a role-playing game, and it just becomes an exercise in frustration.

So, the reason fans dislike that Hawke has that you cannot roleplay a protagonist with three personalities that are given to you?

But we enjoy characters in other Bioware games like Mass Effect where you are either Pargon, Renegade, or a Paragade Shepard, who we choose the backstory but ultimately that means nothing when we essentially are roleplaying a set character?

Not to compare the two games, but at the same time, a lot of us play both and it seems baffling to me that fans throw such hate at Dragon Age 2 while enjoying the same basic roleplaying aspects and experience in Mass Effect?

I haven't played or seen the Mass effect series so i will not comment on how it's implended there. I really didn't care for the tone option in DA2. Why? Because you are not roleplaying when you don't try to put yourself in the characters shoes and act accordingly. All you know, if you are for example a sarcastic character, is that you are suppose to pick the purple option in dialogue instead of analyzing the different dialogues presented to you and choose the option you believe your sarcastic character would say.

[Pasquale1234]

Sifr1449 wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Any other game factor - story, level design, combat, customization, polish, you name it - doesn't mean jack when you can't role-play the protag in a role-playing game, and it just becomes an exercise in frustration.

So, the reason fans dislike that Hawke has that you cannot roleplay a protagonist with three personalities that are given to you?

But we enjoy characters in other Bioware games like Mass Effect where you are either Pargon, Renegade, or a Paragade Shepard, who we choose the backstory but ultimately that means nothing when we essentially are roleplaying a set character?

Not to compare the two games, but at the same time, a lot of us play both and it seems baffling to me that fans throw such hate at Dragon Age 2 while enjoying the same basic roleplaying aspects and experience in Mass Effect?

Yeah, I understand that some people enjoy that kind of experience, but I prefer an unvoiced blank slate.  Consider, if you will, an actor on a stage or movie set playing a role.  That actor is not listening to some other voice deliver lines or watching an avatar going through the motions - that actor is actually playing the role.  That actor can ad lib and deliver the lines a bit differently than they are actually written, and is the one actually doing the emoting, instead of watching some avatar do it.  This first-person take is the kind of role-playing experience that works for me.

I've spent a lot of time (and frustration) trying to find a motivation/characterization for Hawke that would not ultimately be broken by something that Hawke autonomously does/says, and have not yet managed to do it.  If you are truly role-playing the character, that character should never, ever do or say anything without your input - and Hawke does that constantly throughout the entire game, which, for me, is a steady stream of wtf moments.  One minor example is when Hawke approaches Cullen and automatically spills some information - information that the Hawke I was playing at the time would not have shared with Cullen.  There are countless such examples throughout the game - so, in order to really role-play Hawke, I have to discover all of them and try to find a characterization of Hawke that will not be broken by one of these autonomous events.

During my very first attempt to play through this game, Hawke's overriding goal/motivation for the first Act is to acquire the coin to invest in the deep roads expedition.  Simple enough, and supported by the game.  Once you've accomplished that and acquired the estate (also forced, not a choice), what is Hawke's new goal?  Taking care of Mom.  Oops - Hawke fails at that one, so what's next?  In the 3rd Act, Hawke might want to become Viscount, and seems to have a lot of support from the nobility, but the game does not give Hawke the opportunity to do it.  Hawke just feels aimless and without any goals other than to run errands for anyone who asks.

And none of that begins to address the fact that the 3 "personalities" you are given are very limiting in and of themselves - or the fact that Hawke's moral alignment is fixed.  You cannot, for example, play a Hawke who is evil/chaotic or a Hawke that hates their family.

And the cinematic approach to the game also takes pacing out of the player's hands.  There have been a number of times when the game triggered a cutscene that I wasn't ready for, so I've had to turn off my PS3 so that I could re-approach it when I was ready to proceed.  In some cases, I would position my companions strategically and use the "hold position" function, but then you have to have a cinematic dialogue with the mook before the battle starts, and when the cutscene ends, your companions are lined up behind you instead of where you left them.  And, btw - the cinematic dialogues are the primary reason why we have to go through load screens to visit our companions in their homes in order to have any meaningful conversations with them instead of being able to talk to them wherever we would like.

From my perspective, the only "role" I can really play in DA2 is that of the director of an interactive movie starring a character that does not always do what I would expect.  I understand that many people find this type of gaming to be very rewarding, but I find it mostly frustrating.  In an RPG, I want to actively co-create the narrative, not just push some buttons and have a pre-recorded narrative play out on the screen.

DA2 is my first foray into a (supposedly) RPG with a voiced protag, and I bought it because I love its predecessor.  I think I could deal with a voiced protag, given a toggle to turn it (and the accompanying cinematics) off.  Failing that, if the designers would simply avoid autonomous dialogue and instead make everything the protag does/says entirely selectable by the player, I think I could adjust.  Whether BioWare will make it possible for me to enjoy future releases of this franchise - or any others they produce - remains to be seen.

[zyntifox]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

From my perspective, the only "role" I can really play in DA2 is that of the director of an interactive movie starring a character that does not always do what I would expect.  I understand that many people find this type of gaming to be very rewarding, but I find it mostly frustrating.  In an RPG, I want to actively co-create the narrative, not just push some buttons and have a pre-recorded narrative play out on the screen.

Spot on.

[LobselVith8]

MouseNo4 wrote...

Why do people hate Dragon Age 2 so much?

My only problems with the game was the fact that game assets were used over and over and the really crappy story ending. EVERYTHING else i really loved. I cannot think of anything besides those 2 problems that i didnt love. 

If they added a bunch of new game art and locations, and hired someone else to do the story ending - it would have been an awesome game in my opinion. 

Those 2 flaws really dont equal the amount of hate people give it. 

People have their reasons, and not all of them are the same.

What you see as flaws may not be the only things in the game are seen as flaws. Dragon Age II divided people. Some people like it, and some people hated it. For me, I fall into the latter group. The two story DLCs only affirmed that. Why did I hate the game? I didn't like the the terrible dichotomy of the mages and templars (with both sides being little more than caricatures), a passive protagonist, no rise to power, really bad paraphrasing, choices having no meaning, and being invited to create my own protagonist - only to discover that the protagonist already pre-defined. The two story DLCs that were released continued the trend of a passive Hawke, and choices being meaningless when it produces the same conclusion.

Some might agree with my reasons, others might disagree. There isn't much point in debating the issue when it comes down to how the game makes people feel.

[Pasquale1234]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Some might agree with my reasons, others might disagree. There isn't much point in debating the issue when it comes down to how the game makes people feel.

Valid point, but I think - or at least hope - that sharing our concerns in this forum might help BioWare understand why DA2 wasn't as well received as it might have been, and help them make a better game next time.

At least, that's why I'm here.

[karushna5]

Many people disliked the roleplaying aspects of DAII but I thought it was amazing. The paraphrasing maybe, but DAO didn't have any more than that. People responded the same to different choices. And to shape your characters personality on how much you pick a type of option amazed me.

I had to play the game three times, once for each personality

[TEWR]

As my last post for the night -- technically it's day over here, but my sleep schedule's mucked up so day is night and night is day for me -- I shall respond to two posts at once

Bear in mind people that this is my opinion and my mind is exhausted, so I'm not going to be posting at my best. As such, my posts may be scattered around, with one section jumping into another randomly and then just as randomly going back to the first section.

Hell, I may even forget to finish certain parts of my post:

Sifr1449 wrote...

So, the reason fans dislike that Hawke has that you cannot roleplay a protagonist with three personalities that are given to you?

But we enjoy characters in other Bioware games like Mass Effect where you are either Pargon, Renegade, or a Paragade Shepard, who we choose the backstory but ultimately that means nothing when we essentially are roleplaying a set character?

Not to compare the two games, but at the same time, a lot of us play both and it seems baffling to me that fans throw such hate at Dragon Age 2 while enjoying the same basic roleplaying aspects and experience in Mass Effect?

Never played the Mass Effect series, but for me roleplaying is about so much more then just "What personality my character is".

It's about personality, his motivations, his actions, how he handles a quest, and so many other things. The personality system is only one facet of roleplaying, and even then it's flawed imo.

There are very few instances in DAII where my motivations are Hawke's, and not the other way around.

The dialogue system is something I'm opposed to on principle, because so long as I'm forced to pick what I think my character is going to say instead of what he's actually going to say, the character won't be my own short of me writing down what every response actually is for subsequent playthroughs.

Some may enjoy the paraphrases, and that's fine. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to be surprised or not view the whole lines. But I shouldn't be forced to be surprised when I don't want to, even if I'm fine with what my character said.

Never mind how the Rise to Power is so poorly contrived and what my Hawke would've done is tossed out the window in favor of what Bioware's Hawke would've done killed how I wanted to roleplay my Hawke. I understand that all Bioware games are limiting in what you can do. But it's about how limiting they are. DAO allowed me to not only give Xanthos Aeducan my motivations, but for the most part act on them.

There were only two notable times where my motivation couldn't be acted upon, and although I was pissed off at the game for them I was glad that the rest of Xanthos' motivations -- meaning my motivations -- weren't tossed out the window in favor of Bioware's.

I enjoyed the concepts of DAII: Personal story, family centered, Mage-Templar conflict, Rise to Power, choices that shape Kirkwall over the span of a decade, etc.

All of these didn't need to be as badly implemented as they were in DAII -- due in large part to the railroaded story -- and had they been implemented well DAII would've been a much better game for me. In terms of story and roleplaying.

The more story options there are, the better. It helps my roleplaying. Limiting me to one outcome and one choice limits how I roleplay a character. It ultimately limits me to playing the same character. Bioware's character. Making it so I can't see the full dialogue line limits how I roleplay my character. Forcing me to make Hawke's motivations my own almost kills my roleplaying.

Now, how many times did I say roleplaying? Enough times to make one think of Mahogany? Because I know I thought of it.

LobselVith8 wrote...

People have their reasons, and not all of them are the same.

What you see as flaws may not be the only things in the game are seen as flaws. Dragon Age II divided people. Some people like it, and some people hated it. For me, I fall into the latter group. The two story DLCs only affirmed that. Why did I hate the game? I didn't like the the terrible dichotomy of the mages and templars (with both sides being little more than caricatures), a passive protagonist, no rise to power, really bad paraphrasing, choices having no meaning, and being invited to create my own protagonist - only to discover that the protagonist already pre-defined. The two story DLCs that were released continued the trend of a passive Hawke, and choices being meaningless when it produces the same conclusion.

Some might agree with my reasons, others might disagree. There isn't much point in debating the issue when it comes down to how the game makes people feel.

First off, good to see you back on the forums. You've been gone for.... a week? Two?

Second, I disagree with how you think there isn't much point in debating the issue. If we debate the issue of how the games make us feel, we can understand the viewpoints of the other side better. Maybe even convert them.

Third, I've been re-examining choices made in DAO. If your issue is the pre-determined outcome, then wouldn't you have an issue with the origin stories?

No matter what I do, Trian dies. But I can make choices that change how he dies, even if I can't voice my suspicion of Bhelen at the same time. The outcome is still the same, but the general path is different. This is the case for Legacy. You make a choice, it leads to a different path, and in the end it leads to the same outcome.

Now from a roleplaying perspective, I understand you felt the need to have your Hawke try and fight Larius in the end. You wanted him to take a proactive stance, even if I disagree that your Hawke couldn't adequately say that something was off in that scenario.

But this is a no-spoiler thread, so I don't want to turn this into a Legacy debate.

My point is though that choice did matter in Legacy. The outcome -- someone's fate -- was virtually the same but choice did matter.

MotA OTOH is a case where choice doesn't matter. And that's something I will always lament.

==============================================================================

And before anyone says anything in an attempt to use my post against me, DAII does not get a pass using the reasoning I have stated in my post to Lob. The paths are not sufficiently different for me to say choice matters.

[Wulfram]

I don't think a lack of variation in outcome in the opening stages is an issue. The point of them is to serve as a set up for the rest of the game. As long as you get some freedom in how your PC acts, and ideally some interesting opportunities to start on fleshing out your characters personality.

One thing the DN origin in DA:O did extremely well was give opportunities to make little decisions which didn't necessarily amount to much, but said interesting things about your character.

[Sabriana]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Yeah, I understand that some people enjoy that kind of experience, but I prefer an unvoiced blank slate.  Consider, if you will, an actor on a stage or movie set playing a role.  That actor is not listening to some other voice deliver lines or watching an avatar going through the motions - that actor is actually playing the role.  That actor can ad lib and deliver the lines a bit differently than they are actually written, and is the one actually doing the emoting, instead of watching some avatar do it.  This first-person take is the kind of role-playing experience that works for me


<And snipped  a lot of good stuff to avoid quote pyramids, but this is what I agree with the most. >

Hawke was never my character, but a puppet I was given to watch and play with.

Unlike my Warden, she was just something I played with, but she was never "my" Hawke. I tried, really I did, but I never could finish more than the one playthrough. It never, ever, felt right. She never was mine. Unfortunately. The huge holes in the plots didn't help. I love mages. I played their Hawke as one. Maybe that was the biggest mistake I made. Being a mage in an environment that was very hostile to mages, yet suffering no consequences for it was very, very, jarring.

Add the inability to outft her companions and other forced issues, well, I simply played their game, with their ideas and their stories, but unfortunately, not mine.

I wish there was a button to turn off  her voice as well. I know a lot of people love the voiced protag, but to me it reduced replayability to zero. Not knowing what would come out of her mouth after picking the "paraphrase" was surprising and incredibly frustrating. I think I "did it wrong" in choosing dialog. I mixed it up to much, methinks. I ended up with an annoying Hawke that suffered from Dissasociative Disorder, by not sticking to the once chosen "Sweet, Snark, Snarl" stereotype.

[Teddie Sage]

You know that argument: "My Hawke wasn't my Hawke" is old, right? Your Warden wasn't your Warden, it was Bioware's. You just played it with different choices and etc. People should stop assuming that those characters belong to them because they were written by other people in the first place. Truth had to be said. Sorry if this hurts.

[Fast Jimmy]

Teddie Sage wrote...

You know that argument: "My Hawke wasn't my Hawke" is old, right? Your Warden wasn't your Warden, it was Bioware's. You just played it with different choices and etc. People should stop assuming that those characters belong to them because they were written by other people in the first place. Truth had to be said. Sorry if this hurts.

I disagree.

Bioware created the Origins, yes. But I could be a Dwarf commoner who sees the plight of the Dalish as as similar to even worse off than that of the Dust Town residents and could choose options and dialogue to reflect that. My mage character could be a self-loathing mage-hater, and side with the templars and against mage freedoms in every interaction available.

My sarcastic Hawke was only sarcastic Hawke, regardless of class. With no origin to ground you, no choices in game that are reflected anywhere but in the most immediate of demonstrations, and only one ending, the personality is the only thing about Hawke that can really be different.

With multiple origins or backgrounds, you have varied beginnings. With the motivations you assign that orign and how events happen in DAO through that characters eyes, you have inspired middle area. And with tons of different options for endings, either in the Epilogue Slides or in the final party, talking to all of your companions, you have a multitude of ways things could play out. That's Bioware giving tons of options. There is no set "Mage Warden." There is no set "Paragon Warden." You do what you do, when you want to do it and you see the reprucussions of it as the game progresses.

Hawke develops schyzophrenia when you try to be mean to one type of person (let's say Templars) and nice to another (let's say mages). I know, its a novel concept - liking one group and not liking another. If you make decisions outside of your characters "personality," you'll wind up saying nice things to your friends in a really mean voice, or vice versa.

So no, it wasn't Bioware's Warden. They had a path, but that path diverged so many times, that it was never "their" character I was playing. I could make a hundred different choices, none of which Bioware "owned." But when the only choice you really give in a game is Green/Purple/Red, then there are only three real outcomes... and Bioware DOES own all three of those. They tailored the three types of responses down to a tee. And that is why Hawke doesn't feel like a character I gave a crap about.

[Nighteye2]

Melca36 wrote...
For $60 I want a quality game. As I said....DA:2 was a good game but it was NOT perfect.    The developers have acknowledged this and have promised a game that would take the best of DA:2 and add more elements of what made Origin a success.

I am more than willing to wait.

As am I. I fully support Blizzard's business model of putting quality first, without much regard for time to market. Bioware would do well to adopt a similar business model. They used it for DA:O, and met with great success as a result.

[Malached]

All I can say aboout DA:2 is that it is the first Bioware game that I have bought and could never be bothered to finish. And I loved most of the rest -- BG, Neverwitner Nights, MA, Jade Empire, DA:O, KOTOR. DA:2 just seemed rushed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sifr1449 wrote...

Even after arising to the nobility, Hawke refuses a position of power, and after becoming The Champion, Hawke never seems to flaunt their status to their advantage, rather continues doing what they always did, manage Kirkwall from the sidelines.

For the original subtitle of "Rise to Power", Hawke's rise seems rather reluctant in this respect. Hawke takes charge because, when push comes to shove, no-one else it seems will.

This is why Hawke feels like a more real character than the Warden and why, in my opinion, this is actually a stronger entry to the franchise that, simply because it wasn't as popular as the first, should nonetheless not be ignored for why it was great.

Well, yes, obvuiously if you rely on the game to tell you about your character, then the more fleshed-out voiced character will be the more interesting character.

The problem we're having that that Hawke's behaviour is always exactly as you describe it.  We never get to have Hawke approach any of those events at all differently.

You're playing a pre-written part, and you're not really allowed to deviate from it at all.  But in DAO, the Warden could have a wide range of personalities.  My favourite Warden was an abject coward who avoided physical conflict (he hid) and always let his companions make the decisions.

Imagine now what that does to the other characters.  If the Warden is a strong decisive leader, then Alistair's choice to let the Warden lead makes some sense.  Alistair doesn't want to lead, and there's a better alternative available.  But what of my character?  When Alistair chooses to let that guy lead, the worst leader imaginable, that demonstrates appalling weakness and cowardice on Alistair's part.  So DAO's free and open roleplaying allowed us to see not only a different Warden each game, but the companions were even different from game to game because the things they did (which were always the same) were responses to different Warden behaviours.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Teddie Sage wrote...

You know that argument: "My Hawke wasn't my Hawke" is old, right? Your Warden wasn't your Warden, it was Bioware's. You just played it with different choices and etc. People should stop assuming that those characters belong to them because they were written by other people in the first place. Truth had to be said. Sorry if this hurts.

The truth does have to be said.  And the truth is: your position has no basis at all in reality.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 mars 2012 - 12:15 .

[Teddie Sage]

We can agree to disagree then, because I firmly believe that OUR characters are from our minds, not already set in stone and written by someone else.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Teddie Sage wrote...

We can agree to disagree then, because I firmly believe that OUR characters are from our minds, not already set in stone and written by someone else.

I would agree.  But the Warden wasn't set in stone.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 mars 2012 - 01:15 .

[Teddie Sage]

Dragon Age II's default storyline was set in stone if you didn't import anything.
The Cousland character is their canon choice.

[Joy Divison]

Teddie Sage wrote...

You know that argument: "My Hawke wasn't my Hawke" is old, right? Your Warden wasn't your Warden, it was Bioware's. You just played it with different choices and etc. People should stop assuming that those characters belong to them because they were written by other people in the first place. Truth had to be said. Sorry if this hurts.

You don't understand the point despite it being well articulated several times on this page.

[Fast Jimmy]

Teddie Sage wrote...

You know that argument: "My Hawke wasn't my Hawke" is old, right? Your Warden wasn't your Warden, it was Bioware's. You just played it with different choices and etc. People should stop assuming that those characters belong to them because they were written by other people in the first place. Truth had to be said. Sorry if this hurts.

Teddie Sage wrote...

We can agree to disagree then, because I firmly believe that OUR characters are from our minds, not already set in stone and written by someone else.

I'm confused by your tactics... so I'm gonna keep acting tough until I figure them out!

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 mars 2012 - 02:41 .

[Teddie Sage]

I have no tactics. I am simply speaking out my mind and with my own free will.

You a now a chocolate pudding.

[Fast Jimmy]

Man... I taste DELICIOUS!