764 réponses à ce sujet

[Vormaerin]

batlin wrote...

I found out that no, there's no way to do aything about it and you must simply let events play out.

I feel like a broken record about this, but it's VERY annoying how Hawke is always forced into inaction.

I agree with this.   While I have no interest in buying a game to have Sylvius' "I make it all up myself" experience  (I'm and author and a RPG DM for those needs), I do want the story to be allow me to act.  

I like the kind of story DA2 was trying to tell a lot more than the one that DAO told.   DAO didn't really let you decide anything important until the very end (and it was a bog standard "kill the dark lord and his orcs because you are special and no one else is" tale), but you didn't feel passive even if all you did was wander around following orders. 

For me, the story/characters is the most important thing.  Almost all the non linear elements of BG2 and DAO come at the expense of the story.   Everything about the prologue of BG2 sets up a sense of urgency, but then you get a "wander and do whatever you want for as along as you want" while Imoen gets tortured and your lifeforce fades...except not really.    DAO, you are supposedly racing against time to gather an army to stop the blight, but its okay to take random courier and bounty hunting missions for fun.

Which is not to say I want a more straitjacket plot.  But if the plot is a race against time, I'd like it be feel like one and not an 'meander about doing stuff until I run out of things to do' story.    A story like DA2 is where that open ended kind of activity should have flourished.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 10 juin 2012 - 12:45 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Vormaerin wrote...
I like the kind of story DA2 was trying to tell a lot more than the one that DAO told.   DAO didn't really let you decide anything important until the very end (and it was a bog standard "kill the dark lord and his orcs because you are special and no one else is" tale), but you didn't feel passive even if all you did was wander around following orders.
For me, the story/characters is the most important thing.  Almost all the non linear elements of BG2 and DAO come at the expense of the story.   Everything about the prologue of BG2 sets up a sense of urgency, but then you get a "wander and do whatever you want for as along as you want" while Imoen gets tortured and your lifeforce fades...except not really.    DAO, you are supposedly racing against time to gather an army to stop the blight, but its okay to take random courier and bounty hunting missions for fun.

 DAO utilize a lot of decision making through all in-game choices from selecting race and origins to the endings. Decision making is gameplay mechanic.  

DA 2 restrict all in-game choices, from race and origin selection to ending,  to tell a story.  This has nothing to do with making decision or gameplay mechanic,

Vormaerin wrote...

Which is not to say I want a more straitjacket plot.  But if the plot is a race against time, I'd like it be feel like one and not an 'meander about doing stuff until I run out of things to do' story.    A story like DA2 is where that open ended kind of activity should have flourished.

I'd like to play my game through in-game choices and decision making. I'd dislike someone tell me a bedtime story and don't let me do anything about it. I can do that by watching a movie and reading a novel,  Dreaming Varric's fairy tale is not roleplaying. Being railroaded all the way is not playing. It's watching series of short cinemas and reading series of  conversation novels.. 
I don't want that. I want to play a game and role in a Role Playing Game

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 10 juin 2012 - 01:22 .

[Vormaerin]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

 DAO utilize a lot of decision making through all in-game choices from selecting race and origins to the endings. Decision making is gameplay mechanic. 

Lots of choices that don't change anything.   You speak exactly the same and have exactly the same options as a dwarf gangster, a dalish mage, or a human noble, except perhaps an extra couple lines in a single scene somewhere.   Choices like that weaken immersion and story, not enhance it.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
I'd like to play my game through in-game choices and decision making. I'd dislike someone tell me a bedtime story and don't let me do anything about. I can do that by  watching a movie and reading a novel, I don't want that. I want to play a game and I want to play a role in a RPG.

SInce this response has nothing to do with what I said, I'm at a loss about how to respond.   I want choices that affect the story.  I don't want choices that are completely overridden by the story.  

I'd rather be JC Denton than the Warden any day of the week.   In Deus Ex, the DM chose my character (JC) but I chose how I played the game.   I could play violent or not, sneaky or overt.   The actual gameplay was different each time.  In DAO, the game played the same way every time.  You got to make various choices that changed nothing or resulted in straight substitutions.   Alistair makes the speech or Anora does is a choice, but not much of one.

[Dakota Strider]

The obvious way to avoid linearity, or being railroaded, to the degree that happened in DA2 and ME3, is to give the players more choices that have real meaning.  Developers will say that is what they would like to do, but that would cost too much money.  I say there is a way to offer more real choices, that should either cost less, or an equal amount.

Greatly reduce the number of cinematic cutscenes:  There is another thread that speaks about reducing animations for conversations, with still shots, as a way to add more conversations.  This is a good start, but there is more that can be done.  The problem with big cinematic cutscenes, besides the fact that they take time and resources to create, is that once they are made, the developers generally feel obligated to use them, since they cost so much to make.  So, every large cinematic cutscene you see, means that the game has pulled you into that direction, with no options, so that you will experience that cutscene.  More plot paths can be created, if there is not a cinematic moment waiting at the end of each of them.  I would guess, that the cost of writing and programming that goes into a story line, is substantially less than the average cutscene.  So it only seems logical that you can get a larger, more detailed story, with more choices that really matter, if you cut out the cinematics, except for the really special moments.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 10 juin 2012 - 01:58 .

[wsandista]

Dakota Strider wrote...

The obvious way to avoid linearity, or being railroaded, to the degree that happened in DA2 and ME3, is to give the players more choices that have real meaning.  Developers will say that is what they would like to do, but that would cost too much money.  I say there is a way to offer more real choices, that should either cost less, or an equal amount.
Greatly reduce the number of cinematic cutscenes:  There is another thread that speaks about reducing animations for conversations, with still shots, as a way to add more conversations.  This is a good start, but there is more that can be done.  The problem with big cinematic cutscenes, besides the fact that they take time and resources to create, is that once they are made, the developers generally feel obligated to use them, since they cost so much to make.  So, every large cinematic cutscene you see, means that the game has pulled you into that direction, with no options, so that you will experience that cutscene.  More plot paths can be created, if there is not a cinematic moment waiting at the end of each of them.  I would guess, that the writing and programming that goes into a story line, is substantially less than the average cutscene.  So it only seems logical that you can get a larger, more detailed story, with more choices that really matter, if you cut out the cinematics, except for the really special moments.

It is ridiculous how much I agree with this.

I would also add that having a voiced PC also takes away zots that could be used in gameplay content. Just a gentle reminder.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Vormaerin wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

 DAO utilize a lot of decision making through all in-game choices from selecting race and origins to the endings. Decision making is gameplay mechanic. 

Lots of choices that don't change anything.   You speak exactly the same and have exactly the same options as a dwarf gangster, a dalish mage, or a human noble, except perhaps an extra couple lines in a single scene somewhere.   Choices like that weaken immersion and story, not enhance it.

Choices that BioWare should have develop further in their next future title instead of scrapping them and railroading players all the way into disjointed-unfocus-3-mini episodes story.. Choices that you don't even have in DA 2..What's the point of immersion and enhance story when you cannot do anything to influence the story?

In fact, I find it is rather  less immersive with constant removal players from story due to time skip/frame narrative. I really cannot see how this kind of storytelling work in term of gameplay and roleplaying. This is something I've never experience before where the story intentionally wipe out the need of decison making just to tell a story in a videogame. An exaggerated one, that is.  At any rate, storytelling cannot be used as an excuse for the lack of gameplay mechanic such as decision making. We're here to play game and role. That is more important than being told a story and do nothing. 

Vormaerin wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
I'd like to play my game through in-game choices and decision making. I'd dislike someone tell me a bedtime story and don't let me do anything about. I can do that by  watching a movie and reading a novel, I don't want that. I want to play a game and I want to play a role in a RPG.

SInce this response has nothing to do with what I said, I'm at a loss about how to respond.

 

You're talking about what you'd like. Therefore I merely response with what I'd like too. We're speaking about preference. That's all.  It's not importance to discussion, I guess. 

Vormaerin wrote...

I want choices that affect the story.  I don't want choices that are completely overridden by the story.

I want that too. The different is you don't see the various endings in DAO as the effect of your choice, while I see the one ending in DA 2 is not my choice at all. It's a pure plot device irrelevant to my gameplay. 

Vormaerin wrote...
I'd rather be JC Denton than the Warden any day of the week.   In Deus Ex, the DM chose my character (JC) but I chose how I played the game.

JC Denton is preset character - If I'm not mistaken. I don't play Deus Ex.  The roleplaying experience is expected to be different than player created character - which Hawke is suppose to be.

Vormaerin wrote...
I could play violent or not, sneaky or overt.   The actual gameplay was different each time.

Yes. It's part of decision making and gameplay mechanic. 

Vormaerin wrote...
In DAO, the game played the same way every time.  You got to make various choices that changed nothing or resulted in straight substitutions.   Alistair makes the speech or Anora does is a choice, but not much of one.

That the reason why it should have been fixed like The Withcer 2 did with multiple branching stories, at least.  DA2 is not the solution no matter how you view the story. The story is meaningless, if part of it has no value to gameplay mechanics like decision making. Choice should be matter whether it's cliche' DAO's save the world plotline or DA 2's 3-in-one mini episodes of not-so-personal rise to power plotline.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 10 juin 2012 - 04:19 .

[ElitePinecone]

Vormaerin wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

 DAO utilize a lot of decision making through all in-game choices from selecting race and origins to the endings. Decision making is gameplay mechanic. 

Lots of choices that don't change anything.   You speak exactly the same and have exactly the same options as a dwarf gangster, a dalish mage, or a human noble, except perhaps an extra couple lines in a single scene somewhere.   Choices like that weaken immersion and story, not enhance it.

Hm, I think that's very subjective, and I disagree. 

The origin might have had no major bearing (if any) on the big epic quest to kill the Big Bad and save the world, but it gave tremendous weight and flavour to smaller stories within that.

Look how much more personal Howe's scheming becomes when playing as the Human Noble, or how the plight of the elves in the alienage matters more when playing as an elven warden. Visiting the Tower as a mage and seeing the templars willing and able to murder the whole Circle surely adds another layer of meaning than playing as a non-mage. 

The player might've only received fifteen (thirty?) minutes of exposure to characters in the origin, but for the most part it was effective enough that I felt part of that social position or ethnic group. It allowed for a handful of sub-themes - revenge, fighting racial prejudice, overcoming class disadvantage, proving the worth of mages - that give some impetus to the player character. 

Besides that, I felt the world-building in the origins was excellent, in terms of showing us how the world relates to the protagonist and what life was like before the inevitable cataclysmic event. My human noble had a wise tutor, an irascible elderly nursemaid, a favourite pet, was called familiar names by their parents ('pup', and I forget the female version), was clearly trained in warfare and diplomacy, had a liason with a minor noble's son and was asked to hold Winterfell Highever in recognition of their age, all in the space of half an hour. 

What did we learn about Hawke and family in Lothering, except some vague backstory about apostasy and avoiding Templars? What did we learn about Hawke *at all* in DA2, or how they lived their life before fleeing the darkspawn? The entire family could've popped into existence in the Blightlands for all we saw of their origins. 

[AkiKishi]

Dakota Strider wrote...

The obvious way to avoid linearity, or being railroaded, to the degree that happened in DA2 and ME3, is to give the players more choices that have real meaning.  Developers will say that is what they would like to do, but that would cost too much money.  I say there is a way to offer more real choices, that should either cost less, or an equal amount.

Greatly reduce the number of cinematic cutscenes:  There is another thread that speaks about reducing animations for conversations, with still shots, as a way to add more conversations.  This is a good start, but there is more that can be done.  The problem with big cinematic cutscenes, besides the fact that they take time and resources to create, is that once they are made, the developers generally feel obligated to use them, since they cost so much to make.  So, every large cinematic cutscene you see, means that the game has pulled you into that direction, with no options, so that you will experience that cutscene.  More plot paths can be created, if there is not a cinematic moment waiting at the end of each of them.  I would guess, that the cost of writing and programming that goes into a story line, is substantially less than the average cutscene.  So it only seems logical that you can get a larger, more detailed story, with more choices that really matter, if you cut out the cinematics, except for the really special moments.

Don't agree since cinematic games are driven by them and that will be the case as long as Bioware is making cinematic games. Trying to make a cinematic game less cinematic is counter productive.
The way around it is to make the character more defined not less. Give the player TNO,Geralt,Adam etc. They fit with cinematic gaming rather than trying to pull against it.

Witcher2 has a lot of choices, including a REALLY big one at the end of act1.

[Vormaerin]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Don't agree since cinematic games are driven by them and that will be the case as long as Bioware is making cinematic games. Trying to make a cinematic game less cinematic is counter productive.
The way around it is to make the character more defined not less. Give the player TNO,Geralt,Adam etc. They fit with cinematic gaming rather than trying to pull against it.

Witcher2 has a lot of choices, including a REALLY big one at the end of act1.

This is very much my feeling also.   There are all kinds of ways within a cinematic game to give the player agency.  Whole cloth character creation just doesn't happen to be one of them.

[Vormaerin]

ElitePinecone wrote...

The player might've only received fifteen (thirty?) minutes of exposure to characters in the origin, but for the most part it was effective enough that I felt part of that social position or ethnic group. It allowed for a handful of sub-themes - revenge, fighting racial prejudice, overcoming class disadvantage, proving the worth of mages - that give some impetus to the player character. 

The origins in DAO were well done.  They just were largely wasted after that.  I got a very good sense of my dwarf commoner, certainly.   But then it all went away  "poof".   Nothing about my dialogue options after going with Duncan supported the idea I was from a dwarf ghetto.   When did I swear by the ancestors?  When did I ever mention the strangeness of the surface world?  Or in any way act differently than little lord Cousland?    Just in the one brief section of one quest that was associated with that origin.

If you played the game without being able to see your character, would you be able to tell you were a dwarf instead of a human in 95% of the content?

The fact that they did not establish Hawke as well as they could is not an indictment of defined protagonists, just of the actual implementation in that game.

[bEVEsthda]

wsandista wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

The obvious way to avoid linearity, or being railroaded, to the degree that happened in DA2 and ME3, is to give the players more choices that have real meaning.  Developers will say that is what they would like to do, but that would cost too much money.  I say there is a way to offer more real choices, that should either cost less, or an equal amount.
Greatly reduce the number of cinematic cutscenes:  There is another thread that speaks about reducing animations for conversations, with still shots, as a way to add more conversations.  This is a good start, but there is more that can be done.  The problem with big cinematic cutscenes, besides the fact that they take time and resources to create, is that once they are made, the developers generally feel obligated to use them, since they cost so much to make.  So, every large cinematic cutscene you see, means that the game has pulled you into that direction, with no options, so that you will experience that cutscene.  More plot paths can be created, if there is not a cinematic moment waiting at the end of each of them.  I would guess, that the writing and programming that goes into a story line, is substantially less than the average cutscene.  So it only seems logical that you can get a larger, more detailed story, with more choices that really matter, if you cut out the cinematics, except for the really special moments.

It is ridiculous how much I agree with this.

I would also add that having a voiced PC also takes away zots that could be used in gameplay content. Just a gentle reminder.

Totally agree. I have a notion cinematic cutscenes are disproportinally more valued by EA managers, EA marketing, and even the developers (it's fun to make movies, and so satisfying to tell the story your  way), than by the gamers. They bring very little value to the game. They cost a lot. Both in terms of direct zots, and in terms of what other things they force out of the picture.

Vormaerin wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Don't agree since cinematic games are driven by them and that will be the case as long as Bioware is making cinematic games. Trying to make a cinematic game less cinematic is counter productive.
The way around it is to make the character more defined not less. Give the player TNO,Geralt,Adam etc. They fit with cinematic gaming rather than trying to pull against it.

Witcher2 has a lot of choices, including a REALLY big one at the end of act1.

This is very much my feeling also. There are all kinds of ways within a cinematic game to give the player agency. Whole cloth character creation just doesn't happen to be one of them.

And this is the other side of the trenchlines, of course. I've seen developers claim that there are no clear demarcation lines between groups of opinions. I have to largely disagree with that. There is, kinda. There are two groups who want two different types of games. A not entirely easy position for Bioware, but one they have placed themselves in.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 10 juin 2012 - 12:03 .

[Vormaerin]

bEVEsthda wrote...

 There are two groups who want two different types of games. A not entirely easy position for Bioware, but one they have placed themselves in.

I don't know if Bioware has placed themselves in so much as technology has advanced to where they are quite distinct.  They don't really have a choice to stay in the middle without creating mediocre games. 

[Issala]

Fully predetermined character? No thanks.
If I see one more strong-jawed, thuggish male looking angry on the cover of a video game, I shall weep tears of blood.

[Vormaerin]

Semhaine wrote...

Fully predetermined character? No thanks.
If I see one more strong-jawed, thuggish male looking angry on the cover of a video game, I shall weep tears of blood.

Again, no one is saying that is the way to go.  Being able to play Hawke or Shepard as male or female works reasonably well.

Its when your characters can have widely divergent cultural, educational, and racial backgrounds that you either damage the story or you greatly increase the resources necessary to tell it.

I would LOVE to have DAO's origins each lead to a distinctive version of the game rather than all six playing out practically identically.   But that's very very expensive and we'd have a smaller game if Bioware did it that way as a result.

[bEVEsthda]

Vormaerin wrote...
I would LOVE to have DAO's origins each lead to a distinctive version of the game rather than all six playing out practically identically.   But that's very very expensive and we'd have a smaller game if Bioware did it that way as a result.

But for some of us, every DAO origin did indead lead to a distinctive story (enough). Because we made different choices later in the game, because of who we were, because of our background (and that extends even to Awakening). (Which I gather was also much the intention behind the origins, how they were supposed to work.)

Also, I'm kinda unconvinced and sort of bothered, by this tactic to attack a direction, from the angle that it cannot be made absolutely perfect (an argument that can always be made), while happily implying such drawbacks are avoided with the direction one wants instead.

IMO, any interesting game will, for technical reasons, have to rely on certain things to mainly take place inside the gamers head. Making a very explicit and defined game story is absolutely not the solution. That will just end up being a very poor game, widely seperated from what most WRPG gamers look for.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 10 juin 2012 - 01:52 .

[AkiKishi]

Semhaine wrote...

Fully predetermined character? No thanks.
If I see one more strong-jawed, thuggish male looking angry on the cover of a video game, I shall weep tears of blood.

Geralt and Adam are there for a reason. Geralt because the Witcher is based on a book series and Adam because it's a pre-quel.

Theres actualy no reason you can't have multiple fixed characters, or even tell slightly different stories with them. Action RPGs have been doing it for years that way.

[Midnightpain]

one way to tell ... button = awesome .. if this is implemented again im going to smack my head against some concrete until i slur enchantments like a special dwarf and I will be in the minority that find this satisfying.

[Vormaerin]

bEVEsthda wrote...

But for some of us, every DAO origin did indead lead to a distinctive story (enough). Because we made different choices later in the game, because of who we were, because of our background (and that extends even to Awakening). (Which I gather was also much the intention behind the origins, how they were supposed to work.)

I enjoyed the origins.  I just ended up playing most of them to Ostagar, though, once I found out they didn't make a meaningful difference to the game.  They didn't add replay value because they mattered so little.

bEVEsthda wrote...
Also, I'm kinda unconvinced and sort of bothered, by this tactic to attack a direction, from the angle that it cannot be made absolutely perfect (an argument that can always be made), while happily implying such drawbacks are avoided with the direction one wants instead.

IMO, any interesting game will, for technical reasons, have to rely on certain things to mainly take place inside the gamers head. Making a very explicit and defined game story is absolutely not the solution. That will just end up being a very poor game, widely seperated from what most WRPG gamers look for.

Of course it won't be perfect.  An open world is never really open, its just less closed than other games.  A narrative game never allows everything you want and is never as reactive as you hope.   Though why you think what I'm arguing for is the JRPG movie-game, I'm not sure.

Games can only give you a certain amount of choices.   So I want my choices to be ones that genuinely affect how the game plays out.  If you play Deus Ex, you can't chose not to be JC Denton.  You can't even chose the order you do the quests/visit the locations.   But you can make all kinds of choices about how you do everything.   If you solve quests non violently, many characters treat you differently than if you go in guns blazing.

I can certainly pretend that being a dwarf means something, when it actually doesn't.  It doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game.  BG2 was fun.  But the replay value didn't come from the PC, it came from the NPCs.  I never said "I wonder what it will be like playing a dwarf instead of a human" because the only difference between the two was dwarfs didn't get romances.   Instead, I said  "I wonder what it will be like with Mazzy, Valygar, and Viconia as my companions."

That version of replay is going by the wayside, however, since the new model is to have all your NPCs hanging around whether they are active or not.   There's still some of it in the banter, but more and more of the character development and interaction is going on in neutral sites.

If I'm choosing to play an outcast/second class citizen type, like a half orc or a city elf, and then everyone treats me like upstanding citizen from the getgo, its rather depressing.  It just tells me the lore doesn't matter and there's no point in learning it.  Same with happy go lucky Mage Hawkes in Kirkwall.

Don't make options you aren't going to support.  Spend those resources on something you are going to support.  Or write the lore to support what you are actually doing.

[ElitePinecone]

Vormaerin wrote...

If I'm choosing to play an outcast/second class citizen type, like a half orc or a city elf, and then everyone treats me like upstanding citizen from the getgo, its rather depressing.  It just tells me the lore doesn't matter and there's no point in learning it.  Same with happy go lucky Mage Hawkes in Kirkwall.

Don't make options you aren't going to support.  Spend those resources on something you are going to support.  Or write the lore to support what you are actually doing.

This is definitely a good point, and I agree.

So I suppose there are two sides to character customisation: the narrative that the player appreciates even if it's not made clear in the game (I suppose you could call it a kind of headcanon), and what is made explicit in the game itself, by having NPCs and the setting react to player choices or the origin.

It's already been pointed out many times that mage Hawkes in DA2 don't get the attention they would seem to deserve from the city guard (particularly when they're running around blasting things with fireballs), and I agree that integrating origins in Origins could've been done better, though I disagree that they have no inherent value. They gave great insights into the Warden, pre-Ostagar, and *did* (at least personally) give more weight and engagement with certain sections of the game. 

(I know I keep mentioning it, but I never really developed an attachment to anybody in the Hawke family, whereas the arc of the Human Noble's vengeance towards Arl Howe and later encounters with Nathaniel in Awakening was excellent.)

Even in Mass Effect, beyond one mission's worth of unique dialogue in the first game and a couple of emails, Shepard's background and service history were never mentioned in the game - and certainly had no major impact on anything beyond what players imagined for themselves. The effort to reference it in ME3 was very well done, but by then the character was even less in the hands of player control. I'd even call Mass Effect a lesson in why *not* to introduce origins or customisation if they don't mean to follow through with it, because a space-born Shepard mourning Earth in automatic dialogue with no other choices was incredibly frustrating to watch. 

[AkiKishi]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

If I'm choosing to play an outcast/second class citizen type, like a half orc or a city elf, and then everyone treats me like upstanding citizen from the getgo, its rather depressing.  It just tells me the lore doesn't matter and there's no point in learning it.  Same with happy go lucky Mage Hawkes in Kirkwall.

Don't make options you aren't going to support.  Spend those resources on something you are going to support.  Or write the lore to support what you are actually doing.

This is definitely a good point, and I agree.

So I suppose there are two sides to character customisation: the narrative that the player appreciates even if it's not made clear in the game (I suppose you could call it a kind of headcanon), and what is made explicit in the game itself, by having NPCs and the setting react to player choices or the origin.

It's already been pointed out many times that mage Hawkes in DA2 don't get the attention they would seem to deserve from the city guard (particularly when they're running around blasting things with fireballs), and I agree that integrating origins in Origins could've been done better, though I disagree that they have no inherent value. They gave great insights into the Warden, pre-Ostagar, and *did* (at least personally) give more weight and engagement with certain sections of the game. 

(I know I keep mentioning it, but I never really developed an attachment to anybody in the Hawke family, whereas the arc of the Human Noble's vengeance towards Arl Howe and later encounters with Nathaniel in Awakening was excellent.)

Even in Mass Effect, beyond one mission's worth of unique dialogue in the first game and a couple of emails, Shepard's background and service history were never mentioned in the game - and certainly had no major impact on anything beyond what players imagined for themselves. The effort to reference it in ME3 was very well done, but by then the character was even less in the hands of player control. I'd even call Mass Effect a lesson in why *not* to introduce origins or customisation if they don't mean to follow through with it, because a space-born Shepard mourning Earth in automatic dialogue with no other choices was incredibly frustrating to watch. 

In DAO what you were was far more important than who you were, or where you came from. DA2 never really had that excuse.
Again, if you compare how dialogue in Witcher2 is used, it's another advantage of a having a known character with their motives in the story.

[batlin]

Vormaerin wrote...

I like the kind of story DA2 was trying to tell a lot more than the one that DAO told.   DAO didn't really let you decide anything important until the very end (and it was a bog standard "kill the dark lord and his orcs because you are special and no one else is" tale), but you didn't feel passive even if all you did was wander around following orders.

In DA2 your choices affect exactly nothing, even at the end. No matter who you side with, the mages and templars go to war with each other and there is no significant difference in the epilogue.

For me, the story/characters is the most important thing.  Almost all the non linear elements of BG2 and DAO come at the expense of the story.   Everything about the prologue of BG2 sets up a sense of urgency, but then you get a "wander and do whatever you want for as along as you want" while Imoen gets tortured and your lifeforce fades...except not really.    DAO, you are supposedly racing against time to gather an army to stop the blight, but its okay to take random courier and bounty hunting missions for fun.

As for the story, DA2 strung together three disjointed and episodic plots that were only barely related to each other. DA:O strung together five, all directly and clearly related to each other, each exploring difference facets of equality within difference societal structures. Explain to me how DA2's story was any better-told than DA:O's.

As for the characters, in what ways are DA2's characters any better than DA:O's? If anything they've gotten more one-dimensional in the sequel.  Fenris is a generic brooding JRPG character who hates all mages despite being shown clear evidence for 6 years straight that not all mages are like those in the imperium. Merrill is a naive idiot who, despite being trained to be a Keeper for most of her life, thinks that demons can be controlled. Isabela is a cavalcade of sex jokes and has no character outside of that and how she could have a small character arc if you treated her nice, or like crap.Aveline is probably one of the more fleshed-out characters, though she's an entirely unlikable stick-in-the-mud who disapproves of most anything you do. Carver is a whiny b****, Bethany is generic (unil she joins the Grey Wardens and then becomes a whiny b****). Varric is easily the most likable companion in DA2, although ditressingly we never learn much about his history or motivations.

Anders is probably the biggest offense to a once good character. He became one-note; whereas in Awakenings he was a mage who was vexed by how mages are treated by the Chantry and coverned up his problems with humor, in DA2 he's a mage vexed by how mages are treated by the Chantry and covered up his problems with absolutely nothing. Anders does NOT SHUT UP about mages' plight. His actions are also completely OOC from his Awakenings self, who did recognize that the Chantry was necessary for the Circle to keep order, but that their methods were a bit too extreme for his liking. Merging with Justice, ignoring for a moment how merging with a spirit did not change your personality in DA:O as evidenced in the case of Wynne, made him act in ways entire OOC to even how Justice was. If Meredeth was the reason the mages were being treated so horribly in Kirkwall, why would Justice make Anders attack the Chantry rather than the Templars? In Awakenings, Justice saw mages' plight, so why did he not say "Hey, we should start a war" in Amaranthine?

In short, Anders in DA2 is not only a disservice to one character, but a disservice to two.

Which is not to say I want a more straitjacket plot.  But if the plot is a race against time, I'd like it be feel like one and not an 'meander about doing stuff until I run out of things to do' story.    A story like DA2 is where that open ended kind of activity should have flourished.

I'm afraid your idea of "open-ended" is a bit skewed. Dragon Age 2 had nothing of the sort.

Modifié par batlin, 11 juin 2012 - 11:12 .

[Vormaerin]

batlin wrote...

I'm afraid your idea of "open-ended" is a bit skewed. Dragon Age 2 had nothing of the sort.

I'm afraid that the actual problem is that your reading comprehension is a bit skewed.   Look at what I actualy wrote:  "tried"  "should have", etc.     DA2 did not achieve what it attempted.  It was too ambitious for the resources alloted to it.  It was a better concept, but not a better execution.

My point was that all those side quests like helping the tavern gangsters, working as a courier for the mages/mercenaries/whatever, and so on were stupid story wise in DAO.   Every day you spend wandering around looking for flowers for some apostate or whatever is another day your army isn't mustering to defend the realm; another day the Ferelden army spends trying to destroy itself in a civil war.

Those kinds of quests *should* have been prevalent in a story like DA2's, where the protagonist doesn't have a gun to his head in the shape of this week's Sauron clone out to destroy the world yet again.   There's a couple in DA2, but not enough to let you actually pick and choose between them.   Which group you use to get into the city could have been a separate quest chain, with some you could do in either version.

Then afterwards you are looking for money to bribe the Templars.   Bethany implies it, but it should have been explicit.  Then you have various side quests to choose from, until its clear that Varric's deal is the only way to get enough money to keep bribing the templars.

And so on.  Probably what they would have done with more time, but who knows?

Bioware will hopefully never get into making "open world"  RPGs.   But successfully making stories like they tried to do with Hawke would be way more interesting than another paint by numbers kill darkorcspawn to pwn Sauron/old god where you have to turn off your brain to avoid the story conflicts between side questing and doing the "OMG IMPORTANT ONLY YOU CAN SAVE US!" main quest.

[Conamaru]

I agree with every Vormaerin is saying.

[Realmzmaster]

What Vormaerin is saying and I have said in different threads is that DAO had no sense of urgency. Outside of sacking Lothering and Ostagar where else is it shown that the darkspawn are conquering anything. Did the darkspawn army just stop moving and grind to a halt? Where was the attack on Redcliffe which was not far from Ostagar?

DAO was suppose to happen with a year's time. Urgency could have been achieve by having the darkspawn slowly destroy or attack each potential ally. So if party did not hurry and solve that allies problem the darkspawn would attack. The party would then have to help defend the ally or abandon them. The only ones who may hold out would be the dwarves.

Sten's party was attacked at Lake Calenhad, but the darkspawn did not attack the Tower? Why? You find the darkspawn in the forest, but they do not attack the elves? Why? The darkspawn do not even attack the werewolves perhaps forcing the elves and werewolves to work together.

DA2 does not have the same urgency except on a personal level. There is no big bad seeking to destroy the land. This allows for more mundane FedEx quests etc.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 12 juin 2012 - 06:55 .

[aries1001]

What is player agency or player reactivity? I'm currently playing Shadows of Undrentide and I don't find any player agency or reactivity in the combat at all. I just click on the enemy and the combat plays out: my character dodges and swings her sword or a flail. It is not so much a question about whether or not there is player agency or player reactivity but if the players (fans) feel there are either player agency or player reactivity. In both BG1 and DA2 I felt there were both player agency and reactivity - not at least in the combat. In DA: Origins and also somewhat in BG2 I felt player agency as well as player reactivity present since I could decide the outcome of some quests and decide the fate of some or all NPCs.

As for Bioware's method of storytelling it seems to me that Bioware has gone from delivering the greatest stories in the world to focusing more on creating the greatest characters in the world in the video game industry - and then putting these characters inti stories in say the ME universe or the DA universe.