138 réponses à ce sujet

[seraphymon]

Adrian68b wrote...

Maybe, seraphymon. Just think about this: the entire DA2 story was about religion and philosophy. The Chantry dogma and the mages, qunari vs human philosophy. Of course you could just explain it all before the next game. You will miss in that case the personal and emotional involvement (what it feels to lose a family member because he/she is a mage, or being made tranquil just because a Knight Commander don't like mages).

We are already aware most of the relationship between chantry and mages, prior to DA2, and the philosophy behind it, with of course varying exceptions depending on the type of people invovled specifically. Quinari was a bit of a new thing, but that wasnt really the overall major plot. Thing is there was no personal involvement, not for an outside POV. I didnt lose a family member for being a mage, nobody important to us was made tranquil. and its not even the first time coming across one either, and really it wasnt the knight commander who did it.

Adrian68b wrote...
Of course Bioware could have made a more heroic DA2, Hawke being the Hero who stopped the mage/templar conflict. But I suspect Bioware needed this outcome (Kirkwall Chantry destroyed, open mage/Chantry conflict in all Thedas) to stage the next DA3. It was obvious from the beginning.

that coulda have maybe worked if bioware planned on using hawke for future. but with an expansion canceled, and bioware wanting a new protag for major releases, it makes it pointless with all the interogation almost . to find out what what they already knew happened.

Adrian68b wrote...
Still, the feeling of being powerless in DA2 is real, in every acts (including Prologue). I suspect that was a major issue for many hardcore fans. Hawke is really powerless to save almost anybody important (except Bethany/Carver). One by one, his family dies out and the world around is turning in a nightmare. Bioware and David are playing with us emotionally, but it's really such a bad thing?

yes it is, when your expected and told by bioware that the city and world shapes by every decision you make. When the majority ends up the same good or bad. Really mostly all you decide is tone, with a few major changes here and there.

Adrian68b wrote...
I have some crazy ideas about DA plot, Seraphymon. Maybe it's just in my mind, but... First think about Flemeth involvement in DAO, DA2 and DA books. And she has some kind of prescience. What if she has some personal plot, and she needed Maric to encounter the Architect in order to unleash a Blight. Meantime she was preparing Morrigan to aquire a soul of an Old God. But she needed at least a living warden for that, so she saves Alistair and the PC in DAO. Then she needs an open conflict against the Chantry, and Hawke is just her tool (remember her dialogues with Hawke). In that view, the DA2 plot isn't just marketing

Flemeth in DA2 felt like such a dissapointment. Most though shed be a major character, and turns out, was nothing but more foreshadowing, of which we already knew from DAO and especially witch hunt. I feel she was a big marketing ploy, just to throw some bone linking from DAO.

Adrian68b wrote...
Also, remember Flemeth peculiar behavior in DA2 Prologue. She is ready to dismiss Hawke & Co, but when she learns that they plan to go to Kirkwall, she change her mind. And deliver her line...

that was not peculiar behavior once you knew what it was for. Going to kirkwall meant near the elves, so she was then able to trust them enough to furfill her wish, since apparently she knew what was gonna happen with the warden.

[NedPepper]

Adrian68b wrote...

Still, the feeling of being powerless in DA2 is real, in every acts (including Prologue). I suspect that was a major issue for many hardcore fans. Hawke is really powerless to save almost anybody important (except Bethany/Carver). One by one, his family dies out and the world around is turning in a nightmare. Bioware and David are playing with us emotionally, but it's really such a bad thing?

Absolutely not.  It's what makes DA2 so engaging.  You care.  You're helpless at times.  The game feels grounded in the best possible way, and yet still resonates as fantasy.  And, as I said before, I've never felt as connected to a character I was role playing as I did with my Hawkes.  All were very different and nuanced.  By having repsonsibility to family, it made every decision more important and vital.  It WAS innovative storytelling.  People should feel emotion playing a game.  And I felt more emotionially connected to Hawke than I ever did to my Warden.  I love my Wardens, don't get me wrong.  It's just different...and I love different.

[staindgrey]

nedpepper wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

Still, the feeling of being powerless in DA2 is real, in every acts (including Prologue). I suspect that was a major issue for many hardcore fans. Hawke is really powerless to save almost anybody important (except Bethany/Carver). One by one, his family dies out and the world around is turning in a nightmare. Bioware and David are playing with us emotionally, but it's really such a bad thing?

Absolutely not.  It's what makes DA2 so engaging.  You care.  You're helpless at times.  The game feels grounded in the best possible way, and yet still resonates as fantasy.  And, as I said before, I've never felt as connected to a character I was role playing as I did with my Hawkes.  All were very different and nuanced.  By having repsonsibility to family, it made every decision more important and vital.  It WAS innovative storytelling.  People should feel emotion playing a game.  And I felt more emotionially connected to Hawke than I ever did to my Warden.  I love my Wardens, don't get me wrong.  It's just different...and I love different.

While I wholeheartedly agree, I also understand the counter point of view.

DAO marketed itself as a game in which your character was basically your lens through which you see Ferelden. It was more about the world around you and saving that world. DAII, by contrast, was a character drama in which world events played out in mostly the exact same way, but the way in which you interacted with said world was entirely up to you. Your Hawke was special, but the events weren't.

Personally, I prefer a good character drama over a world exploration, but different people expect different things from this franchise. That radical of a shift in focus made a lot of people uneasy (clearly).

[Adrian68b]

Exactly. I, too love different. In DAO, the Warden was in some way detached emotionally. In every origin stories, the major deaths (family, friends) happened when the PC was absent. Lothering was destroyed only after the PC leaved. We witnessed only the deaths of Cailan and Duncan. In DA2 all the major loses happens with Hawke present. Also, Hawke's companions are in the same league. Aveline kills her husband, Varric is betrayed and then confront his brother, Anders is forced to kill his friend made tranquil, Fernis encounter his sister, Merrill kills her keeper. You as Hawke care more about your emotionally wounded companions. In DAO strangely Alistair care only for Duncan and is really detached about Cailan. I can understand that such an emotional involvement could be quite distressing for other players. And it's not exactly what they expected.
As for Flemeth future involvement, it's of course only my hope for a good story. I played every Bioware medieval RPG so far mainly because of their exquisite plots. As far I am able to guess, David Gaider likes to conceal major plot events, revealing only some minor warnings. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I don't care as long as the story in DA3 will be good.
As for Bioware claim about Hawke's actions, it's true from certain piont of view (quoting Obi-Wan from SW5). For instance Hawke's decision to go to the Deep Roads leads to the discovery of the Idol. I don't think that Bartrand alone could have done that (killing a mature dragon). Of course, the idol was discovered accidentally, Hawke or Varric had no knowledge about it. But the fact remains. Maybe Anders would have acted alone, but probably would have ended killed early in the events, or made tranquil.
I really understand your viewpoint, Seraphymon. Your expectation about an epic plot in DA2, fuelled by Bioware's anouncement was unfulfilled. Instead of a classic epical adventure, Bioware came with an emotional drama. But SW5 (The Empire Strikes Back) was exactly the same: a series of minor encounters setting the stage for the next big movie.
Bioware risked a lot with DA2. But that's what I like about Bioware. They dare to take risks. And I hope they will do it again.

Modifié par Adrian68b, 27 mars 2012 - 11:46 .

[Shevy]

If I have to choose between the 3 groups, I'll likely place myself in the middle of 1 and 2 because there a very few aspects I liked in DA II, but don't want everything back they did in Origins.

[Wulfram]

Helpless only works if it feels justified. Not if it seems to come from the game appearing to stop you doing obvious alternatives. And not if it feels like your failure comes from not trying.

[esper]

staindgrey wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

Still, the feeling of being powerless in DA2 is real, in every acts (including Prologue). I suspect that was a major issue for many hardcore fans. Hawke is really powerless to save almost anybody important (except Bethany/Carver). One by one, his family dies out and the world around is turning in a nightmare. Bioware and David are playing with us emotionally, but it's really such a bad thing?

Absolutely not.  It's what makes DA2 so engaging.  You care.  You're helpless at times.  The game feels grounded in the best possible way, and yet still resonates as fantasy.  And, as I said before, I've never felt as connected to a character I was role playing as I did with my Hawkes.  All were very different and nuanced.  By having repsonsibility to family, it made every decision more important and vital.  It WAS innovative storytelling.  People should feel emotion playing a game.  And I felt more emotionially connected to Hawke than I ever did to my Warden.  I love my Wardens, don't get me wrong.  It's just different...and I love different.

While I wholeheartedly agree, I also understand the counter point of view.

DAO marketed itself as a game in which your character was basically your lens through which you see Ferelden. It was more about the world around you and saving that world. DAII, by contrast, was a character drama in which world events played out in mostly the exact same way, but the way in which you interacted with said world was entirely up to you. Your Hawke was special, but the events weren't.

Personally, I prefer a good character drama over a world exploration, but different people expect different things from this franchise. That radical of a shift in focus made a lot of people uneasy (clearly).

I admit to like personal characther drama over world exploration too. In fact I don't care much about world exploration. I didn't feel attachted to my warden because of the 'god mode' and 'third options' solutions to every conflict. I don't get attachted to epic. If I don't get attached I don't care. Hawke on the other felt so human to me that I truely cared not just what happened to her companions, but to her as well.

[JeeWeeJ]

 

David Gaider wrote...

Games are also becoming more expensive to make, primarily because it's now possible to reach a larger audience than before. Targeting 1 million sales is fine, but it no longer means what it once did. For the average game 10 years ago, 1 million sales was phenomenal. These days, it's very much not-- when compared to the costs associated with making a game of "acceptable" quality comparable with other triple-A titles.

Should we be making games cheaper, and be satisfied with the same sales we got 10 years ago? Maybe. Maybe there's no chance of reaching a larger audience with the type of games we make, and it's a futile effort. Maybe it's irrelevant, since the fans (even the hardcore ones) will compare the games we make to other triple-A games made with bigger budgets regardless of the sales. 

Ooooh, now here's an interesting bit! I totally agree that games these days are getting more and more expensive, hell, I can still remember Wing Commander 3 which was horrendously expensive for it's time (a few million dollars i believe in 1994). And it's been getting worse ever since.

However, you can also ask the question: do games really have to be that expensive? Just look at the hype around the HD remake of the Baldurs Gate games, the new Wasteland project or Doublefine's kickstarter project. There seems to be quite a market for oldskool games! And the budget of these games are NOTHING compared to a game like COD of Mass Effect 3. But still, just look at all the hype they create! (or at least: among the potential buyers on a lot of gaming sites)

And that makes me wonder: why can't Bioware create a game where the focus is on what makes Bioware a great developer? Story and setting! Because what makes a game like Baldur's Gate still great to play? Not the graphics or the flashy CGI movies (they are pretty crap these days xD), no, it's the story thats being told and the great things that help tell that story (the epic music, the VO, the subtle humor, memorable characters etc).

So...why not make another GREAT 2D RPG (or (semi-)3D, if it fits the budget)? I think that can be done at a fraction of the price of current AAA games and I'm sure there will be plenty of people willing to buy it! You can still do the big budget games beside it.


More ontopic: when it comes to the "groups" as specified in the OP, I think I'd fall in between groups 1 and 2. I LOVE my oldskool RPG's, but progress has to be made. The thing is, in my taste DA2 changed WAY too much compared to DA:O. It was more like revolution instead of evolution, both in terms of gameplay (much faster action-gamey like) as in looks (why do qunari suddenly have horns??? Who forgot to feed the Elves??). Call me old fashioned but that bothered me quite a bit.

I am glad that people from the DA team are now actively taking part in the discussion though. There may be hope for me yet... 

Modifié par JeeWeeJ, 27 mars 2012 - 01:09 .

[Adrian68b]

About Nedpepper's classification: I am obviously in the 3'rd group. Still, I miss some gems from DAO.
For instance, in DA2 we had a master enchanter (Sandal) but not a master armorer. I liked the idea of personal companion armors, in fact so much that I installed Sunnie's armors in order to get the auto-leveling Champions armor. Of course it's underpowered for most of the game (compared with item pack or some in-game armors) but I don't care because of the looks and also because I feel it like a personalized armor. But a master armorer or blacksmith capable of enhancing armors and weapons could have been a nice option. So, instead of wearing some looted armors or weapons, you could carry them to the blacksmith for study. After that, he/she could enhance a bit the character's (or companion's) armor or weapon.
The same with specializations. A master swordsman or a mage hermit hidden somwhere near Kirkwall and able to teach combat techniques or spells could have been easily done. In DAO specializations had to be learned, and it was a great idea in my opinion.

[Uccio]

Mostly first, some aspects of the two are ok if implemented correctly.

[AkiKishi]

nedpepper wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

Still, the feeling of being powerless in DA2 is real, in every acts (including Prologue). I suspect that was a major issue for many hardcore fans. Hawke is really powerless to save almost anybody important (except Bethany/Carver). One by one, his family dies out and the world around is turning in a nightmare. Bioware and David are playing with us emotionally, but it's really such a bad thing?

Absolutely not.  It's what makes DA2 so engaging.  You care.  You're helpless at times.  The game feels grounded in the best possible way, and yet still resonates as fantasy.  And, as I said before, I've never felt as connected to a character I was role playing as I did with my Hawkes.  All were very different and nuanced.  By having repsonsibility to family, it made every decision more important and vital.  It WAS innovative storytelling.  People should feel emotion playing a game.  And I felt more emotionially connected to Hawke than I ever did to my Warden.  I love my Wardens, don't get me wrong.  It's just different...and I love different.

Biggest problem with DA2 is you know how it ends before it begins. You are railroaded to that conclusion and because it's already happened there is nothing you can do to change that. I did not care, I don't think I've cared less in any RPG I've played I got saddled with a plot device family (to aid the railroading).You can't write a plot that only works if people care because it's never a known factor. Most famous example of character death is probably Aeris in FFVII. But I never really cared too much about her, as a result it lacked impact. If on the other hand Sephiroth had skewered Tiffa I'd have tried to punch him through the screen or something.

Now if that were a Final Fantasy or Shining Force (first framed narrative as I recall) that would not be a problem. But in a game where you are supposed to be able to make a difference it is.

[Thor Rand Al]

nedpepper wrote...
Absolutely not.  It's what makes DA2 so engaging.  You care.  You're helpless at times.  The game feels grounded in the best possible way, and yet still resonates as fantasy.  And, as I said before, I've never felt as connected to a character I was role playing as I did with my Hawkes.  All were very different and nuanced.  By having repsonsibility to family, it made every decision more important and vital.  It WAS innovative storytelling.  People should feel emotion playing a game.  And I felt more emotionially connected to Hawke than I ever did to my Warden.  I love my Wardens, don't get me wrong.  It's just different...and I love different.

This, most definetly absolutely this.  The connection, the fact that I was literealy drawn into the game with Hawke and what they go through emotionally.  Yes I was drawn in at times with my Warden but nothing like I was with Hawke.  I felt more attached because the story was drawing me in litereally. 
I'm a hardcore fanstasy reader, I've read so many books and there are quite a few where I've litereally felt like I was being drawn into the story itself.  This is what DA2 did for me.  There were times that the Warden did it but again noting to how Hawke n their story drew me in, from the moment I had my first emotianal experience before leaving Ferelden to the end.  It drew me in and held me.  When Hawke would be sad so was I, when Hawke was angry I was too because you could see, hear it in Hawke.  That is one of the things that keeps me replaying DA2, that is one of the things I SO love about DA2.  And DA:O as much as I loved it didn't hold my interest as much as DA2 is.

But this is not the only reason I love DA2 so much, there are other things, other reasons.

[NedPepper]

Adrian68b wrote...

About Nedpepper's classification: I am obviously in the 3'rd group. Still, I miss some gems from DAO.
For instance, in DA2 we had a master enchanter (Sandal) but not a master armorer. I liked the idea of personal companion armors, in fact so much that I installed Sunnie's armors in order to get the auto-leveling Champions armor. Of course it's underpowered for most of the game (compared with item pack or some in-game armors) but I don't care because of the looks and also because I feel it like a personalized armor. But a master armorer or blacksmith capable of enhancing armors and weapons could have been a nice option. So, instead of wearing some looted armors or weapons, you could carry them to the blacksmith for study. After that, he/she could enhance a bit the character's (or companion's) armor or weapon.
The same with specializations. A master swordsman or a mage hermit hidden somwhere near Kirkwall and able to teach combat techniques or spells could have been easily done. In DAO specializations had to be learned, and it was a great idea in my opinion.

I do think there is room for improvement.  I think the game itself should present as many choices as possible.  Not that everything has to imported into a sequel.  I'm not so sure that's working as well as Bioware may have orignally thought.  But as long as your choices impact THE GAME you're playing up until the end, that's what really excites me. 

Ideas:

Choosing between two companions.  Imagine if you could only take Anders or Fenris.  The two refuse to work together and you can only choose one or the other, depending on how you are playing your character.  In a sense, if you pick Anders, Fenris becomes in some ways an antagonist.  That way, you keep both characters in the game and you're not wasting money by having a character "sitting out" so to speak.  I thought that would be interesting.

I'm also for more options for unlocking specializations.  I love a great NPC that is well written and adds to the gameplay.  Take the Mass Effect series:  Joker and Yeoman Chambers added a lot and I think the same with Cortez and Traynor.  (Diana Allers....not so much.)

Returning characters shouldn't just be cameos.  Weave them into the game as supporting characters.  Give them roles.  We all love Alistar and want to see him around. But give him something vital to do.  He's the King of Ferelden.  (On most games, at least....)  I love not knowing what Leliana is up to.  And don't be afraid to bring in Fiona.  Or Maric.  I've read your novels, David.  Something fishy happened to Maric....and I wouldn't mind Rhys popping up either.  (And even it's just one scene...I want to see Varric and Ogrhen together.  Do it for me.)

Create a new class that isn't a rogue, mage, or warrior.  I love the idea of a monk class.  Or separate assassins and rogues.  And I'm also for bringing back little specialties that are class specific, like stealing.

More murder knife scenarios.  Both good and bad.  They don't have to be as obvious as the Paragon and Renegade options in Mass Effect.  But I remember playing an evil mage in DA: O and stabbing that poor prisoner and thinking...you really can play an immoral sociopath.  You could PUNCH Isolde for God's sake. And what was the name of the overweight bartender in Redcliffe that ran from you only to get a knife in the back?  In Awakenings, you could kick that guy's cage and send him into the fiery hell below. I like the idea that in roleplaying in Dragon Age, your character doesn't have to be a hero at all.  I love those little touches.  But they don't always have to harsh.  Say your companion or an NPC is upset.  You could pat them on the back or give them a hug. Or shun them completely.  Little human touches. 

I'm all for more "exploration.'  Not pointless exploratioin, but simply filling out the world a little more.  Giving us a bigger scope.  I daresay DA 3 should go for broke.  Give us more than Orlais.  Send us to Antiva for a mission.  Let's see Tevinter.

I also think Hawke needs to have some kind of closure.  Even if we find out he or she, and the Warden, were murdered in some big conspiracy.

That brings me...to Flemeth and Morrigan.  Look, bringing them back?  You'll have to score some fanboy points. It's automatic.  They're important to this series.  People love them.

Give me another hour and I could come up with more.  I got me some ideas.

[NedPepper]

Thor Rand Al wrote...

nedpepper wrote...
Absolutely not.  It's what makes DA2 so engaging.  You care.  You're helpless at times.  The game feels grounded in the best possible way, and yet still resonates as fantasy.  And, as I said before, I've never felt as connected to a character I was role playing as I did with my Hawkes.  All were very different and nuanced.  By having repsonsibility to family, it made every decision more important and vital.  It WAS innovative storytelling.  People should feel emotion playing a game.  And I felt more emotionially connected to Hawke than I ever did to my Warden.  I love my Wardens, don't get me wrong.  It's just different...and I love different.

This, most definetly absolutely this.  The connection, the fact that I was literealy drawn into the game with Hawke and what they go through emotionally.  Yes I was drawn in at times with my Warden but nothing like I was with Hawke.  I felt more attached because the story was drawing me in litereally. 
I'm a hardcore fanstasy reader, I've read so many books and there are quite a few where I've litereally felt like I was being drawn into the story itself.  This is what DA2 did for me.  There were times that the Warden did it but again noting to how Hawke n their story drew me in, from the moment I had my first emotianal experience before leaving Ferelden to the end.  It drew me in and held me.  When Hawke would be sad so was I, when Hawke was angry I was too because you could see, hear it in Hawke.  That is one of the things that keeps me replaying DA2, that is one of the things I SO love about DA2.  And DA:O as much as I loved it didn't hold my interest as much as DA2 is.

But this is not the only reason I love DA2 so much, there are other things, other reasons.

My first playthrough of DA2 where a certian family member meets a certain killer?  I seriously got teary eyed.  To me, that means the game is working.

[Thor Rand Al]

nedpepper wrote...
I do think there is room for improvement.  I think the game itself should present as many choices as possible.  Not that everything has to imported into a sequel.  I'm not so sure that's working as well as Bioware may have orignally thought.  But as long as your choices impact THE GAME you're playing up until the end, that's what really excites me. 

Ideas:

Choosing between two companions.  Imagine if you could only take Anders or Fenris.  The two refuse to work together and you can only choose one or the other, depending on how you are playing your character.  In a sense, if you pick Anders, Fenris becomes in some ways an antagonist.  That way, you keep both characters in the game and you're not wasting money by having a character "sitting out" so to speak.  I thought that would be interesting.

I'm also for more options for unlocking specializations.  I love a great NPC that is well written and adds to the gameplay.  Take the Mass Effect series:  Joker and Yeoman Chambers added a lot and I think the same with Cortez and Traynor.  (Diana Allers....not so much.)

Returning characters shouldn't just be cameos.  Weave them into the game as supporting characters.  Give them roles.  We all love Alistar and want to see him around. But give him something vital to do.  He's the King of Ferelden.  (On most games, at least....)  I love not knowing what Leliana is up to.  And don't be afraid to bring in Fiona.  Or Maric.  I've read your novels, David.  Something fishy happened to Maric....and I wouldn't mind Rhys popping up either.  (And even it's just one scene...I want to see Varric and Ogrhen together.  Do it for me.)

Got to add Cole to that, most definitely LOL.

Create a new class that isn't a rogue, mage, or warrior.  I love the idea of a monk class.  Or separate assassins and rogues.  And I'm also for bringing back little specialties that are class specific, like stealing.

More murder knife scenarios.  Both good and bad.  They don't have to be as obvious as the Paragon and Renegade options in Mass Effect.  But I remember playing an evil mage in DA: O and stabbing that poor prisoner and thinking...you really can play an immoral sociopath.  You could PUNCH Isolde for God's sake. And what was the name of the overweight bartender in Redcliffe that ran from you only to get a knife in the back?  In Awakenings, you could kick that guy's cage and send him into the fiery hell below. I like the idea that in roleplaying in Dragon Age, your character doesn't have to be a hero at all.  I love those little touches.  But they don't always have to harsh.  Say your companion or an NPC is upset.  You could pat them on the back or give them a hug. Or shun them completely.  Little human touches. 

I'm all for more "exploration.'  Not pointless exploratioin, but simply filling out the world a little more.  Giving us a bigger scope.  I daresay DA 3 should go for broke.  Give us more than Orlais.  Send us to Antiva for a mission.  Let's see Tevinter.

I also think Hawke needs to have some kind of closure.  Even if we find out he or she, and the Warden, were murdered in some big conspiracy.

That brings me...to Flemeth and Morrigan.  Look, bringing them back?  You'll have to score some fanboy points. It's automatic.  They're important to this series.  People love them.

Give me another hour and I could come up with more.  I got me some ideas.

Very good idea's and I like, definitely the comfort idea but all in all these are good ideas.

Modifié par Thor Rand Al, 27 mars 2012 - 05:01 .

[Adrian68b]

Well, that's not an issue BobSmith101. I bet you had guessed from the beginning how DAO would end. It was obvious that you have to defeat the Archdemon. The fact that DA2 is a told story doesn't interfere with playing. Just Remember Icewind Dale. The only sure thing concerning Varric's tale is that both Hawke and Varric will survive the events. And it's not a big surprise. The only Bioware game so far that can possibly end with the PC's death was DAO.
Also, I like to play RPG's because I choose to be involved. Developing NPC's with emotional background is't a novelty for Bioware. They used it from BG series. But in DA2 the personal and emotional ties are much stronger. Sharing personal tragedies strengthen the links between companions. For instance playing BG2 I cared for Minsc, Jaheira, Anomen, Nalia and their loses. Because I played BG I cared more about Minsc and Jaheira and less for Anomen and Nalia. You simply care more about a character if you knew it before. Bioware was able to do this in DAO but in DA2 it was taken to a much better level. In DAO it was still distant. In DA2 was much better staged, with more interactions with the sacrificed character. Leandra, for instance. She wasn't a combat companion, but had enough in-game interactions with Hawke (in my case, at least) to be really missed.
Of course, all this is working only if you are pleased with the overall plot. If not, the involvement isn't working.

Modifié par Adrian68b, 27 mars 2012 - 05:15 .

[NedPepper]

Thor Rand Al wrote...
Got to add Cole to that, most definitely LOL.

Yeah, there's a lot of interesting places to go with that.  Changes the whole concept of demons and spirits. 

[Melca36]

I'm in Group 2

Though I won't say I was disappointed. I enjoyed the story and characters for the most part.

What annoyed me were the FedEx quests and how rushed ACT 3 was.

I also did not like the 15 minute jaunt in the Deep Roads. And I want to do MORE than just fight in the game.

I don't like things handed to me in a game. I think alot of gamers have gotten lazier as the years have changed.

[bEVEsthda]

Adrian68b wrote...

Well, that's not an issue. I bet you had guessed from the beginning how DAO would end. It was obvious that you have to defeat the Archdemon. The fact that DA2 is a told story doesn't interfere with playing. Just Remember Icewind Dale. The only sure thing concerning Varric's tale is that both Hawke and Varric will survive the events. And it's not a big surprise. The only Bioware game so far that can possibly end with the PC's death was DAO.
Also, I like to play RPG's because I choose to be involved. Developing NPC's with emotional background is't a novelty for Bioware. They used it from BG series. But in DA2 the personal and emotional ties are much stronger. Sharing personal tragedies strengthen the links between companions. For instance playing BG2 I cared for Minsc, Jaheira, Anomen, Nalia and their loses. Because I played BG I cared more about Minsc and Jaheira and less for Anomen and Nalia. You simply care more about a character if you knew it before. Bioware was able to do this in DAO but in DA2 it was taken to a much better level. In DAO it was still distant. In DA2 was much better staged, with more interactions with the sacrificed character.
Of course, all this is working only if you are pleased with the overall plot. If not, the involvement isn't working.

Now this is all great and fine.    ...- If one can perceive and experience things that way!   But being pleased with the overall plot is not the only thing affecting involvement.

1:  There's where the rest of how things are designed also comes into the picture. For instance, if one is too annoyed about having to treat the PC as a "hostile" protagonist, keeping suspicios and tight reigns, - and it still doesn't help! Then those things you were so impressed with, will pass by pretty much ignored. Because that's how the human mind works.

2: Then there's the possibility that some gamers might not be so terribly impressed with a game that gambles all it's emotional content coming from killing off eveyone's family. I mean, some could even perceive that as an easy, tacky and cheap trick. Let's do this in all Bioware's DA games and they're all great? Do you think that'll work? ...And we never knew Hawke's mother. The only thing that was in my mind in that scene was FF VII and Aires and I wasn't moved at all. Rather, I was muttering things about japanese melodrama.

3: Then some also vehemently deny that the emotional ties are stronger in DA2 than in DA:O, or that this is better staged in DA2. Many have said that even Hawke is too distant and lacking in background, as perceived by the player.
It might be better dialogued, some of the time. But that only works if you're able to find the dialogue immersive.
In DA:O the player have played, and thus shared, the protagonist's background. Also in DA:O, the PC and the party members have shared and endured genuine hardships together, Ostagar, Redcliffe, the Fade, the Deep Roads...
There's nothing like that in DA2. No ordeals. No epics. No sense of threats. No sense of grueling effort or exhaustion. No sense of desperation. All quests are quick, trivial and "fun", consolish ninja action. No emotional investment at all.
Even you should at least be able to agree on that we should have been experiencing Hawke's home, and then the chaos and horrors at Lothering, and the fleeing.

So that you found personal and emotional ties "much stronger" in DA2, is not an objective quality. Just think for a short moment, about what role play can experience in DA:O.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 27 mars 2012 - 06:18 .

[Adrian68b]

"And I want to do MORE than just fight in the game."

I agree, Melca36. I felt sometimes the same. DA2 is a CRPG and the fighting IS really good. Sadly there were too few non-combat quests, or peaceful solutions in DA2 (although some were just awesome!). And I don't mean puzzles, but mostly negotiations. I loved those in DAO. (ex. the negotiations between PC and Anora).

"I don't like things handed to me in a game."

Me neither. That can be easily solved with quests concerning the extra items (treasure hunting, or additional encounters.

[NedPepper]

Melca36 wrote...

I'm in Group 2

Though I won't say I was disappointed. I enjoyed the story and characters for the most part.

What annoyed me were the FedEx quests and how rushed ACT 3 was.

I also did not like the 15 minute jaunt in the Deep Roads. And I want to do MORE than just fight in the game.

I don't like things handed to me in a game. I think alot of gamers have gotten lazier as the years have changed.

And I agree with this.  To me, everything could have been a little more expanded.  Fleshed out.  That's where the whole "rush job" argument comes in.  And like most people, I thought the game could have benefited by having a fourth act.  It's still very bittersweet when it comes to DA2.  For many of us, it was a kind of feeling that an expansion could push a good game into a great game.  But, ready to move on, and I'm excited to see what DA 3 will bring us. All the pieces, from a storyline point are there to make an epic.   The challenge is appeasing the gameplay crowd, who all have very different ideas on how where the game should go.  As I originally said, there are the bring back Origin style completely people to the I'll take the Dragon Age 2 style with a few modifications.  (elimanting enemy spawns, teleporting, reuse of maps, you know the list.)

[bEVEsthda]

I'm not so sure the "bring back Origin completely people" are.
One might make them a disservice by calling them that. Because what I've seen all the time, is that people say they don't want another DA:O, don't want to repeat DA:O.
They want Bioware to go all the way back to Origin, right, - as a starting point!
So they want DA3 to be a sequel to DA:O, rather than a sequel to DA2.
That's how I have always interpreted things.

[NedPepper]

I just saw a quote in another thread where someone said, "Just go back to Origins completely and people will stop complaining." Then you had his supporters. That's where I get this from. I don't think I'm inventing it. There are those people. I've been arguing on this board since the game was released. They're out there.

The second group I mentioned are the broadest. They're the ones who want to see a more amalgation of the two games. I think most people on here fall into that group. But I don't think you can say group 1 doesn't exist. I think if you read the race thread, you can see what I'm talking about.

EDIT: Or it may the "Bioware why don't you know what we want" thread.   They all start to run together.

Modifié par nedpepper, 27 mars 2012 - 06:59 .

[PsychoBlonde]

David Gaider wrote...


We also happen to like our hardcore audience. It's hard not to like a group that is (usually) enthusiastic about what you make, and the ones more invested in it. They're paying the same amount as everyone else . . .

Yeah, provided EVERYONE ELSE bought all the books and DLC and the Collector's Edition months in advance AND bought an emergency backup copy because they thought EA lost their order . . .

What can I say?  I loves me some DA

[Adrian68b]

bEVEsthda you're right in your complain. Being a psychologist I know a little about how human mind works.
I felt exactly the same way when I played the DA2 demo. I downloaded it in the day it appeared and tried it immediately. I was utterly disappointed. I felt the action and the story rushed, the combat system a joke and the interactions just stupid. I deleted it immediately and put it out of my mind for three months. Then I realized the fact that I treated DA2 like DAO2 and decided to stop comparing DA2 with DAO. Bought the game and tried it at leisure. And it worked. The combat system worked once I figured it out. In fact, it worked beyond my expectations (my PC was a rogue). Reading carefully every piece of in-game information and replaying some cinematics when needed (Flemeth's, for instance) got me in the story. In this way, the story unfolded seamlessly.

When compared to DAO however, DA2 is something completely different. DAO was a large scale epic story with hundreds of NPC's, epic battles, major in-game consequences (settling two kings, defeating a Blight). The option for different origin background stories was a major hit.

In contrast DA2 it's a small game, concerning just one city with several factions and some qunari. Instead of an alliance you got a small family and some friends. In terms of proportions, there is no possible comparison between DAO and DA2.

So, in my opinion any attempt to compare DA2 and DAO will ruin DA2 playing. Treating DA2 as a different approach for RPG worked in my case.