122 réponses à ce sujet

[hussey 92]

Vormaerin wrote...

schalafi wrote...

Maybe it was supposed to add drama, but I think it was just another method of cost cutting.

I gather that you hate al things Bioware these days, but can we at least have conspiracy theories that make some sense?  All the voice acting for both siblings for all the quests is in the game.  What costs are you cutting?  A couple carver to bethany cutscenes, at most?

Well with the re-used environments, the fixed companion armor and the removal of race selection, Bioware clearly did do alot of cost cutting in DA2.  So it's not crazy to think they killed off one of the siblings for less cutscenes

Modifié par hussey 92, 22 mai 2012 - 05:16 .

[AkiKishi]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I never felt very bad about losing Bethany or Carver because I never really knew Bethany or Carver (especially on the first playthrough). I felt bad about Leandra feeling bad, but the Hawke kiddos were like complete strangers to me.

This scene was actually probably the first time that I realized Hawke wasn't going to be my character. She had her own epic escape (and possibly war) story going on before I ever entered the picture. Feeling manipulated through the clever use of music and voice acting into grieving someone I've had 5 minutes' interaction with made me feel more like a stranger to the Hawke family, rather than a member of them. It felt like a very private family moment I was intruding on.

The best way to hit the player is through gameplay. Even if they don't feel the loss on a personal level, they will have to readjust to not having the character. You can't do that after 5 minutes.
When a certain someone was removed from Xenoblade after around 10 hours at the end of the prologue (it's a 160 hour+ game) I felt it keenly. I'd gotten used to the character, they had a good scene and it reduced my party from 3 to 2 so I really felt like something was missing on every level.

[robertthebard]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Look at it through Hawke's eyes, not your own.

Hawke has no eyes. He has no feeling. He is a cartoon designed to be role-played by players. His eyes and emotion comes from Dev's assumption or player themselves. You can follow dev's eyes but most roleplayers prefer to do that on their own because it's them who assume the character's role. Not the dev. Otherwise, Hawke is no better than any characters in other games like Super Mario whom the character just play out by itself..

Did you ever play D&D?  I played for years, with no avatar at all, and I did not live the 700 years that my first elven toon started adventuring at.  I take it that you found the Human Noble and City Elf origins to be just as contrived?  Considering you knew your fiancee for far less time than you actually knew the sibling that dies, and the same can be said for the HN's family.  Point being, you're playing a role, and you're not starting at the beginning.  However, the character you are playing is assumed to have done just that.  You may find the loss insignificant, but it's you finding it that way.  Most role players understand that they didn't start the character at the embryo stage, and spend 20 years or so living it's life to become emotionally invested in the character.  Most role players understand that they are coming in in the middle of a story, and have to gauge relationships with family members, if they are presented at all, based on responses given to choose from.

I'm having a hard time running my mage character, because I can't stand Carver.  Funny isn't it, considering I am just barely into chapter 1.  Bethany's dead:  Yay, one less Apostate in the world.    That's the way he comes off, barely 5 minutes into the game.

[Uccio]

areuexperienced wrote...

I think restrictions on companion classes are justified. Roleplay your character all you want but the NPCs should have their own distinct personalities and attributes, just like in real life, where you can't just make your friends be the way you want them.

This is something I just cannot understand. How does it prevent you from playing the game if I can stat my mage to wear armor or make a dual vielding rogue? Why are you suggesting restrictions to other players if you for some reason are into hand holding? I mean, by all means do restrict your own gameplay as much as you like, but please do not think that others somehow are into it.
In real life I can pic up a bow or a sword should the need arise even I went through modern army where we were trained to shoot with assault rifles and such.

[Reidbynature]

robertthebard wrote...

I'm not sure what your post was about, since I don't want to have my game ruined by reading it, so it must not have been very important.

Is this supposed to be a put down?  It doesn't seem to make any sense.  You didn't read it, therefore it's not important?  Strange.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

robertthebard wrote...
Did you ever play D&D?

I played all TSR and SSI's D&D RPG and BioWare's Neverwinter Night D&D. 

robertthebard wrote...

I played for years, with no avatar at all, and I did not live the 700 years that my first elven toon started adventuring at.  I take it that you found the Human Noble and City Elf origins to be just as contrived? Considering you knew your fiancee for far less time than you actually knew the sibling that dies, and the same can be said for the HN's family.  Point being, you're playing a role, and you're not starting at the beginning.  However, the character you are playing is assumed to have done just that.  You may find the loss insignificant, but it's you finding it that way.  Most role players understand that they didn't start the character at the embryo stage, and spend 20 years or so living it's life to become emotionally invested in the character.  Most role players understand that they are coming in in the middle of a story, and have to gauge relationships with family members, if they are presented at all, based on responses given to choose from.

 I have no clue why you bring up origin. But to reply your post, here's my opinion regarding D&D and character creation. I create my own back story everytime I create a character. I write quick and short past experience based on my starting point in game. I did the same when I created Cousland, Mahariel and every characters I created. I knew who, what, how, why and when my characters did all the things at starting point and before that.  It doesn't matter  if the character live for infinite years like god. I knew my character very well. I don't know NPCs even if they're suppose to be my family because I have no clue about their personality. It's not my job to define NPC like Carver, Bethany and Leandra. It's dev's job. 

You do aware that defining origin is part of character creation? 

The problem with Hawke is his background has already been given through codex entry. There is nothing wrong with it but you cannot create Hawke from "embryo" because most of his life are already defined by the developer. So it's either you're forced to play along with developer creation or work your way through such limitation.

So back to my earlier post, Hawke is cartoon that has no view and emotion on it's own. If you don't believe me, just don't pick any response when there's a dialogue and you would see he would stand there doing nothing like a trunk. His view and emotion come from either dev's view or players themselves. In RPG, when you're suppose to assume the role of a character you're suppose to think and feel like one and not follow what been defined by dev. Otherwise you may as well "roleplay" any characters in Dynatsy Warriors or Super Mario because all this characters are defined by developers.  

   

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 22 mai 2012 - 03:03 .

[robertthebard]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
Did you ever play D&D?

I played all TSR and SSI's D&D RPG and BioWare's Neverwinter Night D&D. 

robertthebard wrote...

I played for years, with no avatar at all, and I did not live the 700 years that my first elven toon started adventuring at.  I take it that you found the Human Noble and City Elf origins to be just as contrived? Considering you knew your fiancee for far less time than you actually knew the sibling that dies, and the same can be said for the HN's family.  Point being, you're playing a role, and you're not starting at the beginning.  However, the character you are playing is assumed to have done just that.  You may find the loss insignificant, but it's you finding it that way.  Most role players understand that they didn't start the character at the embryo stage, and spend 20 years or so living it's life to become emotionally invested in the character.  Most role players understand that they are coming in in the middle of a story, and have to gauge relationships with family members, if they are presented at all, based on responses given to choose from.

 I have no clue why you bring up origin. But to reply your post, here's my opinion regarding D&D and character creation. I create my own back story everytime I create a character. I write quick and short past experience based on my starting point in game. I did the same when I created Cousland, Mahariel and every characters I created. I knew who, what, how, why and when my characters did all the things at starting point and before that.  It doesn't matter  if the character live for infinite years like god. I knew my character very well. I don't know NPCs even if they're suppose to be my family because I have no clue about their personality. It's not my job to define NPC like Carver, Bethany and Leandra. It's dev's job. 

You do aware that defining origin is part of character creation? 

The problem with Hawke is his background has already been given through codex entry. There is nothing wrong with it but you cannot create Hawke from "embryo" because most of his life are already defined by the developer. So it's either you're forced to play along with developer creation or work your way through such limitation.

So back to my earlier post, Hawke is cartoon that has no view and emotion on it's own. If you don't believe me, just don't pick any response when there's a dialogue and you would see he would stand there doing nothing like a trunk. His view and emotion come from either dev's view or players themselves. In RPG, when you're suppose to assume the role of a character you're suppose to think and feel like one and not follow what been defined by dev. Otherwise you may as well "roleplay" any characters in Dynatsy Warriors or Super Mario because all this characters are defined by developers.  

   

The same was done in Baldur's Gate 1, and carried on through all it's expansions, as it was in NWN's 1 and 2, with some major flaws in 2 depending on racial selection, and in Origins.  Now, you say you chose to ignore the provided backstory in Origins, I tended to judiciously use the Esc key myself after playing each origin at least once, but all the things that you are posting about being bad in DA2 were done in Origins, the exact same way.  The devs dropped you into the middle of a story, and let you go where you would from there.  One poster here mentioned Geralt, but his story is the same, you are coming in in the middle.  So I can't figure out why people are raising such a fuss about more of the same old thing.

[brushyourteeth]

BobSmith101 wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I never felt very bad about losing Bethany or Carver because I never really knew Bethany or Carver (especially on the first playthrough). I felt bad about Leandra feeling bad, but the Hawke kiddos were like complete strangers to me.

This scene was actually probably the first time that I realized Hawke wasn't going to be my character. She had her own epic escape (and possibly war) story going on before I ever entered the picture. Feeling manipulated through the clever use of music and voice acting into grieving someone I've had 5 minutes' interaction with made me feel more like a stranger to the Hawke family, rather than a member of them. It felt like a very private family moment I was intruding on.

The best way to hit the player is through gameplay. Even if they don't feel the loss on a personal level, they will have to readjust to not having the character. You can't do that after 5 minutes.
When a certain someone was removed from Xenoblade after around 10 hours at the end of the prologue (it's a 160 hour+ game) I felt it keenly. I'd gotten used to the character, they had a good scene and it reduced my party from 3 to 2 so I really felt like something was missing on every level.

Excellent example!

[Aleya]

robertthebard wrote...
Did you ever play D&D?  I played for years, with no avatar at all, and I did not live the 700 years that my first elven toon started adventuring at.  I take it that you found the Human Noble and City Elf origins to be just as contrived?  Considering you knew your fiancee for far less time than you actually knew the sibling that dies, and the same can be said for the HN's family.  Point being, you're playing a role, and you're not starting at the beginning.  However, the character you are playing is assumed to have done just that.  You may find the loss insignificant, but it's you finding it that way.  Most role players understand that they didn't start the character at the embryo stage, and spend 20 years or so living it's life to become emotionally invested in the character.  Most role players understand that they are coming in in the middle of a story, and have to gauge relationships with family members, if they are presented at all, based on responses given to choose from.

Here's my problem with that theory: 
There is also such a thing as a need for emotional connection with your character. That's what makes RPGs great. Hawke's family is one great big unknown at that point of the intro. The HN and CE had very little interaction with their family pre-recruitment, sure, but there was enough interaction to get a sense of what their life was like before. We get to form some idea of what forces have shaped the Warden before we get tossed into the wilderness. With Hawke, the game starts when you're already in the wilderness. I've argued on another forum that if they'd let us have even 15 minutes of pre-Blight Lothering, I would've felt the sibling's death just as keenly as Hawke. Can you picture how very different the HN origin for example would feel if it started in the middle of the attack? Would you really still have cared as much about the deaths of the Warden's parents? 

This is especially important because Hawke, unlike the Warden, is a pre-defined character with a set personality (well, okay, one of three set personalities) and relationships with family members. Because we don't get to choose what our past with the family looked like, we need to be told. And the game doesn't do that. Sure, we apparently spent a lot of time on the run from Templars and eventually ended up in Lothering. Bethany would rather not be a mage. Carver feels like the ugly duckling in a family full of mages. Leandra apparently feels that her oldest child is primarily responsible for the family's livelihood and safety. AND? That's where our information ends.

That would be fine if the entire family were killed off in the intro. But they're not. The past, which you know next to nothing about, literally follows Hawke around for at least the better part of two acts. So, we end up in a situation where the sibling ****es about things that happened in the past (Bethany's insecurities, Carver feeling like the ugly duckling) and we can't counter any of it because we don't know how true it is or isn't. Leandra goes on about how awful the loss of your other sibling was. We know nothing about them without running a second playthrough to get to know them, but we apparently miss them terribly because of reasons. We can't call Leandra out about treating her eldest as a co-parent rather than her child because we don't know why things ended up that way.

In my opinion DA2 would have been much stronger if they'd included
A) A short view of life before. Just enough to establish why Hawke's relationships with the family members are what they are.
and/or
ME-style background selection. You can decide what the family dynamics look like, and dialogue changes accordingly.

As it is, Hawke's ties with her past are far stronger than either the Warden's or Shepard's, yet we're not provided with even half as much information. Since Hawke is emotionally invested in her family's wellbeing in a way that I, the player, can never match, it causes an emotional disconnect from the character. In an RPG, that's very bad.

Modifié par Aleya, 22 mai 2012 - 09:50 .

[robertthebard]

Aleya wrote...

Here's my problem with that theory: 
There is also such a thing as a need for emotional connection with your character. That's what makes RPGs great. Hawke's family is one great big unknown at that point of the intro. The HN and CE had very little interaction with their family pre-recruitment, sure, but there was enough interaction to get a sense of what their life was like before. We get to form some idea of what forces have shaped the Warden before we get tossed into the wilderness. With Hawke, the game starts when you're already in the wilderness. I've argued on another forum that if they'd let us have even 15 minutes of pre-Blight Lothering, I would've felt the sibling's death just as keenly as Hawke. Can you picture how very different the HN origin for example would feel if it started in the middle of the attack? Would you really still have cared as much about the deaths of the Warden's parents? 

This is especially important because Hawke, unlike the Warden, is a pre-defined character with a set personality (well, okay, one of three set personalities) and relationships with family members. Because we don't get to choose what our past with the family looked like, we need to be told. And the game doesn't do that. Sure, we apparently spent a lot of time on the run from Templars and eventually ended up in Lothering. Bethany would rather not be a mage. Carver feels like the ugly duckling in a family full of mages. Leandra apparently feels that her oldest child is primarily responsible for the family's livelihood and safety. AND? That's where our information ends.

That would be fine if the entire family were killed off in the intro. But they're not. The past, which you know next to nothing about, literally follows Hawke around for at least the better part of two acts. So, we end up in a situation where the sibling ****es about things that happened in the past (Bethany's insecurities, Carver feeling like the ugly duckling) and we can't counter any of it because we don't know how true it is or isn't. Leandra goes on about how awful the loss of your other sibling was. We know nothing about them without running a second playthrough to get to know them, but we apparently miss them terribly because of reasons. We can't call Leandra out about treating her eldest as a co-parent rather than her child because we don't know why things ended up that way.

In my opinion DA2 would have been much stronger if they'd included
A) A short view of life before. Just enough to establish why Hawke's relationships with the family members are what they are.
and/or
ME-style background selection. You can decide what the family dynamics look like, and dialogue changes accordingly.

As it is, Hawke's ties with her past are far stronger than either the Warden's or Shepard's, yet we're not provided with even half as much information. Since Hawke is emotionally invested in her family's wellbeing in a way that I, the player, can never match, it causes an emotional disconnect from the character. In an RPG, that's very bad.

Quote removed to cut down on Wall of Text:

So it's doing exactly what I said?  You're starting in the middle, just like you have on most other games that have these kinds of interactions.  What was the CE's relationship with their father?  How did the HN get along with their brother?  The DN origin actually had more development there, where you could kind of tell how they didn't get along, but those two are equally vague compared to Hawke's family, where we come in, anyway.  A bit of dialog with either sibling, when it's available, which is one of my peeves, would shed a lot of light on that.

You see, that's where I feel restricted.  I can only talk to party/family when they have a quest.  I can't fish for that information the way I could feel out party members in Origins.  I mean, even simple brief synopsis' of family history, from each member would have sufficed.  Like what you could do with Daveth and Ser Jory.  While I do feel it could have been handled better, it's not as bad as reading these forums would make one think, which is why, even though I should know better, I waited as long as I did to buy the game in the first place.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

robertthebard wrote...
The same was done in Baldur's Gate 1, and carried on through all it's expansions, as it was in NWN's 1 and 2, with some major flaws in 2 depending on racial selection, and in Origins.

NWN's 1 allow you to create your own background from scratch. NWN 2's allow you the time to familiar yourself with your foster father,  Daeghun and West Harbor village through tutorial and prologue. Origins allow you the time to familiar yourself with one of the six origins. I don't know about about BG 1 and BG 2. I have BG 2 but never be able to get it run on my system. DA 2 give you the codex entry but never give you the time to know your family well. And you expect the player to feel like Hawke? What logic is that? The only logical explaination for that is the Dev simply don't care because they "forget" the story is suppose to be personal. But then again, Hawke is a nonsensical character for roleplay because the only sensible way to look the story is either from Varric's perspective or from Cassandra's perspective. Not from Hawke's own perspective. It make no sense to roleplay a character that never exist in present days or ,as Cassandra put it, "gone like the warden" from the beginning until the end. 

 

robertthebard wrote... 
Now, you say you chose to ignore the provided backstory in Origins, I tended to judiciously use the Esc key myself after playing each origin at least once, but all the things that you are posting about being bad in DA2 were done in Origins, the exact same way.

I didn't say I choose to ignore the provided backstory in Origins. I said I create my own backstory based on my starting point whether I roleplay Cousland or Mahariel or Aeducan or Amell. I do create Cousland from "embryo" and match those past with my starting point. Therefore I know my Cousland like the back of my hand.. Whether the dev put you in embryo stage or in the middle of something is irrelevant. The point is character's background creation. It could be player created or preset character, If it's preset character then I expect the character's background to be fully explained and shown like Ezio in Assasins Creeds 2 - where he was exposed as bullying trouble maker teenager and a spoilt brat.

So yes. DA 2 IS a bad RPG for disregarding player's connection with their character. It's good as an action game nevertheless, like Dynasty Warrior - where you couldn't care less with any of the characters.

 

robertthebard wrote...
 
The devs dropped you into the middle of a story, and let you go where you would from there.

It's irrelevant. What relevant is they expect the player to assume Hawke's emotion with a pathertic 5 minutes introduction. A failed drama and a flaw expectation. Therefore, DA 2 is a flaw rpg and Hawke's as character is a flaw PC. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 23 mai 2012 - 01:29 .

[Sidney]

Reidbynature wrote...

Though maybe it's not possible because of what Bioware want to do with the forced narrative. I'm just wondering if we can be the bad guy this time (I mean just having the option for those who want to). I know it's possible to do some bad and arguably horrific actions in the previous games, but I kind of felt that they were largely token options and that Bioware could have done more to accommodate people who want to play as villains or potential villains.

Evil/Bad/Renegade/Dark Side as a whole in the Bioware games need better options than just being rude and not helping people.  Sometimes, for example, helping Redcliffe isn't about saving the villagers but about recruiting a powerful ally in the castle. The dialog doesn't really allow you that option.

[robertthebard]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
The same was done in Baldur's Gate 1, and carried on through all it's expansions, as it was in NWN's 1 and 2, with some major flaws in 2 depending on racial selection, and in Origins.

NWN's 1 allow you to create your own background from scratch. NWN 2's allow you the time to familiar yourself with your foster father,  Daeghun and West Harbor village through tutorial and prologue. Origins allow you the time to familiar yourself with one of the six origins. I don't know about about BG 1 and BG 2. I have BG 2 but never be able to get it run on my system. DA 2 give you the codex entry but never give you the time to know your family well. And you expect the player to feel like Hawke? What logic is that? The only logical explaination for that is the Dev simply don't care because they "forget" the story is suppose to be personal. But then again, Hawke is a nonsensical character for roleplay because the only sensible way to look the story is either from Varric's perspective or from Cassandra's perspective. Not from Hawke's own perspective. It make no sense to roleplay a character that never exist in present days or ,as Cassandra put it, "gone like the warden" from the beginning until the end. 

 

robertthebard wrote... 
Now, you say you chose to ignore the provided backstory in Origins, I tended to judiciously use the Esc key myself after playing each origin at least once, but all the things that you are posting about being bad in DA2 were done in Origins, the exact same way.

I didn't say I choose to ignore the provided backstory in Origins. I said I create my own backstory based on my starting point whether I roleplay Cousland or Mahariel or Aeducan or Amell. I do create Cousland from "embryo" and match those past with my starting point. Therefore I know my Cousland like the back of my hand.. Whether the dev put you in embryo stage or in the middle of something is irrelevant. The point is character's background creation. It could be player created or preset character, If it's preset character then I expect the character's background to be fully explained and shown like Ezio in Assasins Creeds 2 - where he was exposed as bullying trouble maker teenager and a spoilt brat.

So yes. DA 2 IS a bad RPG for disregarding player's connection with their character. It's good as an action game nevertheless, like Dynasty Warrior - where you couldn't care less with any of the characters.

 

robertthebard wrote...
 
The devs dropped you into the middle of a story, and let you go where you would from there.

It's irrelevant. What relevant is they expect the player to assume Hawke's emotion with a pathertic 5 minutes introduction. A failed drama and a flaw expectation. Therefore, DA 2 is a flaw rpg and Hawke's as character is a flaw PC. 

Choosing to create your own backstory means you are ignoring the one provided.  Every origin had a cutscene intro that provided you with a backstory.  You chose to disregard it in favor of your own, and yet, when presented with a similar oppurtunity here, you say, "It's bad".  To each their own.  While I'm not as enthused about this game as others I have played, it's not as bad as reading the forums would lead one to believe.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

robertthebard wrote...
Choosing to create your own backstory means you are ignoring the one provided.  Every origin had a cutscene intro that provided you with a backstory.  You chose to disregard it in favor of your own, and yet, when presented with a similar oppurtunity here, you say, "It's bad".  To each their own.  While I'm not as enthused about this game as others I have played, it's not as bad as reading the forums would lead one to believe.

Hawke doen't has that similar opportunity. He is a preset character who tries to pretend to be player created character. His vague background should allow for more player created backstory and yet his interaction with his brother, sister and mother proved him to be a preset character from one of the three personalities - which doesn't fit with player created origins. It shouldn't be that way. It's either you follow the format of preset character like Ezio in Assassin Creeds 2 or leave it blank for the players to fill themselves like Neverwinter Nights or The Elder Scrolls. 

You may not concerned with your connection with Hawke but many people do. They want to care for their characters and therefore require proper introduction and proper exposition on their character's background and relationship with their family. It doesn't has to start from embryo stage. It should at least half an hour before things start to kick in - which is a proper time for tutorial and prologue. DA 2 doesn't has this room and space like many other origins in other RPG. It's just started with intense action. Wait, it started with bull**** exaggeration. Another flaw in DA 2. In RPG, you are suppose to make to world believable and not make it sound like Hercules..

You may concern only gameplay mechanics like skills, spells etc..  but many people concern their characters more. A fully flesh out character is not something you can define within a 5 minutes intro and a failed drama that has no effect on players. It's all boil down whether you want to play the role of a character or do you want to spend most of 36 hours playing with skills and talents. If you have no concern for fully flesh out PC's story than you better play pure action games like Dynasty Warrior. It's all about action and it has story too. There is no need for you to bother about origins, interactions etc that makes up a lot of things in a RPG.

 

[robertthebard]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
Choosing to create your own backstory means you are ignoring the one provided.  Every origin had a cutscene intro that provided you with a backstory.  You chose to disregard it in favor of your own, and yet, when presented with a similar oppurtunity here, you say, "It's bad".  To each their own.  While I'm not as enthused about this game as others I have played, it's not as bad as reading the forums would lead one to believe.

Hawke doen't has that similar opportunity. He is a preset character who tries to pretend to be player created character. His vague background should allow for more player created backstory and yet his interaction with his brother, sister and mother proved him to be a preset character from one of the three personalities - which doesn't fit with player created origins. It shouldn't be that way. It's either you follow the format of preset character like Ezio in Assassin Creeds 2 or leave it blank for the players to fill themselves like Neverwinter Nights or The Elder Scrolls. 

You may not concerned with your connection with Hawke but many people do. They want to care for their characters and therefore require proper introduction and proper exposition on their character's background and relationship with their family. It doesn't has to start from embryo stage. It should at least half an hour before things start to kick in - which is a proper time for tutorial and prologue. DA 2 doesn't has this room and space like many other origins in other RPG. It's just started with intense action. Wait, it started with bull**** exaggeration. Another flaw in DA 2. In RPG, you are suppose to make to world believable and not make it sound like Hercules..

You may concern only gameplay mechanics like skills, spells etc..  but many people concern their characters more. A fully flesh out character is not something you can define within a 5 minutes intro and a failed drama that has no effect on players. It's all boil down whether you want to play the role of a character or do you want to spend most of 36 hours playing with skills and talents. If you have no concern for fully flesh out PC's story than you better play pure action games like Dynasty Warrior. It's all about action and it has story too. There is no need for you to bother about origins, interactions etc that makes up a lot of things in a RPG.

 

How many conversation options did you have in Origins?  There weren't infinite possibilities there either, yet people seemed ok with it.  As far as believeable goes, I know plenty of people in real life that wish they'd trained cold before fire spells for more reliable CC early.  First and foremost, this is a fantasy game, and fantasy game heroes tend to be larger than life, and they are supposed to seem that way.  I mentioned this before, somewhere, but if everyone was capable of doing what the protaganist does, then there would be no need for the protaganist, and no need for the game to tell their story.  As we saw in Ostagar, not everyone is cut out to be a Warden, and not everyone can be the Champion of Kirkwall, or everyone would be.

That said, I don't see the prologue as being all that restrictive, other than you really can't just say, "No, I don't want to go to Kirkwall".  However, you couldn't say no to being a Warden, nor could you say no to stopping Sarevok, or to saving Neverwinter in NWN's.  NWN's was linear to the point of you had 4 initial paths, and each had to be done to progress chapters, where BG was more of a "do what you want, but you're going to end up at xxxx anyway" kind of thing.  That is, however, a problem with any game that tells a story, eventually, you have to end it.

I've seen the "I wanted to be an elf" posts, and while I would have liked to have had the choice, in the context of this game, it wasn't possible story wise.  How could two humans have an elven baby, or a dwarven one?  This was a story that needed to be told for whatever comes next, and they thought it would be better to tell it in a game, instead of in a book.  I'm certainly not going to be writing Tolkien's family, telling them that the hero should have been an elf, or Aragorn, instead of Frodo, are you?

[schalafi]

Vormaerin wrote...

schalafi wrote...

Maybe it was supposed to add drama, but I think it was just another method of cost cutting.

I gather that you hate al things Bioware these days, but can we at least have conspiracy theories that make some sense?  All the voice acting for both siblings for all the quests is in the game.  What costs are you cutting?  A couple carver to bethany cutscenes, at most?

You're wrong. I love all things Bioware, but that doesn't mean I can't critisize some of the places I think Bioware was taking shortcuts,  probably due to being pushed for time. My opinion only, and I hope I'm entitled to it. just as you are to yours.

[AkiKishi]

robertthebard wrote...
How many conversation options did you have in Origins?  There weren't infinite possibilities there either, yet people seemed ok with it.  As far as believeable goes, I know plenty of people in real life that wish they'd trained cold before fire spells for more reliable CC early.  First and foremost, this is a fantasy game, and fantasy game heroes tend to be larger than life, and they are supposed to seem that way.  I mentioned this before, somewhere, but if everyone was capable of doing what the protaganist does, then there would be no need for the protaganist, and no need for the game to tell their story.  As we saw in Ostagar, not everyone is cut out to be a Warden, and not everyone can be the Champion of Kirkwall, or everyone would be.

That said, I don't see the prologue as being all that restrictive, other than you really can't just say, "No, I don't want to go to Kirkwall".  However, you couldn't say no to being a Warden, nor could you say no to stopping Sarevok, or to saving Neverwinter in NWN's.  NWN's was linear to the point of you had 4 initial paths, and each had to be done to progress chapters, where BG was more of a "do what you want, but you're going to end up at xxxx anyway" kind of thing.  That is, however, a problem with any game that tells a story, eventually, you have to end it.

I've seen the "I wanted to be an elf" posts, and while I would have liked to have had the choice, in the context of this game, it wasn't possible story wise.  How could two humans have an elven baby, or a dwarven one?  This was a story that needed to be told for whatever comes next, and they thought it would be better to tell it in a game, instead of in a book.  I'm certainly not going to be writing Tolkien's family, telling them that the hero should have been an elf, or Aragorn, instead of Frodo, are you?

The blight is over by the time you get into Kirkwall but you can't go anywhere else because there is no where else to go.
Can't get much more restrictive than that. 
In the case of being a Spawn or being a Warden it's not something you can put aside it's a part of you. Hawke however has nothing binding him to Kirkwall other than there being nothing other than Kirkwall in the game.

[robertthebard]

BobSmith101 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
How many conversation options did you have in Origins?  There weren't infinite possibilities there either, yet people seemed ok with it.  As far as believeable goes, I know plenty of people in real life that wish they'd trained cold before fire spells for more reliable CC early.  First and foremost, this is a fantasy game, and fantasy game heroes tend to be larger than life, and they are supposed to seem that way.  I mentioned this before, somewhere, but if everyone was capable of doing what the protaganist does, then there would be no need for the protaganist, and no need for the game to tell their story.  As we saw in Ostagar, not everyone is cut out to be a Warden, and not everyone can be the Champion of Kirkwall, or everyone would be.

That said, I don't see the prologue as being all that restrictive, other than you really can't just say, "No, I don't want to go to Kirkwall".  However, you couldn't say no to being a Warden, nor could you say no to stopping Sarevok, or to saving Neverwinter in NWN's.  NWN's was linear to the point of you had 4 initial paths, and each had to be done to progress chapters, where BG was more of a "do what you want, but you're going to end up at xxxx anyway" kind of thing.  That is, however, a problem with any game that tells a story, eventually, you have to end it.

I've seen the "I wanted to be an elf" posts, and while I would have liked to have had the choice, in the context of this game, it wasn't possible story wise.  How could two humans have an elven baby, or a dwarven one?  This was a story that needed to be told for whatever comes next, and they thought it would be better to tell it in a game, instead of in a book.  I'm certainly not going to be writing Tolkien's family, telling them that the hero should have been an elf, or Aragorn, instead of Frodo, are you?

The blight is over by the time you get into Kirkwall but you can't go anywhere else because there is no where else to go.
Can't get much more restrictive than that. 
In the case of being a Spawn or being a Warden it's not something you can put aside it's a part of you. Hawke however has nothing binding him to Kirkwall other than there being nothing other than Kirkwall in the game.

Where else were you going in Chapter 1 of NWN's?  One of 4 districts?  Seems like there were more than four districts in the Kirkwall map.  Let's not forget that originally, Hawke's family is from Kirkwall.  "It's not running away, it's coming home"...

ETA:  It was no different in Origins either.  You did your origin, and POOF, off to Ostagar.  But we should overlook that, since it's Origins?  You then had what, those same four choices of where to go first.  Well, 5, but...If people look hard enough, they'll find plenty to not like about a game.  Some of it will even be legit, but some will just be nit picking because they didn't get to play their warden again.

Modifié par robertthebard, 23 mai 2012 - 06:07 .

[thats1evildude]

schalafi wrote...

You're wrong. I love all things Bioware, but that doesn't mean I can't critisize some of the places I think
Bioware was taking shortcuts,  probably due to being pushed for time. My opinion only, and I hope I'm entitled to it. just as you are to yours.

But your assertion doesn't make any sense. Dialogue for both siblings already exists within the game. The work has already been done. How is it "cutting corners" to kill one of them off?

If you said the recycled maps were a cost-cutting measure, you wouldn't be far off the mark. But this other thing with the siblings? No, schalafi, you're just wrong. This isn't just my opinion, this is simple logic.

BobSmith101 wrote...

In the case of being a Spawn or being a Warden it's not something you can put aside it's a part of you. Hawke however has nothing binding him to Kirkwall other than there being nothing other than Kirkwall in the game.

Putting aside Hawke's family connections to Kirkwall, there's no compelling reason for Hawke to go anywhere else.

Let's say you went back to Ferelden. What would you do there? As you said, the Blight is over, so there's no darkspawn to fight and the Warden already thoroughly explored most of its ancient ruins. What adventures are left in Ferelden?

Modifié par thats1evildude, 23 mai 2012 - 06:51 .

[Realmzmaster]

schalafi wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

schalafi wrote...

Maybe it was supposed to add drama, but I think it was just another method of cost cutting.

I gather that you hate al things Bioware these days, but can we at least have conspiracy theories that make some sense?  All the voice acting for both siblings for all the quests is in the game.  What costs are you cutting?  A couple carver to bethany cutscenes, at most?

You're wrong. I love all things Bioware, but that doesn't mean I can't critisize some of the places I think Bioware was taking shortcuts,  probably due to being pushed for time. My opinion only, and I hope I'm entitled to it. just as you are to yours.

What shortcuts ? All the voice acting, cutscences and options for the siblings are all in the game. A shortcut would be killing off one sibling all the time and leaving the same one alive then you could eliminate anything for the sibling that died. Now if you are saying it is a shortcut because both siblings do not live and you cannot have both in the party during Act 1 that the same as saying you cannot have Sir Jory or Daveth from Origins in your party after the joining. Either one of those two could have been allowed to live.  I do not see the shortcut.

[Realmzmaster]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The blight is over by the time you get into Kirkwall but you can't go anywhere else because there is no where else to go.
Can't get much more restrictive than that. 
In the case of being a Spawn or being a Warden it's not something you can put aside it's a part of you. Hawke however has nothing binding him to Kirkwall other than there being nothing other than Kirkwall in the game.

Why would Hawke go back to Feledren? Many of the ones who left Lothering never returned. There was nothing to return to. The place had been leveled. Also the Amells are from Kirkwall. Leandra left with Malcolm for Ferelden because he became an apostate. So the Blight is over and Hawke spent a year building a life in Kirkwall. What compelling reason does Hawke have to go back? There are no darkspawn except for some roving bands. There is no mage-templar hotbed in Ferelden

[AkiKishi]

thats1evildude wrote...

Putting aside Hawke's family connections to Kirkwall, there's no compelling reason for Hawke to go anywhere else.

Let's say you went back to Ferelden. What would you do there? As you said, the Blight is over, so there's no darkspawn to fight and the Warden already thoroughly explored most of its ancient ruins. What adventures are left in Ferelden?

Post blight ? Anything you want to do . Beats hanging out in a city practically under Templar martial law when you or your sister are a mage. Of course the Templars are totally blind when it comes to your spell casting 10 feet away in chapter 1.

[AkiKishi]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Why would Hawke go back to Feledren? Many of the ones who left Lothering never returned. There was nothing to return to. The place had been leveled. Also the Amells are from Kirkwall. Leandra left with Malcolm for Ferelden because he became an apostate. So the Blight is over and Hawke spent a year building a life in Kirkwall. What compelling reason does Hawke have to go back? There are no darkspawn except for some roving bands. There is no mage-templar hotbed in Ferelden

You mean as opposed to living in a Templar city ? 

I can think of many more reasons for going back than staying. Sure if mom wants to stay in Kirkwall she can. That's the problem with DA2 it assumes far too much about your character while still pretending you have any say in the matter.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

robertthebard wrote...
How many conversation options did you have in Origins?  There weren't infinite possibilities there either, yet people seemed ok with it. 

I have more than 3 possible ways to express a single conversation line as oppose to 3 voice tones which basically telling the same line in DA 2.

robertthebard wrote...
As far as believeable goes, I know plenty of people in real life that wish they'd trained cold before fire spells for more reliable CC early.  First and foremost, this is a fantasy game, and fantasy game heroes tend to be larger than life, and they are supposed to seem that way.  I mentioned this before, somewhere, but if everyone was capable of doing what the protaganist does, then there would be no need for the protaganist, and no need for the game to tell their story.  As we saw in Ostagar, not everyone is cut out to be a Warden, and not everyone can be the Champion of Kirkwall, or everyone would be.

Well then, let's play Hercules or Power Rangers in DA universe since it's all about fantasy with no sense of believable. Do you know what is the problem with your statement? It is precisely why people cannot immerse into the story. No one could take anything serious if it's bull****. And to me DA 2 is bull**** because it purposely use unreliable narrator to make a ****. 

robertthebard wrote...
That said, I don't see the prologue as being all that restrictive,

 
Who said anything about prologue being restrictive? I said Hawke does not has similar opportunity like the Warden with regards to his background. He is a set preset character who pretend to be player created character. The warden on the other hand is player created character. You define your own character's personality and part of your origins relative to your starting point in the game. Hawke however, is one of the 3 preset personalities whose background is left open for player to intrepret themselves without leaving much choice how this defined personalities could work on such a vague background. Should I repeat it again in case you still don't understand? I could copy and paste it everytime you miss my point.

robertthebard wrote...

other than you really can't just say,
"No, I don't want to go to Kirkwall".  However, you couldn't say no to being a Warden, nor could you say no to stopping Sarevok, or to saving Neverwinter in NWN's.  NWN's was linear to the point of you had 4 initial paths, and each had to be done to progress chapters, where BG was more of a "do what you want, but you're going to end up at xxxx anyway" kind of thing.  That is, however, a problem with any game that tells a story, eventually, you have to end it.

First of all, Hawke has no obligation whatsoever to go to Kirkwall and risk his family - which he did loose all of them anyway, since he is a looser and an idiot. In NWN, every recruits volunteer to join the academy because  it's prestiges. No one forced anyone to join the academy. And that's include your character. As for the Warden, my Cousland made a promise to her father that she'll see Rendon Howe to go to hell even if she had to follow the Warden. My Mahariel was sick and it wasn't about Warden's duty. It was about her life and she had no one else to turn to. Hawke, on the other hand,  wouldn't die or the world won't be destroye if he's not going to the insane place like Kirkwall. 

And speaking of linearity, none of RPG I've played ever does this.
Coose option A the result is X
Choose option B the result is X
Choose option C the result is still X

So what's the point of having option A,B and C when all results are X? It really ****** me to no end when I found out nothing I choose make any differences.

NWN didn't do that. Origins didn't do that. ME 2 didn't do that. NWN 2 didn't do that. Only DA2 did that  You know why? Because DA 2 story presentation is so dumb it's actually set everything in stone because hey, it's already happen and you're looking in the past. Nothing you do could prevent the war or forced Feyneriel not to be a dumb **** who keep going to X place and so many other things..  

robertthebard wrote...
I've seen the "I wanted to be an elf" posts, and while I would have liked to have had the choice, in the context of this game, it wasn't possible story wise.  How could two humans have an elven baby, or a dwarven one?  This was a story that needed to be told for whatever comes next, and they thought it would be better to tell it in a game, instead of in a book.  I'm certainly not going to be writing Tolkien's family, telling them that the hero should have been an elf, or Aragorn, instead of Frodo, are you?

And who decide to tell such story? Whose fault it is if they're not cautious with how the story was told, rush the plot due to limited time and cliff hanger that never get to resolved since they never think ahead something could go wrong like The Exalted March? People had repeatedly asked for self contained story with closure but they never listen because they're too concern with continuity and their DLC - which never materialize anway.   

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 23 mai 2012 - 08:56 .

[thats1evildude]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Post blight ? Anything you want to do . Beats hanging out in a city practically under Templar martial law when you or your sister are a mage.

That's the thing: there is nothing to do back in Ferelden. Hawke has no armies to raise, no treaties to enforce and no darkspawn to fight. So is Hawke just going to hang out in Denerim for an entire game?

I mean, you go on about Kirkwall sucks, and I agree that it's a pretty terrible place to live. But Hawke is an adventurer. What "adventures" wait for Hawke back in Ferelden?

Modifié par thats1evildude, 23 mai 2012 - 09:18 .