410 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

I have not played any of the FF games, nor have any experience with the JRPG market. But I liked Fenris, at least when he got away from his home. But then, I have little love for drunks and whiners amyway.

[jbrand2002uk]

If you ignore the NPC's reactions then what is the whole point of the conversations in the 1st place its akin to waiting for the NPC's to speak then sticking your fingers in your ears and saying blah blah your opinions and feelings dont matter because they are conflicting with my imagination you may aswell to all intensive purposes play with all the sound off since as by playing the way you describe is effectively ignoring 50% of the whole story and replacing it with your own fabrication.

By choosing to play outside of the confines of the script your essentially saying that the story is rubbish because the fabrication in my head is better, the premise of playing an RPG is to play a role( singular) not roles(plural).You are from your description playing your role as the Warden and re writing every other role to fit in with you alteration of the original script.

How is the writers intent irrelevant when the script shows the writers intent and the script incase you have forgotten is game content.The options you choose for "Your Warden" is also part of that script.

[ultimatekotorfan]

I dislike DA2 because it felt so comical. DA:O felt so frantic, desperate, and serious. Having an option to crack a joke about a woman's possibly deceased brother and have her not give a damn is not what I paid for.

Also, I fail to see how it was a good idea to take a small plotline from DA:O and make it the main storyline for its sequel when it has no relevance to the plot as a whole. It seems like they just did what they did for ME2 and just filled the intermission game with a useless conflict in order to fill the gap between 1 and 3 in their trilogy.

I'm not even sure what the plot for DA is anymore.

[Zetheria Tabris]

Elhanan wrote...

I have not played any of the FF games, nor have any experience with the JRPG market. But I liked Fenris, at least when he got away from his home. But then, I have little love for drunks and whiners amyway.

I like Fenris too - I romanced him. But I'll admit when I first saw him I thought he belonged in Devil May Cry or something.

[Elhanan]

ultimatekotorfan wrote...

I dislike DA2 because it felt so comical. DA:O felt so frantic, desperate, and serious. Having an option to crack a joke about a woman's possibly deceased brother and have her not give a damn is not what I paid for.

Also, I fail to see how it was a good idea to take a small plotline from DA:O and make it the main storyline for its sequel when it has no relevance to the plot as a whole. It seems like they just did what they did for ME2 and just filled the intermission game with a useless conflict in order to fill the gap between 1 and 3 in their trilogy.

I'm not even sure what the plot for DA is anymore.

Comical? Both games were full of humor, but neither were comedies. And both games offered such lines as options. If one does not like the sarcastic response, pls do not choose it. But do not fault those that like such options in play.

A small plotline? Guess we have two very different games, as the Mage vs Templar story was extremely prevelant in all the playthroughs of DAO, even outside the Mage Circle area.

Plot for DA3? Still leaving this for Bioware to finish, though I do hope it goes beyond the discussion of fashions and aesthetics of shoes.

[Pasquale1234]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

If you ignore the NPC's reactions then what is the whole point of the conversations in the 1st place its akin to waiting for the NPC's to speak then sticking your fingers in your ears and saying blah blah your opinions and feelings dont matter because they are conflicting with my imagination you may aswell to all intensive purposes play with all the sound off since as by playing the way you describe is effectively ignoring 50% of the whole story and replacing it with your own fabrication.

I'm not sure who or what you are addressing, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that they ignored the NPC or game's reaction to the protagonist.  Are you sure that you read and understood the response(s) to which you are replying?

By choosing to play outside of the confines of the script your essentially saying that the story is rubbish because the fabrication in my head is better, the premise of playing an RPG is to play a role( singular) not roles(plural).You are from your description playing your role as the Warden and re writing every other role to fit in with you alteration of the original script.

Role-playing in a role-playing game =/= saying that the story is rubbish.  It is using the game for its intended purpose.

How is the writers intent irrelevant when the script shows the writers intent and the script incase you have forgotten is game content.The options you choose for "Your Warden" is also part of that script.

The writer's intent =/= game content.

The writer's intent may have created the game content, but the game content does not necessarily reflect all of the writer's intent nor is the writer's intent all that is available in the game.  Many writers will tell you that other people see a lot of things in their works that they did not necesarily intend to include at the time they were written.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

If you ignore the NPC's reactions then what is the whole point of the conversations in the 1st place its akin to waiting for the NPC's to speak then sticking your fingers in your ears and saying blah blah your opinions and feelings dont matter because they are conflicting with my imagination you may aswell to all intensive purposes play with all the sound off since as by playing the way you describe is effectively ignoring 50% of the whole story and replacing it with your own fabrication.

Who's ignoring the reactions?  I'm saying the NPC reactions tell us nothing about what the PC said.  The NPC reactions tell us about the NPCs, and how they react to what the PC said.  To believe that the NPC reactions can somehow invalidate the player's presumptions about how a given PC line was delivered requires belief in a necessary and immutable relationship between those two things, and full and complete knowledge of that relationship.  And that's absurd.

You don't know why other people do the things they do.  You have literally no idea how other people think.  As such, an NPC reaction you don't expect tells you nothing about the thing to which they are reacting, because you don't know why they reacted that way.

By choosing to play outside of the confines of the script your essentially saying that the story is rubbish because the fabrication in my head is better, the premise of playing an RPG is to play a role( singular) not roles(plural).You are from your description playing your role as the Warden and re writing every other role to fit in with you alteration of the original script.

The original script does not contain the PC's notives or intents.  That's my point.

As to you point about playing mutliple roles, I disagree with that, too, but it's not relevant to this discussion.

How is the writers intent irrelevant when the script shows the writers intent and the script incase you have forgotten is game content.The options you choose for "Your Warden" is also part of that script.

The script does not show the writers' intent.  This is the crux of our disagreement.

[jbrand2002uk]

the last post was a general post not addressed to anyone specific true i recall for example i think it was david gaider saying he thought fenris would have shoes/boots on however what i'm relating to is the written script dealing with speech not the visual actions of the characters which is done by a different team.

[jbrand2002uk]

I think we'll have to agreee to Disagree

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm content to disagree with you. I just want you to know what your position logically requires of you.

[Zetheria Tabris]

I strongly dislike DA2 for these reasons:

Unrealistic, fast combat - I don't know about anyone else, but everyone was dead before I could even think to use tactics. And why are mages so twirly with their pikes all of a sudden? (Whoever gets that Origins reference gets a cookie. )

Waves of enemies...falling from the sky? Really?

Can someone tell me WHY Merrill can't be a healer? You're forced to have Anders as a healer, even if you hate being around the guy.

Three acts of the story and bad timeline. It was three short stories to me - three really poorly written, boring short stories.

Lack of choice. I'm not opening that can of worms though.

Prologue. It was too short - I felt nothing when the sibling got killed because I didn't spend any time with them beforehand like I did with the Origin families. To be honest, I was expecting a little "hang out with your family" segment that was similiar in style to Fable. But I didn't, so I didn't care when Bethany got killed. I felt sadness when I saw Shianni got raped, that my Warden was too late to save her. I was pissed when Bhelen betrayed me, and so on and so forth.

Voiced protagonist and Mass Effect dialogue wheel. I was competely fine with Origin's method of dialogue - silent character and all. It gave me more options in roleplaying.

Lackluster characters. They're nowhere near as interesting as the Origin characters in my opinion. And I hate Merrill. So whiny and immature. Writer Redux, don't kill me for that!

Plus, why are the characters still with Hawke? They have no motivation whatsoever, except Merrill, I suppose, who still needs help with the mirror. And Anders, who uses Hawke to blow up the Chantry and start a war. Isabela was connected to Act 2. Varric could have left after the business with the Deep Roads was done. And speaking of Varric, why does he tag along with you before the events of the Deep Roads in Act 1? Had no reason to.

But why is Aveline with you? Fenris has absoutely no reason to stay in Kirkwall, let alone with Hawke - especially if Hawke is a mage. It makes no sense for him to stick around, considering it would make it that much easier for Denarius to find him. Him saying he's tired of running just seems like an excuse to me.

Hawke does absoutely nothing in the story - she just sits back while Isabela and Anders do damage in Act 2 and 3, then picks up the pieces. He's a pawn in everyone else's game. And he has no motivation to do what he does. After she becomes rich, why does she still go around adventuring? For ****s and giggles? I feel there is no purpose to his existence, not like there was with the Warden. In Origins, your character's purpose was to end the Blight. End of story.

Being confined to a few areas - Kirkwall felt more like a prison than a lively city. It's so dully colored and empty.

Recycled areas; come on Bioware, at least change the color scheme of the recycled areas in an attempt to fool us. That was just lazy.

Lack of customization in Hawke and companions. No. Just no.

Fake Anders. He's an imposter, roaming the streets of Kirkwall while the Awakening Anders we know and love has been hidden somewhere. Why? Why has his personality been completely changed? And don't give me that "Justice changed him" crap, I'm not buying it. Justice shouldn't have changed everything about him.

Basically to me, this game is the prime example of how the term "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," is so true. They took all the good things from Origins and just ripped them apart, only to give us crap in return. I played the game twice, first as a mage and as a rogue. I only disliked it even more the second go around, whereas in Origins I loved it more because I saw all the various choices my Warden could do. The game isn't horrible, it just shouldn't have been marketed as a sequel to DA1, like a lot of people have said.

Modifié par Zetheria Tabris, 12 mars 2012 - 08:31 .

[jbrand2002uk]

OMG u called merrill a name shoves his size 11 up Zetheria Tabris's butt and hands Writer Redux the shotgun lol

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


You don't know why other people do the things they do. You have literally no idea how other people think.  As such, an NPC reaction you don't expect tells you nothing about the thing to which they are reacting, because you don't know why they reacted that way.

Well, if I may jump in for a second, I don't know about you, but I *do* have some idea how other people think. It depends on a lot of things, of course, and I may not always be right, but it doesn't mean I can't have any idea how people think.

But don't mind me, I'm just argumentative that way.

The script does not show the writers' intent. This is the crux of our disagreement.

Well, truth be told, that is the topic of much discussion in literary circles.

[TEWR]

And I hate Merrill. So whiny and immature. Writer Redux, don't kill me for that!

*readies shotgun*

Looks like I have one more hunt to go on. It never ends.....

*dons hunting shades*

Just kidding!

Though I strongly disagree with calling her whiny and immature -- the former she doesn't exhibit at all -- I've grown tired of explaining my position. I recommend going onto one of many Merrill oriented threads where you can see my position on the matter -- assuming you haven't seen my posts before -- if you want to know what that position is.

Can someone tell me WHY Merrill can't be a healer? You're forced to have Anders as a healer, even if you hate being around the guy.

No real reason whatsoever, since the lore of DAO -- which carries over to DAII -- established that she knew healing magic, as taught by Marethari.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 12 mars 2012 - 09:26 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Well, if I may jump in for a second, I don't know about you, but I *do* have some idea how other people think. It depends on a lot of things, of course, and I may not always be right, but it doesn't mean I can't have any idea how people think.

At best, you have general ideas about their thoughts, and those ideas are wrong at least some of the time.  And most importantly, you cannot accurately predict when they will be wrong.

As such, when someone behaves in a way you don't expect, you cannot draw immediate firm conclusions about why they have done so, and be so confident in those decisions that you now question your own knowledge about what you just said.

That's the standard jbrand is applying, and it's ludicrous.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The script does not show the writers' intent. This is the crux of our disagreement.

Well, truth be told, that is the topic of much discussion in literary circles.

The dicussion in literary circles deals with whether the writer's intent should be taken into account when interpreting the authored content, not with whether the writer's intent actually exists within that content.

[TEWR]

I'm going to be completely honest here:

In regards to dialogue -- both PC choices and dialogue itself -- I have no clue what's being argued right now. I'm seriously very confuzled.

I thought I understood what was being argued -- and maybe I still do -- but my mind seems to be saying "No" in a Sten/Arishok voice right now.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 12 mars 2012 - 09:24 .

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The dicussion in literary circles deals with whether the writer's intent should be taken into account when interpreting the authored content, not with whether the writer's intent actually exists within that content.

True. But that's splitting hairs. I am fairly certain the poster you responded to misspoke. He was probably referring to interpreting the content, not saying that the author's intent is somehow present in letters on a sheet of paper (or a computer screen).

[Zetheria Tabris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And I hate Merrill. So whiny and immature. Writer Redux, don't kill me for that!

*readies shotgun*

Looks like I have one more hunt to go on. It never ends.....

*dons hunting shades*

Just kidding!

NO! *runs and hides*

I know you love her, I've seen plenty of posts of you defending her. I admire you for it - that's what I do when people get on Alistair.

[Elhanan]

Zetheria Tabris wrote... *See above*

And a few reason why I like DA2:

* Unrealistic fast combat is somewhat better than unrealistic slow combat;  do not miss the Vorpal baseball bats, and tedious climb for speed.

* Stave animations; Mages get some flair, too.

* Waves of enemies were challenging, though appearing from known hidey-holes would be better than raining men.

* Merrill gave up Healing her people for access to Blood Magic. Not a reason I like the game; consider this a freebie.

* Three well written Acts that combine into a well written story. IMO.

* No worms, and plenty of spiders.

* Time spent getting to know Mother and surviving sibling via family setting and Dog. And the Prologue saw the new Flemeth.

* Full VO; no more awkward silence when it is time for hawke to speak.

* Full rich characters, though less emphasis on sexual matters would be advisable (Sex =/= Romance). Aveline is proof of this; terrific writing though one may suffer a broken heart.

* Companions that are both friends and frienemies; not an entourage.

* Hawke; a leader and champion that was thrust into the events surrounding him/ her, and survived.

* Kirwall and surrounding areas; nice to know one spot of Ferelden a bit more now.

* Recognizable areas that do not drastically change in only a few years time.

* Iconic outfits; might be nice to alter colors and effects a bit more, but nice looks overall.

* Anders and Justice not just comic relief anymore.

To be honest, I do prefer DAO to DA2, but do not embrace everything of the prequel; Warden included. Some things were broken, and I really enjoyed some of the new fixes.

Modifié par Elhanan, 12 mars 2012 - 09:53 .

[Zetheria Tabris]

Elhanan wrote...

And a few reason why I like DA2: *snip*

I'll throw a bone, here; the combat in both games are two extremes. Too slow, too fast. But you can't deny that Origins combat is more realistic than flipping in heavy armor or causing someone to explode with just one hit.

The stave animations were cute, but a little over the top. It got old after a while.

Not challenging to me. Just annoying.

I personally think Act 2 and 3 would have been good if they were combined right.

I don't know what you mean about the worms and spiders?

I don't feel you get enough dialogue with them, or any companions for that matter. I wasn't connected to them at all, and felt nothing when they died.

I think having a voice should only be in Mass Effect. It just fits there, to me. Not Dragon Age.

That's what I forgot to talk about. Sex! It's ridiculous. At least in Origins it was awkwardly funny - you know, the underwear thing. Now it's nonexistant. But yes I'll agree with you on that, sex wasn't that big of a deal with DA2 romances, but I don't think it was in Origins either. And I don't care for Aveline, but I wish Varric was romancable. He's charming.

I don't like the friendship/rivalry system. The idea sounded nice on paper, but it wasn't executed correctly to me. I think they should find a way to have the friendship/rivalry and approval system from the first game.

Ferelden was one country, yes, but you had a lot of different regions to go to.

I think Kirkwall should have changed somewhat...depending on choices made.

I don't mind iconic outfits. Morrigan had one. I never changed her outfit, not once. I still would like the choice of giving my party better armor and equipment. Or at least, have them change outfits every act. It's hard to believe they wore the same thing for 10 years.

You're right, Anders isn't comic relief anymore. Now he's not funny at all. Complete personality change. I pretty much ignored Justice in Awakening, so no comment there.

Don't get me wrong, I do think some things in DA2 were well done. There just wasn't enough - I can count them on one hand.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The dicussion in literary circles deals with whether the writer's intent should be taken into account when interpreting the authored content, not with whether the writer's intent actually exists within that content.

True. But that's splitting hairs. I am fairly certain the poster you responded to misspoke. He was probably referring to interpreting the content, not saying that the author's intent is somehow present in letters on a sheet of paper (or a computer screen).

But that's a fundamental difference.  In one, I'm choosing not to incorporate the author's intent into my interpretation of the game's content because I prefer it that way.  In the other, I'm arbitrarily denying actual game content, no different from if I insisted that Fenris was actually a Genlock, or a Jedi Knight, or The Man from Snowy River, and the game was just rendering him incorrectly.

In one I'm denying explicit game content, and in the other I'm accepting all of the game's explicit content and playing within it.

[Elhanan]

Zetheria Tabris wrote... *snip*

I miss the Death scenes from DAO and prefer more realistic animations as a rule. But this is fantasy; not historical fiction, and some stave twirling and backflips are not too out of place. And exploding bodies were toned down in a Patch due to an error in crits, I believe.

As far as waves, prefer this over a Boss that must be kited for an hour. What I would like to see in the next game is more tactical decisions being offered to the Player for solutions.

I thought the Acts meshed well, though I would have liked to see a lot more of Orsino and Meredith in the first two Acts.

RE: worms; you did not wish to open a can of them, and I am trying to be somewhat humorous....

At first, I did not get the family dynamic either, as they are all suffering loss. But when I started clicking more on Dog in the home, many small tidbits may be gleaned about several characters, including a humorous gem from Anders



ME and DA2 are both tales about singular characters; full VO fits well. Now Origins told several tales of various wardens, and full VO there may not have been possible given the Dev Time of SWTOR.

For this game, I think the companion system works given that all had to stick around for a while, but also hope for more improvements in DA3. TOR has a decent one working; at least has me choosing my words somewhat cautiously at times, or expecting to see some reaction from those with opposing personalities. But I also pretend that I do not always speak my thoughts, so it all works out well for me.

I liked seeing Kirkwall; more so the outlying areas since I dislike cities as a rule. It was the story of civil war, the Qunari, and the companions that made it better for me. I dread metropolitan areas, and would dislike to see most setting stagnate in crowds and shops.

There were some alterations in Kirkwall, but admit many of these may only be viewed in cutscenes.

As one that had clothing in storage from HS, I do not pay much attention to fashions. A change of color, shields, and accessories is fine by me.

I liked the game, though I hold to the hope for even better in DA3.

Modifié par Elhanan, 12 mars 2012 - 10:51 .

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that's a fundamental difference.  In one, I'm choosing not to incorporate the author's intent into my interpretation of the game's content because I prefer it that way.  In the other, I'm arbitrarily denying actual game content, no different from if I insisted that Fenris was actually a Genlock, or a Jedi Knight, or The Man from Snowy River, and the game was just rendering him incorrectly.

You are not wrong. It is fundamental to literary criticism. But this conversation right here got started by jbrand saying, imprecisely and using the wrong words, but still quite clearly, that the authorial intent matters (to him, obviously) when playing the game. Whatever may be your position, it is true for him. So it really serves no purpose to hang onto the literal meaning of words and purposefully disregard what is obviously intended as jbrand's meaning.

It's arguing for argument's sake.

[Pasquale1234]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that's a fundamental difference.  In one, I'm choosing not to incorporate the author's intent into my interpretation of the game's content because I prefer it that way.  In the other, I'm arbitrarily denying actual game content, no different from if I insisted that Fenris was actually a Genlock, or a Jedi Knight, or The Man from Snowy River, and the game was just rendering him incorrectly.

You are not wrong. It is fundamental to literary criticism. But this conversation right here got started by jbrand saying, imprecisely and using the wrong words, but still quite clearly, that the authorial intent matters (to him, obviously) when playing the game. Whatever may be your position, it is true for him. So it really serves no purpose to hang onto the literal meaning of words and purposefully disregard what is obviously intended as jbrand's meaning.

It's arguing for argument's sake.

I don't think anyone is arguing about what is true for him in the way he chooses to play the game(s).

The problem (and need for argument) arises when jbrand misinterprets and attempts to invalidate someone else's playstyle using writer's intent as his primary argument.

[Mr Fixit]

Shall we stop with this silly one-upmanship?