51 réponses à ce sujet

[haroldhardluck]

[quote]Amycus89 wrote...
We apparently have different perspectives on what defines a "sequel", but DA2 is the second installment in the dragon age franchize. Which, as far as I know, makes it the sequel to its predecessor. [/quote]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. With novels, publishing chronology can be different from story chronology. A good example are the Miles Vorkosigan series by Lois McMaster Bujold where the books were not only published out of story sequence but included a series about how Miles' parents met and how he became crippled. It also include a novel about a planet of gay men with no connection to the main series other than one secondary character.

[quote]
As for bare bones? They stripped out many features from DA:O like the origins, races and character customization. Other features were oversimplified, like the equipment system. It's one thing if they want to have iconic looks, but there is NO reason why you shouldn't be able to at least let your companions wear new equipment that only changes your stats at the very least.[/quote]

As the first game of the DA universe, DAO had to include everything including the kitchen sink. As the second game, DA2 did not have to provide the player with all possibilities especially when it made no sense for the story.  The Hawke family includes Bethany who is a mage. This means the Hawkes could not be dwarven. The Amells were Kirkwall nobles. Given the anti-elf prejudice in Kirkwall this means that the Hawkes could not be elven. The story required that the Hawkes be human.

[quote]
Then we have the non-combat skills that were completely removed. Sure, the system in DA:O was long from perfect in this area, but it was better than simply removing it completely.[/quote]

Again we have to agree to disagree. The removal made the game much more playable and sensible.

[quote]And more than anything, the dialogue system was oversimplified. I'm not talking about the protagonist being voiced, but with how each dialogue "option" ended up being just the standard 3 tones, which basically all said the same thing, but in different ways.[/quote]

I totally disagree here. The presentation of the dialogue choices was different but you had the same number of choices. Many of the dialogue choices in DAO were 3 or fewer choices as well. And many of the choices in DA2 were more than 3 choices. Plus you had choices such as "Investigate" which led to even more choices. The DA2 system made the emotion of the dialogue much clearer. In DAO you really only knew which dialogue choices led to remomance by reading the spoilers here. In DA2 you knew immediately which choices would lead to a romance.


[quote]Plot holes? We have one big fat one from the moment you arrive in Kirkwall and onwards: We are beat over and over again about the templars oppression of mages, and yet the templars and everyone else are completely blind to you casting spells right in their face. In origins people often remarked on your magic use, even some special dialogue if you were a blood mage.[/quote]

This nonexistent hole is covered with the dialogue with Fenris. He is told that they are just one more mage among many. Blood mages do not carry a sign around their neck that says "blood mage". They have to cast blood magic spells for people to realize they are blood mages. You do not know Merrill is a blood mage when you first meet her until she summons the demon to open the barrier to the graveyard.

[quote]And apart from that, we have others as well. Like in the end of the second act, why couldn't help the qunari even if I always agreed with them in the dialogue and thought the others were wrong. In fact, why is Aveline not pissed at all after I didn't take her side?[/quote]

The quinari goal is conquest of Kirkwall and no matter how much you may agree with them, Hawke cannout allow that to happen. Aveline is pissed off but if you have cultivated her friendship, that is not enough to break it off. If you ask your real life friends, they can certainly point to things you have done that have pissed them off but not enough for them to break off the friendship.

[quote]And DA:O had several endings. ...
No matter what you do in DA2, you still end up fighting the same people, even in the exact same order. And you can without problems choose the final option in the end without regards to everything else you have done in the game. Heck, they didn't even take your romance into account, its always the same single companion that continues to travel with Hawke.[/quote]

How you resolve certain quests changes what happens in the next act. The variations in DA2 happen within the game and does not wait until the end. The rescue of the apostates in the cave can happen peacefully or violently. That will set up a quest in act 2 depending on which option you chose. And the options depend on who is exactly in your party. The personality of your character also makes certain options available or not throughout the game. A consistently violent Hawke gets certain options that a peaceful Hawke will not get. So there is plenty of variation but they all happen in the game and not at the end.

The final ending is a bit contrived because it is set up so it does not matter whose side you chose. You always end up fighting everyone.

Harold







[/quote]

[Chrumpek]

Dragon age origins is a total package RPG, it has everything , go and play it now.
DA2 is a pass tho, if you get a bargain then play it but otherwise just forget about it.

[Tommyspa]

Elton John is dead wrote...

^
Was it? I don't remember any plot holes.

The non-warden companions being immune to the taint even though they are neck deep in darkspawn the whole game is obvious, just to point out one. Plot armor away. I don't have a problem with it. But you know, shouldn't be blind to it.

[Amycus89]

[quote]haroldhardluck wrote...

[quote]
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. With novels, publishing chronology can be different from story chronology. A good example are the Miles Vorkosigan series by Lois McMaster Bujold where the books were not only published out of story sequence but included a series about how Miles' parents met and how he became crippled. It also include a novel about a planet of gay men with no connection to the main series other than one secondary character.
[/quote] 
Um, yeah we probably have to. Maybe you missed the quote I made in my previous post, but DA2 was, and still is being marketed as the sequal to DA:O. If we assume that you are right and that it wasn't a sequal, then I think that Bioware has a bigger problem right now with false advertising. The previous quote "
Experience the epic sequel to the 2009 Game of the Year from the critically acclaimed makers of Dragon Age: Origins " can be found on the Origin store's own description of DA2. If that doesn't officialy make it a sequal, I don't know what does.

[quote]
As the first game of the DA universe, DAO had to include everything including the kitchen sink. As the second game, DA2 did not have to provide the player with all possibilities especially when it made no sense for the story.  The Hawke family includes Bethany who is a mage. This means the Hawkes could not be dwarven. The Amells were Kirkwall nobles. Given the anti-elf prejudice in Kirkwall this means that the Hawkes could not be elven. The story required that the Hawkes be human.
[/quote] 
...I assume that you have missed all the other previous games with racial choice that simply solves that by making you adopted? Jokes aside, why wouldn't the race of your family members be subject to change, when their skin tint, faces and hair changed depending on how you made your own hawke?

That being said, I can understand if they wanted to make a more specific and personal story, where it might be hard to make racial options without the story changes feeling "tacked-on". But even so, playing a mage for example, should lead to larger story changes than playing a rogue or warrior (prior to playing the game, I actually expected that they simply made only 3 "origins", one for each class, that would give the same amount of variation to the story, if not more, as the origins in DA:O).

[quote] 
Again we have to agree to disagree. The removal made the game much more playable and sensible.[/quote]  
yup, we really have to agree to disagree on this. I take it you thought that simply removing the inventory system completely in Me2 was a brilliant move as well, then?
[quote]
[/quote] [quote]  
I totally disagree here. The presentation of the dialogue choices was different but you had the same number of choices. Many of the dialogue choices in DAO were 3 or fewer choices as well. And many of the choices in DA2 were more than 3 choices. Plus you had choices such as "Investigate" which led to even more choices. The DA2 system made the emotion of the dialogue much clearer. In DAO you really only knew which dialogue choices led to remomance by reading the spoilers here. In DA2 you knew immediately which choices would lead to a romance.
[/quote] 
...and yet I couldn't tell anders that I wasn't interested in a romance with him without pissing him off. AND my Hawke always said something completely different from what I wanted him to. AND (since this was apparently unclear to you in my previous post) you always only had 3 dialogue options with the same 3 tones (diplomatic/sarcastic/evil), in the same place of the radial wheel as well. All this lead to that one simply picked a respone depending on symbols instead of actually reading, and therefore thinking, of what you say.

The dialogue system is the most important part in an RPG for me, and this part was especially bad in DA2. It made me HATE MY OWN CHARACTER, a feat only DA2 have managed, and something that shoulkd never happen in an RPG (or any game, for that matter).


[quote]Plot holes? We have one big fat one from the moment you arrive in Kirkwall and onwards: We are beat over and over again about the templars oppression of mages, and yet the templars and everyone else are completely blind to you casting spells right in their face. In origins people often remarked on your magic use, even some special dialogue if you were a blood mage.[/quote]

 [quote]   This nonexistent hole is covered with the dialogue with Fenris. He is told that they are just one more mage among many. Blood mages do not carry a sign around their neck that says "blood mage". They have to cast blood magic spells for people to realize they are blood mages. You do not know Merrill is a blood mage when you first meet her until she summons the demon to open the barrier to the graveyard.
[/quote]  
No, it isn't covered with the dialogue from Fenris, when all the other mage NPCs never shuts up about how the templars are constantly looking for apostates. Also:

I rest my case.
[quote]
[/quote] [quote]   
The quinari goal is conquest of Kirkwall and no matter how much you may agree with them, Hawke cannout allow that to happen. Aveline is pissed off but if you have cultivated her friendship, that is not enough to break it off. If you ask your real life friends, they can certainly point to things you have done that have pissed them off but not enough for them to break off the friendship.
[/quote]   
Why not? I might think that Kirkwall would be better under their rule. I think that they were right about the elves, and would have supported them if I could. 

And about Aveline, usually you would at least question my judgement if I just take "the enemy's" side. Yet she just ignored it completely without giving any comment about it.

And as for the ending, if you didn't have any problem with how it was executed in DA2 I assume that you loved ME3? It was basically the same ending, except that you only got 2 meaningless choices here, and no colour variations.

[TEWR]

Elton John is dead wrote...

^
Was it? I don't remember any plot holes.

Dwarf Nobles being unable to take the throne of Orzammar when Orzammar's own political structure and societal culture allows for it was a pretty massive plot hole.

[AlexJK]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Dwarf Nobles being unable to take the throne of Orzammar when Orzammar's own political structure and societal culture allows for it was a pretty massive plot hole.

An exiled, surfacer dwarf could have taken the throne over the surviving heir, or a well-loved and trusted Lord of Orzammar?

[TEWR]

AlexJK wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Dwarf Nobles being unable to take the throne of Orzammar when Orzammar's own political structure and societal culture allows for it was a pretty massive plot hole.

An exiled, surfacer dwarf could have taken the throne over the surviving heir, or a well-loved and trusted Lord of Orzammar?

Yes. Gherlen the Blood Risen was casteless and a surface Dwarf yet took the throne before -- there's an actual mountain road called Gherlen's Pass that validates Rica's claims -- and the entire societal structure of Orzammar allows for it.

http://social.biowar...ndex/8043338/34

This thread has me give everything from Orzammar's history and structure that supports the option. About 3/4 of the page is devoted to me proving how it's a plot hole by using evidence given from the games about Orzammar itself.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 avril 2012 - 01:51 .

[AlexJK]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Yes. Gherlen the Blood Risen was casteless and a surface Dwarf yet took the throne before -- there's an actual mountain road called Gherlen's Pass that validates Rica's claims -- and the entire societal structure of Orzammar allows for it.

http://social.biowar...ndex/8043338/34

This thread has me give everything from Orzammar's history and structure that supports the option. About 3/4 of the page is devoted to me proving how it's a plot hole by using evidence given from the games about Orzammar itself.

Not sure I agree, but very interesting! And absence of an available action doesn't necessarily constitute a plot hole of course...

Modifié par AlexJK, 25 avril 2012 - 03:35 .

[TEWR]

AlexJK wrote...

Not sure I agree, but very interesting! And absence of an available action doesn't necessarily constitute a plot hole of course...

A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.

It's an unlikely behavior and action on the part of my Warden, especially when the game chalks me up to being politically savvy in the opening segments.

I consider it a plot hole because I'm not given a reason why it's not an option, but I'm given loads of sources that help support why the option should be available.

Or it's a very poor and contrived "but thou must" that falls apart, similar to Petrice.

Either way, it is the biggest flaw I can find with DAO that ends up undermining and detracting from Jennifer Hepler's work on A Paragon of Her Kind. As such, anytime I play a Dwarf Noble I can only see the quest as "meh" rather then "superb".

For other origin stories, it is superb. For a Dwarf Noble, it's just.... bad.

[ChaosAgentLoki]

To answer the OP's question. Yes, Dragon Age is worth your time. Origins is the better of the two games and is definitely worth a play (not that I can force you to play it). 2 is the controversial one, but I still recommend it as I personally enjoy it. However, it is subjective to you. Playing the demo is honestly my best suggestion when contemplating DA2. It gives you about an hour's worth of playtime (or more...I'm not really sure) and (for me at least) proved helpful in determining whether I purchased it or not.

Like others have stated though, it all comes down to you. If you want to play these games, then go right ahead, I believe they are totally worth it. However, if you're not sure, then don't force yourself to do something you don't want to. It's not worth spending money when you're not certain.

Modifié par ChaosAgentLoki, 25 avril 2012 - 05:01 .

[Davillo]

Yes you should, and start with Dragon Age: Origins off-course.

[haroldhardluck]

Tommyspa wrote...
The non-warden companions being immune to the taint even though they are neck deep in darkspawn the whole game is obvious, just to point out one. Plot armor away. I don't have a problem with it. But you know, shouldn't be blind to it.

Everyone who has to survive for the game to proceed is immune to the taint. This is not a plot hole but a plot convention. In any story, the story teller determines who lives and who dies. That is the convention of all story telling.

Harold

[haroldhardluck]

Amycus89 wrote...
Um, yeah we probably have to. Maybe you missed the quote I made in my previous post, but DA2 was, and still is being marketed as the sequal to DA:O. If we assume that you are right and that it wasn't a sequal, then I think that Bioware has a bigger problem right now with false advertising. The previous quote "
Experience the epic sequel to the 2009 Game of the Year from the critically acclaimed makers of Dragon Age: Origins " can be found on the Origin store's own description of DA2. If that doesn't officialy make it a sequal, I don't know what does.

If you chose to believe marketing hype, that is your problem. No matter what the marketing department says in its hype, DA2 is no sequel.

Harold

[haroldhardluck]

Amycus89 wrote...
Why not? I might think that Kirkwall would be better under their rule. I think that they were right about the elves, and would have supported them if I could.

In one of the dialogues with the quinari, Hawke asks if what they provide is integration or slavery. Quinari society strikes me as one where you either totally accept all its rules or you are excommunicated. It is a society that tolerates no deviation from orthodoxy. The Free Marches are a collection of city states that revel in their diversity. This is a diversity that would end under the quinari.

And as for the ending, if you didn't have any problem with how it was executed in DA2 I assume that you loved ME3? It was basically the same ending, except that you only got 2 meaningless choices here, and no colour variations.

As I stated before, the ending is weak because you have to fight everyone even though you have to chose one side and should have that side fighting with you. Unlike the ending of DAO which equivocated about whether there would be a sequel, the ending of DA2 makes no bones that there will be a sequel. The ending of ME3 was supposed to the finale of a trilogy. That is what made the ending of ME3 so bad. However the ending of the DA trilogy is yet to come.

Harold

[LinksOcarina]

Eh...

I say form your own conclusion while playing them. Both games have good and bad points to them and it is worth a go around since the series follows a non-linear narrative anyway.

[Saberchic]

I'd definitely get DA:O. I've played that so many times it's crazy. DA2 I was disappointed with (combat was better though). It has its good parts but it definitely fell short of the awesomeness that was DA:O.

So DAO is a buy. DA2 should be a rental to see if it's your thing.

[Tommyspa]

haroldhardluck wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...
The non-warden companions being immune to the taint even though they are neck deep in darkspawn the whole game is obvious, just to point out one. Plot armor away. I don't have a problem with it. But you know, shouldn't be blind to it.

Everyone who has to survive for the game to proceed is immune to the taint. This is not a plot hole but a plot convention. In any story, the story teller determines who lives and who dies. That is the convention of all story telling.

Harold

You really trying to explain that with semantics? Damn the actual logic of taint sickness being used as a story telling aspect for Ruck/Carver/Bethany/Adria/and so on. Companions get immune for plot conventions!

[Halberd96]

Depends on what games you like really, but I think you should try it out. Start with DA:O and try not to expect DA 2 to be too good (a lot of people don't like it, some do, and some enjoyed it but didn't like it too much)

[AlexJK]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.

Yes, and the wikipedia quote goes on to say, with my emphasis added underlined:

While many stories have unanswered questions, unlikely events or chance occurrences, a plot hole is one that is essential to the story's outcome. Plot holes are usually seen as weaknesses or flaws in a story, and writers usually try to avoid them to make their stories seem as realistic as possible. However, certain genres (and some media) which require or allow suspension of disbelief are more tolerant of plot holes.

This aside, I stand by my statement: the absence of an action which could logically have been available does not constitute a plot hole. After the battle of Ostagar, it wasn't an option for my human noble to abandon all intentions of stopping the Blight and instead focus on tracking down Arl Howe and taking revenge for my family. That's a perfectly logical thing for me to have done, correct? But the absence of that choice isn't a plot hole - it's just not a choice available in the story.

Modifié par AlexJK, 26 avril 2012 - 03:39 .

[Fast Jimmy]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

AlexJK wrote...

Not sure I agree, but very interesting! And absence of an available action doesn't necessarily constitute a plot hole of course...

A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.

It's an unlikely behavior and action on the part of my Warden, especially when the game chalks me up to being politically savvy in the opening segments.

I consider it a plot hole because I'm not given a reason why it's not an option, but I'm given loads of sources that help support why the option should be available.

Or it's a very poor and contrived "but thou must" that falls apart, similar to Petrice.

Either way, it is the biggest flaw I can find with DAO that ends up undermining and detracting from Jennifer Hepler's work on A Paragon of Her Kind. As such, anytime I play a Dwarf Noble I can only see the quest as "meh" rather then "superb".

For other origin stories, it is superb. For a Dwarf Noble, it's just.... bad.

I think the issue is that your Warden, being politically savvy, knows that to wrangle all of Orzamar under his thumb, even with the crown of a Paragon, would be problematic. S/he'd have to deal with Dwarven politics to gather its army, leaving them unable to chase down other sources of help in the game. Essentially, its more help to fighting the Blight to leave another Dwarf in charge as king to gather Orzamar's amies under its banner while you continue gathering the strength of the other nations rather than having only the dwarves under your command when you go to fight the Darkspawn.

Besides, there is no way anyone would ever let someone who is a Grey Warden take the throne of a country. I mean, what's next... are they going to try and put ALLISTAIR in charge of a country? 

[TEWR]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think the issue is that your Warden, being politically savvy, knows that to wrangle all of Orzamar under his thumb, even with the crown of a Paragon, would be problematic. S/he'd have to deal with Dwarven politics to gather its army, leaving them unable to chase down other sources of help in the game. Essentially, its more help to fighting the Blight to leave another Dwarf in charge as king to gather Orzamar's amies under its banner while you continue gathering the strength of the other nations rather than having only the dwarves under your command when you go to fight the Darkspawn.

There's no reason I can't still traverse the countryside gaining allies. Maybe I leave the kingdom under the temporary rule of someone until the Blight is defeated. Or maybe I do a few Assembly related quests that allow me to make decisions that will carry forward while I'm out in the Fereldan countryside.

And I still end up being the leader of the amassed forces

Besides, there is no way anyone would ever let someone who is a Grey Warden take the throne of a country. I mean, what's next... are they going to try and put ALLISTAIR in charge of a country?

Exactly! I mean, who would ever think that a Grey Warden could take the throne? Not like that's ever been done in the games before.

It's crazy to even think that!

AlexJK wrote...

This aside, I stand by my statement: the absence of an action which could logically have been available does not constitute a plot hole. After the battle of Ostagar, it wasn't an option for my human noble to abandon all intentions of stopping the Blight and instead focus on tracking down Arl Howe and taking revenge for my family. That's a perfectly logical thing for me to have done, correct? But the absence of that choice isn't a plot hole - it's just not a choice available in the story

But you're given a fairly solid reason for why you can't do that.

You have no clue where Arl Howe is at currently. And when you do, you're given the perfect opportunity to exact revenge.

Dwarf Nobles aren't given anything to say why they can't take the throne, while they're given everything to support the option.

So plot hole, but thou must, or a massive oversight by the devs. Whatever it is doesn't matter.

What matters is that it's a massive flaw of the game and it's an option that should be available.

[haroldhardluck]

Tommyspa wrote...
You really trying to explain that with semantics? Damn the actual logic of taint sickness being used as a story telling aspect for Ruck/Carver/Bethany/Adria/and so on. Companions get immune for plot conventions!

If you do not understand it then you do not want to understand it and no amount of semantics will make you understand it.
You are just being argumentative and there is no further discussion possible with you until you become reasonable again.

Harold

[Sutekh]

Tommyspa wrote...
The non-warden companions being immune to the taint even though they are neck deep in darkspawn the whole game is obvious, just to point out one. Plot armor away. I don't have a problem with it. But you know, shouldn't be blind to it.

That falls under Suspension of Disbelief, IMHO. Those tiny (or not so tiny) inconsistencies without which the plot would be either unmanageable, or couldn't exist to start with. You can grumble against them endlessly (like my father does when watching a disaster flick - never watch disaster movies with scientists) or swallow them, and have fun. I prefer having fun 

A plot hole is more something that throws a wrench in the plot mechanism. I have no example from DAO that comes to mind (sorry, Ethereal, didn't play a dwarf), which doesn't mean there isn't any. From DA2, the Templars obliviousness to Hawke's magic or the inability to turn on Anders can be considered so, or an extreme case of "Suspension of Disbelief Needed Here".

[Amycus89]

haroldhardluck wrote...
You are just being argumentative and there is no further discussion possible with you until you become reasonable again.

Harold

Um, you sure you aren't talking about yourself? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you, if anyone, is the one who is just being argumentative here.

I don't agree with your opinions, and don't see any real reasoning behind them. Sorry, I don't. But its still your own opinion, and I can respect that. But don't try to end a discussion when someone else are explaining their reasoning with events that are facts.

Your own reasoning in this debate so far has been YOUR OWN OPINION of plot holes being perfectly reasonable for the sake of the story. And here you are accusing someone else "of being argumentative" that won't see reason.

And althought  love DA:O, I actually have to agree that your companions being immune to the taint is a plothole, if a very small one. On one hand, the guy at Ostagar tells you to be careful of the darkspawn corpse, and that they will have to burn it before it infects anyone else. It is also mentioned in the Dalish elf origin, (and in the deeproads of DA2) but we are never given a clear explanation why the king or anyone else seems to fear the taint.

It's like they can't decide how contagious the taint really is. And it would have been so easily to fix this problem by simply explaining that it is possible to cure if treated in time, or similar.

haroldhardluck wrote... 
"If you chose to believe marketing hype, that is your problem. No matter what the marketing department says in its hype, DA2 is no sequel.

Harold "

 
It's not something from the "marketing hype", it's how Bioware describes the product TODAY. The quote, once again, "
Experience the epic sequel to the 2009 Game of the Year from the critically acclaimed makers of Dragon Age: Origins " ", was taken from the Origin store. And no, that's not my problem. If we assume that you are right and DA2 isn't a sequal DESPITE that they market it as such, then that IS EAwares problem, because that means that they are guilty of false advertising which, surprise, is illegal.

Modifié par Amycus89, 27 avril 2012 - 10:13 .