86 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyberarmy]

DA2s ending starts to shatter from beginning of Act3. Like writers have gone to vacation at there and leave it to someone just passing by.

ME3 have the same problem, there are only 2-3 high quality wise planets. (Tuchanka and Rnnoch for example) but the rest just goes down hill. Especially Cerberus Base and Earth missions are really shallow IMHO which are the last parts of the game.

So two games have identical "ending errors" in my opinion.Not just last 10-15 minutes but as whole ending sequances.
Both endings are wasted great potentials.

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 01 juillet 2012 - 10:13 .

[JennDragonAge]

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...

[quote]JennDragonAge wrote...

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...


When you say choices, I gather you more mean the "bigger choices" that would have repercussions beyond a single game?  (i.e. choices that would get imported or something along those lines)?

[/quote]

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. Sorry if it was unclear; I couldn't think of a better descriptor. 

I commend Bioware for making games like this because I know it's difficult. When the "bigger choices" are carried over appropriately it is really satisfying to me as a player. It makes me feel as each game is "my own" and when done well it provides the illusion that your decisions really change the world you are in. I use the word illusion because in the end all the roads need to end in Rome (or at least near it, which we realize) if the story is going to continue, but if Rome looks different enough for each player's choices, then the belief that your choices were effectual remain.

I think the real break in immersion occurs when things are either ignored outright or cannonized. A good example would be if how the OGB was conceived became cannon. I think for those that did not do the rite, it needs to be stated how Morrigan conceived the child. A current example of this was present in ME3 when if you had chosen Anderson as the human councillor, it is not explained how or why Udina is suddenly councillor. It's just canon. Just a small explanation of how Anderson stepped down to lead the war effort would have sufficed in that place.

Modifié par JennDragonAge, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:57 .

[Little Princess Peach]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The whole studio has definitely taken notice on the reaction to the ME3 endings, so looking forward I think that there are some lessons learned from it and DA2.

If you're asking for additional content for DA2, I guess nothing is for certain, but IIRC Mark Darrah made a comment about how we were moving forward to other projects with the cancellation of the expansion pack we were working on.

It sucks if you'd like more answers, but I certainly wouldn't count on it if you're anxiously waiting for more.

I hope it's nothing like awakening Otherwise it wont be worth playing

[jds1bio]

Cyberarmy wrote...

DA2s ending starts to shatter from beginning of Act3. Like writers have gone to vacation at there and leave it to someone just passing by.

ME3 have the same problem, there are only 2-3 high quality wise planets. (Tuchanka and Rnnoch for example) but the rest just goes down hill. Especially Cerberus Base and Earth missions are really shallow IMHO which are the last parts of the game.

So two games have identical "ending errors" in my opinion.Not just last 10-15 minutes but as whole ending sequances.
Both endings are wasted great potentials.

It seems to be notoriously difficult to put an ending on these things. 

Maybe the endings should be constructed first off and made playable, so that a) a climax exists that is not originated from time/budget pressures, and  so that the rest of the journey can be developed in perspective to what that ending (and its final presentation to the player) will represent.  Will it truly represent a journey taken, or just be a stopping point?  DA2's ending was more of the latter, when it had everything going for it to be the former.

Modifié par jds1bio, 01 juillet 2012 - 07:15 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Maybe the endings should be constructed first off and made playable, so that a) a climax exists that is not originated from time/budget pressures, and so that the rest of the journey can be developed in perspective to what that ending (and its final presentation to the player) will represent.

This was actually a part of our design for the expansion pack. We had some interesting ideas for the ending and we realized we needed to get some proof of concept stuff on it to know how viable it was. This would also mean properly playing the end sequence early in production. Games aren't built entirely linearly, though they do seem to get iterated on that way due to the nature of how games play.

Stuff earlier in the game has a greater chance of being seen (also in part because less permutations in choice happen), and iteration is very valuable in polishing a product. I definitely feel that Act 1 was DA2's strongest act and I'd say iteration time is a large part of that.


As QA, a real challenging thing for us is testing later game content in a viable way. Testing tools can help, but often require a high degree of maintenance or expertise to use (example below). Simply warping to various levels usually results in an invalid plot state, where decisions that must have occurred simply haven't. Debug scripts can be written to help set those plot states but if design ends up changing some plot names or plots are cut, moved, whatever, then the scripts need to be updated. And when it's super busy those things often fall by the wayside. The alternative of course, is playing the game quickly from the start.

We are working on tools that have more direct access to the plot flags for ease of manipulation (and just ease of tracking) so hopefully we can make the workflow a bit easier for all of the QA testers so we can balance out our iterations throughout the whole game, and hopefully it helps produce a higher quality product.


As a script maintenance example: We had a script in DAO that simply killed all the hostiles. Just made them dead. Pretty much called a function in game that was .kill(). Problem with that in DA2, was that some of the fights were structured differently (Meredith is the easiest one). Just outright killing her at the beginning breaks the game as the progression of the fight doesn't occur. There are other instances where this cause an issue (often if a conversation/cutscene is required right after a fight). So now our script isn't working properly. Oh noes! Burnthrough requires this script too! So now we have to update it, which required allocating some time to it, and ultimately we changed it to just do ridiculous amounts of damage. It more accurately simulated what the player dead in the game (kill creatures by causing damage), rather than something unique (programmatically calling kill commands).


Hey about that. I actually contributed something!

[AkiKishi]

jds1bio wrote...

Cyberarmy wrote...

DA2s ending starts to shatter from beginning of Act3. Like writers have gone to vacation at there and leave it to someone just passing by.

ME3 have the same problem, there are only 2-3 high quality wise planets. (Tuchanka and Rnnoch for example) but the rest just goes down hill. Especially Cerberus Base and Earth missions are really shallow IMHO which are the last parts of the game.

So two games have identical "ending errors" in my opinion.Not just last 10-15 minutes but as whole ending sequances.
Both endings are wasted great potentials.

It seems to be notoriously difficult to put an ending on these things. 

Maybe the endings should be constructed first off and made playable, so that a) a climax exists that is not originated from time/budget pressures, and  so that the rest of the journey can be developed in perspective to what that ending (and its final presentation to the player) will represent.  Will it truly represent a journey taken, or just be a stopping point?  DA2's ending was more of the latter, when it had everything going for it to be the former.

In a lot of games the ending writes itself to a degree. Of course you still have to make that ending satisfying which is where ME3 dropped the ball. DA2 though, well there is no plot as such. It's just a lot of subplots linked together. Nothing really connects the character in the way Shepard is connected to the Reapers, or the Warden is connected to the Arch-Demon. Hawke just sort of wanders through Kirkwall doing unrelated stuff.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Maybe the endings should be constructed first off and made playable, so that a) a climax exists that is not originated from time/budget pressures, and so that the rest of the journey can be developed in perspective to what that ending (and its final presentation to the player) will represent.

This was actually a part of our design for the expansion pack. We had some interesting ideas for the ending and we realized we needed to get some proof of concept stuff on it to know how viable it was. This would also mean properly playing the end sequence early in production. Games aren't built entirely linearly, though they do seem to get iterated on that way due to the nature of how games play.

Stuff earlier in the game has a greater chance of being seen (also in part because less permutations in choice happen), and iteration is very valuable in polishing a product. I definitely feel that Act 1 was DA2's strongest act and I'd say iteration time is a large part of that.


As QA, a real challenging thing for us is testing later game content in a viable way. Testing tools can help, but often require a high degree of maintenance or expertise to use (example below). Simply warping to various levels usually results in an invalid plot state, where decisions that must have occurred simply haven't. Debug scripts can be written to help set those plot states but if design ends up changing some plot names or plots are cut, moved, whatever, then the scripts need to be updated. And when it's super busy those things often fall by the wayside. The alternative of course, is playing the game quickly from the start.

We are working on tools that have more direct access to the plot flags for ease of manipulation (and just ease of tracking) so hopefully we can make the workflow a bit easier for all of the QA testers so we can balance out our iterations throughout the whole game, and hopefully it helps produce a higher quality product.


As a script maintenance example: We had a script in DAO that simply killed all the hostiles. Just made them dead. Pretty much called a function in game that was .kill(). Problem with that in DA2, was that some of the fights were structured differently (Meredith is the easiest one). Just outright killing her at the beginning breaks the game as the progression of the fight doesn't occur. There are other instances where this cause an issue (often if a conversation/cutscene is required right after a fight). So now our script isn't working properly. Oh noes! Burnthrough requires this script too! So now we have to update it, which required allocating some time to it, and ultimately we changed it to just do ridiculous amounts of damage. It more accurately simulated what the player dead in the game (kill creatures by causing damage), rather than something unique (programmatically calling kill commands).


Hey about that. I actually contributed something!

Not being a systems person, but having my job require I deal with a lot of systems failures and having to work through them with our IT/Development departments, its eerie how similar some of the things you say bleed over into my real life, like how testing models and tools don't work as anticipated because changing requirements and needs. 


That being said, Allen, I'm not sure if you've read much on the new Unreal Engine 4 (for those who have already heard me harp on this, I apologize) but I find its design concept very intriguing. 

It is basically designed to need a much more limited amount of programming, debugging and custom-script writing. Essentially, the designer themselves can enter a test mode that will mimic the exact play-game experience, often times without requiring the concepts they drafted up to become integrated into gameplay to be coded by programmers.

The details of this can be found in the June article of GameInformer (which is an excellent article, btw), however it is all just words until the Engine itself is rolled out.

Regardless, do you think engine design like this, where game design itself is focused on, making the creation process as seemless as possible, would be a boon as someone who works in the video game industry? 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 juillet 2012 - 12:00 .

[ScotGaymer]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This was actually a part of our design for the expansion pack. We had some interesting ideas for the ending and we realized we needed to get some proof of concept stuff on it to know how viable it was. This would also mean properly playing the end sequence early in production. Games aren't built entirely linearly, though they do seem to get iterated on that way due to the nature of how games play.

Stuff earlier in the game has a greater chance of being seen (also in part because less permutations in choice happen), and iteration is very valuable in polishing a product. I definitely feel that Act 1 was DA2's strongest act and I'd say iteration time is a large part of that.

Okay let me start with your later point and say I just completely disagree.

Act 1 in many places just felt like pointless busy work with no real goal or point. Not all of the time, but some of the time it felt like that. That was because the actual goal was vague and somewhat uninteresting; and we are never really given a real reason to give a crap about it.
The goal being to get the Hawke family back into high town, back into a place of prosperity in order to protect yourselves with some political clout. That is all well and good except the game never gives you reason to care about that; and by that I mean you don't give a crap about your "family".

Mom Hawke is a woman who nags at you occassionally and then has a "tragic" and "emotional" death that is niether tragic or emotional because we never establish an emotional connection with her.
Bethany dies too quick to give a crap about; or is taken away before any meaningful interaction can develop so that you can actually care about her at all.
Same goes for Carver - he either dies too quickly, or becomes a giant whiny pain in the pass until he dies or is taken away. By the time HE goes you are at the opposite of caring with him - you are in fact GLAD to see the back of him.
It's weird and telling that Hawke has more interaction with his Uncle Gamlen than he does the rest of them, and you can come to have a weird sort of respect for him by the end of the game.
It's basically a case of the game and the writers saying "This is your family. GIVE A CRAP ABOUT THEM! Why? WE AREN'T GOING TO TELL YOU!" - it doesn't work.

So we don't care about our family, so by that token why should be care about going to the Deep Roads? Nothing happens to establish that connection for us.

In my opinion Act 2 is by FAR the stronger. I and many others think that the Qunari and their arc should have been the focus of DA2 (and thought they WERE the focus of DA2); and that the Arishok should have been the main boss of the whole game.

About the actual games endings. I don't agree with people's criticisms about the Epilogue and what not. This game didn't need epilogues to make the game feel good or well done. Where Mass Effect 3 failed, Dragon Age 2 succeeded on the "speculations" front by provide just enough of the right information for you to be reasonably sure about what happens but to allow for different perspectives.

The problem with the endings isnt that they didnt make sense, or they didn't provide enough information.

The problem was that they were just bad. The end game part of DA2 just sucked period.

I've said this repeatedly, the way to make the endings NOT suck is very very simple. Very simple. So simple you will kick urself for not spotting it.
Basically both Meredith and Orsino are verging on the "bat-crap insane" by Act 3; and either one of them could have been the driving force for all the stuff thats going on. The reason for why the Mages and Templars are heading towards war.
And this is all BW needed to do to fix the end.

Make it so the side you pick decides which of the two really was bat-crap crazy and which was simply responding to the stress of the situation.
Picking to side with the Templars for example will give Orsino the Lyrium Idol Weapon (a staff version not a sword) and make him the ultimate baddie of the game. Then cue conflict. Chase Orsino and Meredith to Gallows. on steps of Gallows Orsino uses the lyrium idol weapon to murder Meredith in a cutscene (thereby getting shot of her and placing the templars under "your" command) and then activates the Gate Guardian statues before fleeing inside. Hawke destroys the gate guardians; then has the talking to companions and LI cut scenes. Then they charge in all together to go fight Orsino. Orsino fights himself with some mage support, then he fights himself with mage and templar corpse thralls, then he goes into HARVERSTER MODE. Then you slaughter him, and he has one last mini gasp as himself before being "beaten" and turning to stone.
Picking to side with the Mages will pretty much have the existing ending except Meredith will kill Orsino in a cut scene entering the Gallows, forcing the mages along with Hawke to flee inside. The mages led by one of the Senior Enchanters decide to resort to blood magic, forcing Hawke to kill them and then fight his way out. Cue normal Meredith battle.
Viola an ending with two small changes, and results in something good that takes player choice into account.

That's all it needed IMO.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 02 juillet 2012 - 12:04 .

[Wulfram]

Act 1 mostly needed the threat of discovery by the templars to feel more real. Maybe a blackmail plot or something to force Hawke to find money and power to protect themselves/Bethany.

Act 2, the only problem I have is how you kind of fail at everything. Gets a bit annoying.

[robertthebard]

FitScotGaymer wrote...


Make it so the side you pick decides which of the two really was bat-crap crazy and which was simply responding to the stress of the situation.
Picking to side with the Templars for example will give Orsino the Lyrium Idol Weapon (a staff version not a sword) and make him the ultimate baddie of the game. Then cue conflict. Chase Orsino and Meredith to Gallows. on steps of Gallows Orsino uses the lyrium idol weapon to murder Meredith in a cutscene (thereby getting shot of her and placing the templars under "your" command) and then activates the Gate Guardian statues before fleeing inside. Hawke destroys the gate guardians; then has the talking to companions and LI cut scenes. Then they charge in all together to go fight Orsino. Orsino fights himself with some mage support, then he fights himself with mage and templar corpse thralls, then he goes into HARVERSTER MODE. Then you slaughter him, and he has one last mini gasp as himself before being "beaten" and turning to stone.
Picking to side with the Mages will pretty much have the existing ending except Meredith will kill Orsino in a cut scene entering the Gallows, forcing the mages along with Hawke to flee inside. The mages led by one of the Senior Enchanters decide to resort to blood magic, forcing Hawke to kill them and then fight his way out. Cue normal Meredith battle.
Viola an ending with two small changes, and results in something good that takes player choice into account.

That's all it needed IMO.

So what you're saying is, siding with the mages will play out even worse than it does currently, since you're not dealing with one Blood Mage, but all the mages go rogue.  What a swell idea...

I never saw the point of having to kill everybody, and letting the idol switch is fine, but your mage ending still requires you to kill mages, and then Meredith anyway, might as well leave it as is.  Instead, what would be better, IMO, is to have to fight through x amount of waves of Templars, and then rush the gate to the courtyard for the fight with Meredith, instead of having to kill all the mages.

The other point that I think you're missing about this game is that the war is supposed to happen, no matter what.  While the situation is ultimately worse in Kirkwall than what we know of other places, my own experiences are simply from the game, I have read none of the books, but the mages have been "imprisoned" for centuries, and I'm sure not all of them have Irving and Wynne's view of the Circle.  Sooner or later, it was going to come to a head, and BioWare chose to tell the story of it coming to a head in a game, instead of a book, and having people like me, that never read the books going "when did that happen", or "how did that happen", or both.

[TonberryFeye]

I'm still in a state of disbelief that they aren't dropping that stupid DA2 plot altogether...

I echo what others have said; Act 2 of DA2 is the only one worth paying any attention to. Act 1 has no plot - it's a collection of sidequests that exists to get you to Act 2 and set up a Chenkhov's Gun for Act 3. Act 3 itself is insultingly bad and ends by rendering every choice you made up to that point null and void. Here's a tip, Bioware; if I wanted to be remembered as a hero to all mages I would not have sided with the Templars!

The Qunari should have been the 'villains' of DA2. I use the speech marks because, if done properly, Qunari should not be portrayed as villainous, merely different. In many ways, their attitude can be summarised as "we are going to do what is best for you, whether you like it or not." It's calling back to Origins' Bhelen vs Harrowmont situation, where the 'good guy' Harrowmont actually harms Orzammar in the long run, whilst the 'bad guy' Bhelen turns out to be a progressive, industrious leader who helps the city thrive.

Kirkwall under the Qun would be a better place, no question. However, think of all the conflict that rises from that: fear of losing cultural identity; fear of being enslaved (I know they won't be slaves, but they have the perception they will be enslaved); the Circle fearing what the Qunari do to mages; the Chantry fearing their destruction in face of a hostile faith.
There's a much better story in there that what we had to put up with, and what is still being forced down our throats.

Why nobody at Bioware has the balls to admit DA2 was a failure, kill it dead and go back to what fans like I will never know.

[Cirram55]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Make it so the side you pick decides which of the two really was bat-crap crazy and which was simply responding to the stress of the situation.
Picking to side with the Templars for example will give Orsino the Lyrium Idol Weapon (a staff version not a sword) and make him the ultimate baddie of the game. Then cue conflict. Chase Orsino and Meredith to Gallows. on steps of Gallows Orsino uses the lyrium idol weapon to murder Meredith in a cutscene (thereby getting shot of her and placing the templars under "your" command) and then activates the Gate Guardian statues before fleeing inside. Hawke destroys the gate guardians; then has the talking to companions and LI cut scenes. Then they charge in all together to go fight Orsino. Orsino fights himself with some mage support, then he fights himself with mage and templar corpse thralls, then he goes into HARVERSTER MODE. Then you slaughter him, and he has one last mini gasp as himself before being "beaten" and turning to stone.
Picking to side with the Mages will pretty much have the existing ending except Meredith will kill Orsino in a cut scene entering the Gallows, forcing the mages along with Hawke to flee inside. The mages led by one of the Senior Enchanters decide to resort to blood magic, forcing Hawke to kill them and then fight his way out. Cue normal Meredith battle.

Actually, this (really good) idea has even a name.
Retroactive choice.
Something that - if properly done - would greatly benefit storytelling, I think.

Basically, who's right and wrong (or even the whole plot) is determined by the course of your actions.
You sided with the templars? You get to know how Orsino kept in touch with the necromancer who killed your mother.
Or maybe you prefer the mages? This opens up more quests that introduce you to the atrocities having place in the Gallows.
And this can be done for pretty much everything else.
This means replayability (more games sold by Bioware and less trashed out of the window by the players).
A game like DA2, which much restrained the player in terms of characterization, would've surely been a deeper game had it allowed more customization.

Modifié par Cirram55, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:48 .

[MrNose]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Maybe the endings should be constructed first off and made playable, so that a) a climax exists that is not originated from time/budget pressures, and so that the rest of the journey can be developed in perspective to what that ending (and its final presentation to the player) will represent.

This was actually a part of our design for the expansion pack. We had some interesting ideas for the ending and we realized we needed to get some proof of concept stuff on it to know how viable it was. This would also mean properly playing the end sequence early in production. Games aren't built entirely linearly, though they do seem to get iterated on that way due to the nature of how games play.

This is an interesting subject.  While I don't necessarily fully agree with him, Jason Aaron (the graphic novelist behind Scalped, Wolverine and the X-Men, etc...) has argued that a concrete ending and a concrete beginning need to be fully established before anything else in a story.  

Endings are often the weak point in videogames (hi Borderlands) and it would be interesting to see what would happen if BW nailed the finale down right away.

Modifié par MrNose, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:08 .

[Cirram55]

I just hope that DA has a planned arc for its plot.
What bugged me the most about ME3 wasn't the nonsensical ending, the poor writing and the other pretty things so many fans have pointed out, but the fact that the ME team had "many ideas about the ending" but still no ending at all planned out.
How can you possibily think that the final chapter of your trilogy is going to end smoothly, if you have no clue about the actual ending since the day you started writing the story?

Here's hoping the same won't happen with DA.

Modifié par Cirram55, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:45 .

[SphereofSilence]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This was actually a part of our design for the expansion pack. We had some interesting ideas for the ending and we realized we needed to get some proof of concept stuff on it to know how viable it was. This would also mean properly playing the end sequence early in production. Games aren't built entirely linearly, though they do seem to get iterated on that way due to the nature of how games play.

Stuff earlier in the game has a greater chance of being seen (also in part because less permutations in choice happen), and iteration is very valuable in polishing a product. I definitely feel that Act 1 was DA2's strongest act and I'd say iteration time is a large part of that.


As QA, a real challenging thing for us is testing later game content in a viable way. Testing tools can help, but often require a high degree of maintenance or expertise to use (example below). Simply warping to various levels usually results in an invalid plot state, where decisions that must have occurred simply haven't. Debug scripts can be written to help set those plot states but if design ends up changing some plot names or plots are cut, moved, whatever, then the scripts need to be updated. And when it's super busy those things often fall by the wayside. The alternative of course, is playing the game quickly from the start.

We are working on tools that have more direct access to the plot flags for ease of manipulation (and just ease of tracking) so hopefully we can make the workflow a bit easier for all of the QA testers so we can balance out our iterations throughout the whole game, and hopefully it helps produce a higher quality product.


As a script maintenance example: We had a script in DAO that simply killed all the hostiles. Just made them dead. Pretty much called a function in game that was .kill(). Problem with that in DA2, was that some of the fights were structured differently (Meredith is the easiest one). Just outright killing her at the beginning breaks the game as the progression of the fight doesn't occur. There are other instances where this cause an issue (often if a conversation/cutscene is required right after a fight). So now our script isn't working properly. Oh noes! Burnthrough requires this script too! So now we have to update it, which required allocating some time to it, and ultimately we changed it to just do ridiculous amounts of damage. It more accurately simulated what the player dead in the game (kill creatures by causing damage), rather than something unique (programmatically calling kill commands).


Hey about that. I actually contributed something!

First off, I get what you're saying that having more iterations on parts of the game make those parts stronger. Citing Act 1 of DA2, however, wasn't exactly a good example, Act 2 was stronger IMO.

If I were to use an example, I'd say the Ostagar/Korcari Wilds/Tower of Ishal sequence in DAO was one of the best. I felt the overall quality of story, cinematics and environmental ambience was the best for the whole of the franchise thus far. In remained the benchmark that the rest of DAO failed to reach.

Am glad though that Bioware is aware of the imbalance and is trying to fix them.

Now, I'm aware that Bioware measures combat intensity, conversational intensity, exploration intensity, and puzzle intensity throughout length of the game in development. What type of approach do BW take in determining what levels of intensity a certain part should have?

In relation to the earlier points, I noticed that the high points of DA tend to have higher conversational intensity, higher exploration intensity, higher cinematic intensity (that's a new one for you) and narrative intensity too (another). IMO anyways.

Also, how do BW measure combat intensity for example? The amount of combat? The difficulty of it?

How about the others like conversation? The amount? The quality?

Exploration? Puzzle?

Do you take in hard empirical data for those or through quality testing, converting subjective experience to numbers for measurement?

[Wulfram]

I'm not too keen on Korcari wilds or Ostagar. Korcari wilds in particular is boring, a lot of filler before you get to Morrigan.  Most of the origins and the rest of the game were better.

Though maybe it suffers from being a linear portion of the game that I've seen a lot of times.

Modifié par Wulfram, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:06 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Regardless, do you think engine design like this, where game design itself is focused on, making the creation process as seemless as possible, would be a boon as someone who works in the video game industry?

Engine design to accommodate the content creation process is always the goal, and making the creation process as easy as possible for the designers is pretty much our goal for any sort of Tools. The entire idea behind them comes from the idea that not every creative person knows how to program. I don't follow engine development, but if UE4 has good improvements to this then that's only a good thing for content devs.

First off, I get what you're saying that having more iterations on parts of the game make those parts stronger. Citing Act 1 of DA2, however, wasn't exactly a good example, Act 2 was stronger IMO.

I see this has came up a lot. I'm not restricting my comments about being a "stronger" act purely based on how interesting or subjectively good the content is, but also on whether or not there's issues with the content, as well as the amount of content.

Now, everyone is going to have different experiences (I rarely had issues with bugs in FONV at release, and it's considered one of the buggier games on release in recent history), so your mileage may vary. But in my experiences with the game as it went through certification (essentially the game is done) is that I feel there's more obvious issues with the game in the later acts, from a purely technical point of view.

Evidently not everyone agrees

[Wulfram]

Even David Gaider said "I think the second chapter in DA2 had the most work done on it so it was the most polished".

Which I guess just shows how it depends on your perspective.

[Kidd]

Cirram55 wrote...

Actually, this (really good) idea has even a name.
Retroactive choice.

Not meaning to sway the topic here, but isn't that the exact same thing people say is bad about the Hawkesexual LIs - that the world changes depending on what you do? Just putting this in perspective. Please don't make this the weekly bi LI thread.

I like it when it's done well, myself. It's especially nice in that there's more interesting alternative paths to take on new playthroughs. For instance, failing a quest on purpose by taking the "wrong choice" is something most people won't do, I believe - yet having the events turn out a second way is awesomecakes and rewards multiple playthroughs. It may lead to a situation where players don't think too much about consequences though, since they know they will always win or always fail depending on what the overall plot demands - no matter their choices?

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:35 .

[jkflipflopDAO]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

A significant portion of the ME3 ending criticism came from lack of epilogue.

NO! God damn you guys keep missing the point. It's not a lack of epilgue, it's a LACK OF CLOSURE.

It IS NOT fun nor rewarding nor satisfying not knowing the fate of the hero that we've spent 1000+ hours controlling. Cliffhangers ARE NOT the way to end your game. 

We still haven't found out anything of Morrigan or the OGB. Even when you falsely advertised a DLC where we'd get answers specifically about Morrigan, you only see her for 45 seconds and she has nothing new to tell you. She says "Guess what? Flemeth is alive LOL! Wanna go through this mirror to someplace else I can't name?". That is complete bull****. 

Again with DA2 "Hawke went off and did some stuff we aren't going to talk about". Stupid!! Stupid stupid stupid way to end a story. It's just all-around lame lack of effort. "Make it up yourself LOLZ!" is NOT A VALID STORYTELLING MECHANIC.

Then yet again with ME3. "Shepard's dead. . . OR IS HE??!? TROLOLOLOL!!!" is about all I got out of that trainwreck of an ending. 

Then the lesson you take away from all this is that we're angry because there's no epilogue?? WTF is wrong with you people?? 

[jds1bio]

BobSmith101 wrote...

In a lot of games the ending writes itself to a degree. Of course you still have to make that ending satisfying which is where ME3 dropped the ball. DA2 though, well there is no plot as such. It's just a lot of subplots linked together. Nothing really connects the character in the way Shepard is connected to the Reapers, or the Warden is connected to the Arch-Demon. Hawke just sort of wanders through Kirkwall doing unrelated stuff.

This is part of the problem.  Unless it's a completely procedurally-generated game whose gameplay is also completely procedurally-generated, the ending shouldn't write itself.  Some combination of the developer and player should. 

I think some ME3 fans were expecting the ending to write itself - that is, expecting to achieve a "conventional" victory over the reapers - after all, that was what their gameplay was reinforcing throughout the trilogy.  In DA2 there was never any such victory scenario, but again a conventional triumph over a mysterious and mighty threat in Act II is the portion of the game that some gravitated towards the most.  In some ways it's unfortunate that this expectation is too ingrained in players.

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

NO! God damn you guys keep missing the point. It's not a lack of epilgue, it's a LACK OF CLOSURE.

It
IS NOT fun nor rewarding nor satisfying not knowing the fate of the
hero that we've spent 1000+ hours controlling. Cliffhangers ARE NOT the
way to end your game. 

...

Then yet again with ME3. "Shepard's
dead. . . OR IS HE??!? TROLOLOLOL!!!" is about all I got out of that
trainwreck of an ending. 

I don't agree with the way you made your point.  But I do agree that when stories have taken flight and are being told, the storyteller needs to "bring them in for a landing", even if it means wrapping up things for the main character while leaving the rest hanging.  With the EC at least, each ending's meaning was explained to a degree.  As for that ending, teasing and trolling are two different things.

In terms of playability, I agree with Allan in that Act I is the strongest in that you build up your Hawke and take on story quests and side quests.  Act II takes a few different twists and turns side-quest-wise, but now that Hawke has spent some time in Kirkwall, the main story is narratively stronger and more meaningful, so we feel more involved in this portion of the game.  Act III more or less forces you to play, because of the inevitability of it all, and makes a good case for having an epilogue that can reflect on all that happened.

Modifié par jds1bio, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:20 .

[Cirram55]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...
Not meaning to sway the topic here, but isn't that the exact same thing
people say is bad about the Hawkesexual LIs - that the world changes
depending on what you do? Just putting this in perspective. Please don't
make this the weekly bi LI thread.

Yes, herosexuality can be seen as a result of retroactive choice.
By the way, as a little side note, - as much as I'd prefer a defined sexuality for characters and bisexuality for secondary NPCs, like with Dairen and Iona in the human noble origin or to a certain extent Cammen and Gheyna in the Brecilian forest - if they're going to keep doing herosexual companions it could be done better. DAII LIs didn't really "reacted" to the player. You could still slaughter mages and end up in bed with Anders: your choices didn't define the paths available for Hawke.


About Mass Effect 3 and endings in general, it seems to me that Bioware's afraid to cross the line between too little and too much, and in the end they often give us nothing. DAII is an example - though not a huge one, in my opinion, since you already knew like in ME2 that a war was coming, making the cliffhanger sound and intentional, although not well exectuted (and yes, DAII's supposed to have a cliffhanger since at the time Exalted March could've been done as well as not, the remaining three years of the planned decade would've been left to additional DLCs in case); Mass Effect 3 on the other hand gave us an ending addressing issues barely touched or already resolved throughout the three main installments, no closure, no epilogue, introducing an expositional tool in the last minutes of the game and (I'd like to stress this out) speculation for the sake of it.
There is nothing fun in this, and, ultimatly, nothing entertaining.

Modifié par Cirram55, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:10 .

[AkiKishi]

jds1bio wrote...

This is part of the problem.  Unless it's a completely procedurally-generated game whose gameplay is also completely procedurally-generated, the ending shouldn't write itself.  Some combination of the developer and player should. 

I think some ME3 fans were expecting the ending to write itself - that is, expecting to achieve a "conventional" victory over the reapers - after all, that was what their gameplay was reinforcing throughout the trilogy.  In DA2 there was never any such victory scenario, but again a conventional triumph over a mysterious and mighty threat in Act II is the portion of the game that some gravitated towards the most.  In some ways it's unfortunate that this expectation is too ingrained in players.

In ME3 nothing you were supposed to have been doing made any real difference. It came down to a mcguffin and a deus ex diablos. Both of which are kind of last ditch "we ran out of ideas" writing devices.

The problem with DA2 is that you get put on a fixed route. Support the Mages/Support the Templars, same thing happens, you end up killing everyone. There is no third option to just walk away (something that was kind of added to ME3 in EC).

[WhatIsMyUsername]

Damn, seems I'm a little late to this discussion but I agree with the main topic here,

It was a good game, I enjoyed it but it lacked in some places..(DA2)

The ending  was a bit...Sad. I mean Hawke isnt dead but if This is how his story is meant to end I will feel cheated. At least there was some kind of closure to the Warden, but if we are meant to have a new character in DA3 I hope the Warden and Hawke at least make Cameo appearances..

Oh well, one can hope .__.

Modifié par WhatIsMyUsername, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:12 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Wulfram wrote...

Even David Gaider said "I think the second chapter in DA2 had the most work done on it so it was the most polished".

Which I guess just shows how it depends on your perspective.

Fair enough.

I was working on an Autobot that would automatically play the game for the DA2XP, and I was using the original campaign for DA2 as a testbed for it.  It was able to get through Act 1 without much issue, but it started to really struggle and needed a lot of manual support come Act 2.

Though it's fair that different aspects of the game saw different amounts of detail, so what I saw and what David saw were two different layers of the same thing.  I don't test content specifically, so those sorts of things are difficult for me to judge iteration on.