57 réponses à ce sujet

[Direwolf0294]

DA2's intro could have been a lot better. From a gameplay perspective I really enjoyed it because my character was tearing through enemies (at least at the very start) and it was the only time I really felt powerful in the game. From a narrative perspective though I didn't really like it. They should have gone for a calm before the storm intro. Have the game start in Lothering with Hawke running around, learning about the world and helping a few people out and then the Darkspawn attack and you have to flee.

[Sir JK]

I do believe that In Medias Res is an effective means to start certain stories (interactive or otherwise), but as has been mentioned in these cases hind sight is imperative. A great mystery to me is why we were never allowed to experience Gwaren and the process of finding us a ship. It would have been a great scene for contextualising the flight, putting emphasis on how big a leap it is to flee to Kirkwall and explore the loss of losing a sibling. Fighting to stay hidden while desperately scrounging resources to afford a ferry over, seeing a vast number of refugees practically fight to death or sell themselves for a ride away, the guard fiercly beating them away from food stocks to be used by Loghain's army while at the same time going over the loss of the sibling (allowing the player through dialogue explore the relationship and loss, perhaps?). Seeing some mages being strung up as scapegoats by angry mobs. Putting emphasis that Ferelden is crashing down around them and that no matter how bad Kirkwall would be, it's better than Ferelden. And allow (or force) the player to make some tough choices regarding how to arrange the transport to Kirkwall.

I think something like that could have improved the intro a lot. Something similar could have worked in Kirkwall too I guess, but it was something that needed to be dealt with urgently in the story. While the wound was fresh, so to speak.

[Scarlet Rabbi]

If the sales and reception of DA2 (when compared to DAO) are any indication, then the DA team should put less emphasis on catering to people who have never even touched a Dragon Age game and more on the loyal fans that have enabled Dragon Age to live on through our purchases. Trying to have your cake and eat it too, especially when attempted so blatantly, seemed to inch this franchise further into it's coffin. But I know, I know; I'm just a stupid fan that doesn't grasp the intricacies of the business/marketing world, and just refuses to accept the roaring success that DA2 was.

Sales that were roughly half that of it's predecessor and a cancelled expansion doesn't spell success by any means. Somewhere along the road, Bioware did something wrong. Reaching waaay outside their fanbase with $$ in their eyes while wholly taken their loyal fans for granted was one of them.

"No, no, it's just because they didn't have enough time to craft the game they wanted to! You would've loved the game if they'd been allocated a appropriate time line. Didn't they do better on the dlcs?!?! Didn't they?!?! If you don't like DA2 just crank up the difficulty!!!" Right.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

I think the Dwarf Noble Origin is the best opening of an RPG I've seen, because it gives you lots of cool opportunities to make little choices that say interesting things about your character.

The passage I emboldened is pretty much the heart of any roleplaying game - being able to make choices that say interesting things about your character, either within the choice itself or the reasoning behind that choice.

DA2 offered very little of that, so I felt no connection to Hawke.

[MysticalMage]

LolaLei wrote...

Yeah I'd love to see the origins return in DA3, even if we can only play as a human again, some sort of intro prologue that gives us a glimpse of the protagonists life prior to his/her big adventure would be awesome, or maybe the choice of 3 different class origins dependant on what you pick (warrior/rogue/mage) that gives you a completely different start to the game, shows us what life is currently like for each class AND serves as the tutorial to teach you all the new basic moves and skills etc.

I really hope they do this kind of thing for the third game! 

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

The passage I emboldened is pretty much the heart of any roleplaying game - being able to make choices that say interesting things about your character, either within the choice itself or the reasoning behind that choice.

Very well said – what you describe is why I'm still playing DA:O years later. As I mentioned in another thread, the lack of compelling and character-defining choices and interactions kept me from getting into Oblivion – although I'll probably pick up Skyrim eventually, since you've recommended it. I think our tastes in games are similar enough that if you liked it, I probably will, too. I'll probably wait until I've saved up for a new computer, though – I doubt it would run properly on my current one.

Sir JK wrote…

I do believe that In Medias Res is an effective means to start certain stories (interactive or otherwise), but as has been mentioned in these cases hind sight is imperative. A great mystery to me is why we were never allowed to experience Gwaren and the process of finding us a ship. It would have been a great scene for contextualising the flight, putting emphasis on how big a leap it is to flee to Kirkwall and explore the loss of losing a sibling. Fighting to stay hidden while desperately scrounging resources to afford a ferry over, seeing a vast number of refugees practically fight to death or sell themselves for a ride away, the guard fiercly beating them away from food stocks to be used by Loghain's army while at the same time going over the loss of the sibling (allowing the player through dialogue explore the relationship and loss, perhaps?). Seeing some mages being strung up as scapegoats by angry mobs. Putting emphasis that Ferelden is crashing down around them and that no matter how bad Kirkwall would be, it's better than Ferelden. And allow (or force) the player to make some tough choices regarding how to arrange the transport to Kirkwall.

I completely agree, I would have liked to have seen an opening like that. It would have made Hawke feel much more a part of the game world, and added a lot to the atmosphere of the story, in the way the origin stories did in DA:O.

Modifié par jillabender, 06 août 2012 - 02:13 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I think the Dwarf Noble Origin is the best opening of an RPG I've seen, because it gives you lots of cool opportunities to make little choices that say interesting things about your character.

The passage I emboldened is pretty much the heart of any roleplaying game - being able to make choices that say interesting things about your character, either within the choice itself or the reasoning behind that choice.

DA2 offered very little of that, so I felt no connection to Hawke.

Completely agreed!

[Tinxa]

BBCR wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

Yeah I'd love to see the origins return in DA3, even if we can only play as a human again, some sort of intro prologue that gives us a glimpse of the protagonists life prior to his/her big adventure would be awesome, or maybe the choice of 3 different class origins dependant on what you pick (warrior/rogue/mage) that gives you a completely different start to the game, shows us what life is currently like for each class AND serves as the tutorial to teach you all the new basic moves and skills etc.

I really hope they do this kind of thing for the third game! 

I'd really like that. There would be only 3 origins which wouldn't be as demanding as 6 in DAO and it would give great replaying value. Getting through the begginning of DA2 to Kirkwall is torture for me. I really think that starting in Lothering would have been better and gave you at least a little time to connect with the dying sibling and get to know your family.

I really prefer a start to the game where you run around, talk to people and do a couple of minor quests rather than having to fight for your life the first thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Even without multiple origins, just being able to play our characters a bit before being thrown into the plot is hugely valuable.

DA2's opening, which was explicitly intended to open with action right out of the gate, was exactly the wrong thing to do.

[wsandista]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Even without multiple origins, just being able to play our characters a bit before being thrown into the plot is hugely valuable.

DA2's opening, which was explicitly intended to open with action right out of the gate, was exactly the wrong thing to do.

I couldn't agree more. I think giving the player a minimum of 2 hours to play their character without throwing the PC into the main plot is quite nice when done properly.

[MysticalMage]

Tinxa wrote...

I'd really like that. There would be only 3 origins which wouldn't be as demanding as 6 in DAO and it would give great replaying value. Getting through the begginning of DA2 to Kirkwall is torture for me. I really think that starting in Lothering would have been better and gave you at least a little time to connect with the dying sibling and get to know your family.

I really prefer a start to the game where you run around, talk to people and do a couple of minor quests rather than having to fight for your life the first thing.

Haha I know, DAII's beginning got pretty repetitive after a while, especially since the class you chose didn't seem to have much impact on the story except for the whole sibling thing.  In origins I felt I was able to connect to my grey wardens a lot more than Hawke because we got to see what their lives were like before the main conflict began. With Hawke, we were kind of just thrown into the middle of this character's life with no knowledge of who he/she was, or a real reason to care like the grey warden did. I think it would be awesome if the different classes could have completely different beginning in DAIII, especially because mages would be dealing with very different problems than warriors or rogues after the events of DAII.

[Nomen Mendax]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Even without multiple origins, just being able to play our characters a bit before being thrown into the plot is hugely valuable.

DA2's opening, which was explicitly intended to open with action right out of the gate, was exactly the wrong thing to do.

Agreed.  Ironically I found the start of DA2 very tedious, as it was just fighting with very little context (I mean the very start -- Varric's initial storytelling).  I also wasn't impressed by the fight with the ogre, since it contained the terribly implemented death of Hawke's sibling, which telegraphed the fact that the developers were going to tell their story regardless of what the player did.

[RussianSpy27]

TheBlackAdder13 wrote...

The beginning of a game is not the "cover." It's the...beginning of the game, the exposition to the story. The CD box is the cover. It's a general rule of good writing (anything: books, movies, games, etc.) that the beginning should hook the reader/viewer/player otherwise, what incentive do they have to keep playing? The intros to DA:O were wonderful, the intro to DA2 was terrible. You're thrown into fighting an invading hoard of darkspawn with almost no context, backstory, or insight as to the characters. It was pretty terrible writing for what was otherwise a pretty well written game imo. 

Also, I'm not sure where you go the idea that the OP was talking about "decision imports," he's simply talking about an effective intro regardless of whatever the established cannon is (although the reason why I started playing DA:O was that it was implied it would be a series of games where your choices would matter and you would be able to shape the world through multiple games, which is what I think is one of the core selling points of the Dragon Age brand, it's the reason I picked up DA:O when I was looking for an RPG series in the first place). Nor is he advocating that intros tell you everything about the world or about past games. The origins intros certainly didn't do that, they gave just enough context and story development for the player to feel imerrsed in the game (something that's vital to any RPG). There was absoultely no immersion in the DA2 intro. I think the OP is spot on. 

Yes, that's true. DA3 does not neccessarily need multiple origins stories (though having seen how well it worked in Origins, I am not against it, if that's BioWare's plan. As long as there is an origin that lets you slow submerge into the lore of this world and make you feel like you did grow up in Theidas and now have a mission in front of you, everything should go well.

If I were a new player, I wouldn't care less about escaping from some grey tainted monsters into some city. The beginning was certainly rushed in the sense of the DA world.

Note: In some games, the "rushed" intro may work. It worked in the sci-fi ME2 where you escape from a complex right away. Even though I still loved Shepard more because of ME1, I would still buy into the world of ME even starting from ME2 - maybe it's because having a "real" solar system type of sci-fi where you save the universe from bad aliens sort of just clicks as something that requires less prior immersion than a unique fantasy world like DA. ME3 I would enjoy much less had I not played 1 and  2 but even then, the whole "save earth" concept requires less need for immersion than Theidas does in my opinion

[Jerrybnsn]

deatharmonic wrote...
Exactly this.

For me, this is why origins worked. You had time to walk around, talk to your family or friends and establish relationships before things kicked off

'Take that dire bunny!  Feel my wrath of my sword of truthiness!'--Little things like that added to the relationships before the family members bought it.

[Jerrybnsn]

I've been thinking more of this "Origins" need for your new protagonist. To me, I had the best eighty+ hour Origins in the first game. To be kept asking to live out the world of Thedas as a new character just falls flat because of this.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 10 août 2012 - 02:58 .

[Renmiri1]

I didn't mind the DA2 beginning but after playing as a warrior and as a mage the impact of losing Bethany or Carver hit me a lot harder. I think the game would have benefitted a lot from letting us know Carver or Bethany before they die.

[magodesky]

I have to say, I'm completely baffled by the push on these forums for adding more exposition to the very beginning of a game.  I mentioned this in another thread, but it seems worth repeating here.  One of the most basic rules to good writing is to start the story as close as possible to the beginning of the conflict.  When I see statements like this...

wsandista wrote...

I think giving the player a minimum of 2 hours to play their character without throwing the PC into the main plot is quite nice when done properly.

...it just makes me think that any writer who takes two hours just to get to the beginning of his point isn't worth my time.  What follows may be one of the most brilliant stories ever told.  But why should I have to sit through two hours of unnecessary filler just to get to it?

DA:O was actually somewhat abnormal in how much time many of the origins took without much happening.  Granted, in an interactive medium, you have a bit more leeway in how much superfluous material you can include.  But it's still vital to hook the player from the very beginning.  That's much more important than giving me a background lesson on the history of Thedas.  I can pick that up as I play.  I don't need to know it all right from the beginning.

Bioware happened to pull it off decently enough in Origins despite the slow start.  I still don't think the origins were anywhere near as brilliant as many of the posters here seem to, but that's largely a matter of personal preference I suppose.  Even so, DA2's intro may not have been perfect, but I'd much prefer something like that.  Or like the intro to any of the Mass Effect games.  Heck, even Awakening started us off fighting darkspawn that had mysteriously made their way into Vigil's Keep, not with a half-hour of chit-chatting with the senechal.  I want a beginning that pulls me in from the start and doesn't let go.  Not a beginning that's only pushed forward by my own persistance because I'm pretty sure there's a story in here somewhere if I can just find it.

I also don't like how often I see people here making comments like, "Well, I understood what was going on, but if I hadn't played the previous game, I'd be lost."  First of all, if you got it, regardless of the reason why, then what's the problem?  Second, the fact of the matter is that you did play the previous game, so you can't honestly say what the game looks like to someone who hasn't.  Give new players some credit at least.  Most players are pretty good at following along with a story.  They don't need to have the entire history of Thedas dumped on them in one sitting before they can enjoy the sequel.  They're perfectly happy to wait until a piece of information become relevant to the story to learn about what's going on with the templars, or the elves, or the Deep Roads.

[Sylvius the Mad]

magodesky wrote...

I have to say, I'm completely baffled by the push on these forums for adding more exposition to the very beginning of a game.  I mentioned this in another thread, but it seems worth repeating here.  One of the most basic rules to good writing is to start the story as close as possible to the beginning of the conflict. 

But there's a fundamental difference between telling a story an writing a roleplaying game.

Yes, a story can well jump right into the action, because the reader isn't making any decisions.  The reader doesn't need to know who the characters are in any great detail yet.

But in a roleplaying game, the player does need to know that.  The player cannot make important decisions for his character without first knowing his character, and that's the point of the opening sequences.  This is why CRPGs have often begun by dropping the player into the game worl with no set goal at all, starting the game with aimless wandering, allowing the player to learn about the world and his character's place in it.

Starting with the main action right out of the gate forces the player to make important decisions without first giving him the opportunity to acquire sufficient information on which to base those decisions.

This is where passive narrative experiences (like books and movies) differ in kind from active narrative experiences like roleplaying games.  What works for one does not work for the other.

I also don't like how often I see people here making comments like, "Well, I understood what was going on, but if I hadn't played the previous game, I'd be lost."  First of all, if you got it, regardless of the reason why, then what's the problem?  Second, the fact of the matter is that you did play the previous game, so you can't honestly say what the game looks like to someone who hasn't.  Give new players some credit at least.  Most players are pretty good at following along with a story.  They don't need to have the entire history of Thedas dumped on them in one sitting before they can enjoy the sequel.  They're perfectly happy to wait until a piece of information become relevant to the story to learn about what's going on with the templars, or the elves, or the Deep Roads.

DA2 opens with the player being asked to make decisions for Hawke regarding his feelings toward his family and their flight from the Blight, but with no background offered at all.  DA2 was horribly broken from the very first wheel event.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 août 2012 - 06:58 .

[Reznore57]

The things is , I remember ME2 beginning , worked really well.
Bam , you lost the normandy , you die , you get back from the dead....
It's great ....but if you look at ME 2 as a whole , it's not so good.
I was waiting the whole game ..."Hey guy ;I just died and came back from the dead ! so anything to say about this , cause it seems like a pretty big deal to me...No?"
Ok so my pc death was just a device to introduce character creator and cerberus...right.

.Cheap death , just like the sibling one in DA2 , except it was visually way more polished so it suceeded .

I mean if they want to keep on an action pack intro , they need to deliver the action.
One ogre and Flemeth in a bland corridor ain't gonna make it.

I think they shouldn't go down the ME route , they don't have enough good cinematics to pull it off.
They have good writers thought , they can take their time and write good stuff .

[magodesky]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But in a roleplaying game, the player does need to know that.  The player cannot make important decisions for his character without first knowing his character, and that's the point of the opening sequences.  This is why CRPGs have often begun by dropping the player into the game worl with no set goal at all, starting the game with aimless wandering, allowing the player to learn about the world and his character's place in it.

I'm curious, what choice in the DA2 intro did you feel was presented without providing the player with enough information to make an informed decision?  To me, it seemed very straightforward.  I'm Hawke.  My village was destroyed by darkspawn.  My family's trying to escape.  That's really all the information that's relevant to that first part of the game.  I never felt like I needed to know the life story of every dirt farmer in Lothering to play my character.

I understand that with RPGs, there's always a mix of exploration/immersion and story, and some players favor one aspect over the other.  But Dragon Age and Mass Effect have always been more story-driven games.  Now I'm not saying that either preference is better or worse than the other.  But I don't think anyone should be surprised at this point to see a Dragon Age game favoring story over immersion.  Just like I'm not surprised when I play a Bethesda RPG and find its characters to be about as deep as a cardboard cutout.  They're just different styles.

And I'll even admit that with an interactive medium like video games, even in a very story-driven game like this, you have a lot more leeway with content that's not directly related to the main story.  But I don't think that means you throw out the principals of good writing altogether.  I think you still need a strong opening that will hook players right away.  And I certainly don't want there to ever be a time when my character has nothing to do.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DA2 opens with the player being asked to make decisions for Hawke regarding his feelings toward his family and their flight from the Blight, but with no background offered at all.

I would make two points here.  First, those first few dialogue choices aren't really making decisions about Hawke's feelings toward his family so much as they are just establishing Hawke's personality--whether it's diplomatic, sarcastic, or aggressive.  If a player can't commit to even that much, I'm not sure what sort of in-game information is going to be helpful.  Second, even if that were the case, how much information do you really need beyond "family in danger?"  Taking care of family is a fairly basic, primal motivation.  That's part of why so many games use the endangered spouse/parent/sibling/child/whatever as the hero's motivation.  Because it doesn't really require much explanation beyond the fact that there's an endangered spouse/parent/sibling/child/whatever.  We as players, all having had at least some family of our own at one point or another, are able to draw on our own experiences to fill in any gaps.  I don't see how stopping to interview each member of the Hawke family before the darkspawn showed up would have significantly altered my decisions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

magodesky wrote...

I'm curious, what choice in the DA2 intro did you feel was presented without providing the player with enough information to make an informed decision?  To me, it seemed very straightforward.  I'm Hawke.  My village was destroyed by darkspawn.  My family's trying to escape.  That's really all the information that's relevant to that first part of the game.  I never felt like I needed to know the life story of every dirt farmer in Lothering to play my character.

Who are these people in my family?  Do I like them?  Do they like me?  What of my father?  Apparently he's dead (though I don't think I knew that before Hawke claimed it was true in conversation - that was a poor paraphrase).  What was I doing before the Blight struck?  What were my long-term objectives?

If we'd been given time to play the characters in a peaceful environment prior to embarking on this mad rush, we could have answered those questions in concert with the game's design.  But since we were thrown right into the action, we are forced to come up with those answers entirely on our own, with no guidance at all, which greatly increases the chance that our answers will not be compatible with the game.

I understand that with RPGs, there's always a mix of exploration/immersion and story, and some players favor one aspect over the other.  But Dragon Age and Mass Effect have always been more story-driven games.  Now I'm not saying that either preference is better or worse than the other.  But I don't think anyone should be surprised at this point to see a Dragon Age game favoring story over immersion.  Just like I'm not surprised when I play a Bethesda RPG and find its characters to be about as deep as a cardboard cutout.  They're just different styles.

I don't think Origins was story-driven at all.  I think Origins was character-driven.  The player could know exactly who the Warden was, and could decide exactly why he did the things he did.  He could resolve quests for reasons known to the player, and the game did not routinely correct or contradict him.

And I'll even admit that with an interactive medium like video games, even in a very story-driven game like this, you have a lot more leeway with content that's not directly related to the main story.  But I don't think that means you throw out the principals of good writing altogether.  I think you still need a strong opening that will hook players right away.  And I certainly don't want there to ever be a time when my character has nothing to do.

Your character only ever has nothing to do if you rely on the game to give you instructions.

In Baldur's Gate, after the tutorial in Candlekeep ends, the PC is left standing on a road with no specific goal at all.  He can go almost anywhere, and for any reason he sees fit.  Along the way, he might find reasons to do specific plot-related things, but that those things are even plot-related at all isn't made clear until much later (and after many of them have been done).  And for players who want to follow instructions, the game does offer some, but they can easily be ignored (and I think sensibly should be for in-character reasons).  That's a terrific opening, and BioWare hasn't matched it since.  DAO probably came closest.

I would make two points here.  First, those first few dialogue choices aren't really making decisions about Hawke's feelings toward his family so much as they are just establishing Hawke's personality--whether it's diplomatic, sarcastic, or aggressive.

I would hope that any PC's personality was more complex than that.

And I'm not saying that the dialogue options are about making decisions at all.  But the player can't know which options to choose unless he already knows how Hawke feels abouthis family, and what Hawke's objectives are regarding his family, and how he thinks each family member will respond to any particular thing he might say.  If Hawke knows that Bethany enjoys sarcasm, and he likes Bethany, then he's likely to employ sarcasm.  Particularly if that would annoy their mother and they like doing that.  But do they?  And would it?  We don't know, so we have no basis to make the decisions.

If a player can't commit to even that much, I'm not sure what sort of in-game information is going to be helpful.  Second, even if that were the case, how much information do you really need beyond "family in danger?"  Taking care of family is a fairly basic, primal motivation. That's part of why so many games use the endangered spouse/parent/sibling/child/whatever as the hero's motivation.

We were explicitly told (by David Gaider) during DA2's development that Hawke would not be required to love his family.  As such, my first Hawke was actually patterned after Avernus from DAO - a mage who is singularly focused on his research, and will violate any social taboo to pursue it; he wasn't going to care about his family over much.

Because it doesn't really require much explanation beyond the fact that there's an endangered spouse/parent/sibling/child/whatever.  We as players, all having had at least some family of our own at one point or another, are able to draw on our own experiences to fill in any gaps.

How does our own experience matter at all?  There is no requirement that a player design his character to be relevantly similar to himself.

[magodesky]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Who are these people in my family?  Do I like them?  Do they like me?  What of my father?  Apparently he's dead (though I don't think I knew that before Hawke claimed it was true in conversation - that was a poor paraphrase).  What was I doing before the Blight struck?  What were my long-term objectives?

I think you misunderstand my question.  I'm wondering about what specific decision in the intro you needed more information in order to make.  How does knowing what life in Lothering was like before the Blight effect whether Hawke tells his family to keep running in a diplomatic tone or a sarcastic one?

I'm not trying to be difficult or anything.  I'm geniunely curious because when I played, I can't think of any time when I felt like I needed more information to make an informed character choice (there actually were a few times in Origins I felt like that, but not in DA2).

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But since we were thrown right into the action, we are forced to come up with those answers entirely on our own, with no guidance at all, which greatly increases the chance that our answers will not be compatible with the game.

I think that statement may indicate a problem with the way you're approaching the game right there.  All of the choices available to you are compatible with the game.  It's just a matter of deciding what kind of character you want to play.  Again, I think most players ought to have at least a general idea of what kind of character they want to play when they start the game.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I think Origins was character-driven.  The player could know exactly who the Warden was, and could decide exactly why he did the things he did.  He could resolve quests for reasons known to the player, and the game did not routinely correct or contradict him.

And how is that not still true in DA2?  At what point does the game contradict any character decision that Hawke makes?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Baldur's Gate, after the tutorial in Candlekeep ends, the PC is left standing on a road with no specific goal at all.  He can go almost anywhere, and for any reason he sees fit.  Along the way, he might find reasons to do specific plot-related things, but that those things are even plot-related at all isn't made clear until much later (and after many of them have been done).  And for players who want to follow instructions, the game does offer some, but they can easily be ignored (and I think sensibly should be for in-character reasons).

Baldur's Gate is actually a good example of what I'm talking about.  I hated Baldur's Gate.  I know, I know.  That's heresy around these boards.  But I honestly don't understand what all the hype is about.  I missed it when it was first released, so I went back and ordered the collection a few years ago.  I played for about an hour before I got so bored that I just quit.  All I had done was wander around through the game's clunky gameplay and meandering story trying to figure out what I was supposed to be doing and why I should care about any of these characters.  And the thing, I'm sure the fans who tell me about how great the story is are right.  But I'm simply not willing to go through the chore of trying to get to it.  If the writers can't be bothered to pull me in from the start, it's not worth wasting my time waiting for them to eventually get around to it.

And I play a lot of role-playing games--both video games and tabletop RPGs.  Someone like me should be the ideal of example of their perfect fan.  So if I'm turned off by a game like Baldur's Gate, that's a serious problem.  Because I have to assume that means there are a lot more people--people who aren't the hardcore fantasy role-players that I am--who would be just as frustrated with the game, if not moreso.

I suppose I can see how I might have been impressed if I had played it back in '98.  Which makes me think that perhaps a lot of the talk about Baldur's Gate is based on pure nostalgia.  Pretty much every major CRPG release since then has drastically improved on Baldur's Gate in practically every conceivable way.  And yes, I include DA2 in that statement, even taking into account its flaws.  I cringe whenever see some fan saying that Dragon Age needs to be more like Baldur's Gate because it sounds to me like they want the genre to go backwards instead of forward.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

 
I would hope that any PC's personality was more complex than that.

Well, CRPGs are by neccessity less reactive than a tabletop RPG.  Those are pretty much the standard choices for most CRPGs.  Though it is possible to make a more nuanced Hawke than the straight-good, straight-joker, or straight-aggressive options by making different choices at different points.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But the player can't know which options to choose unless he already knows how Hawke feels abouthis family, and what Hawke's objectives are regarding his family, and how he thinks each family member will respond to any particular thing he might say.  If Hawke knows that Bethany enjoys sarcasm, and he likes Bethany, then he's likely to employ sarcasm.  Particularly if that would annoy their mother and they like doing that.  But do they?  And would it?  We don't know, so we have no basis to make the decisions.

It really seems to me like you're overthinking this.  Origins is exactly the same in this regard, if not worse.  As soon as I started playing my Cousland, I'm being asked to react to my character's father.  I don't know anything about Cousland's father.  What kind of relationship do we have?  Do I get along with my father?  And who's this Howe guy?  How should I feel about him?  And now they're asking my opinion on these Grey Warden people?  I don't even know what a Grey Warden is.

Point is, RPGs do this routinely because they're not going to sit you down an give you a full bio on every character your PC has ever met in life.  That would be a completely dull and unnecessary info dump that would only serve to bog down the pace of the game.  All you have to decide is what kind of character you want to play, and the NPCs will react accordingly.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

We were explicitly told (by David Gaider) during DA2's development that Hawke would not be required to love his family.  As such, my first Hawke was actually patterned after Avernus from DAO - a mage who is singularly focused on his research, and will violate any social taboo to pursue it; he wasn't going to care about his family over much.

And he's not required to love his family.  You can play a Hawke who's a total jerk to all of them.  My point is simply that family represents what we all as humans recognize to be a fundamentally important relationship, regardless of whether that relationship is positivie or negative.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How does our own experience matter at all?  There is no requirement that a player design his character to be relevantly similar to himself.

I never said that there was.  What I'm saying is that most players have their own experience with family that informs their notions of what a family relationship might look like.  Whether or not Hawke's reaction to his family is in any way similar to how the player would react to their own family is completely irrelevant.  Granted, if the game began with Hawke and some random guy he knew from Lothering, I might be thinking, "Who the heck is this guy?'  But the fact that it's Hawke's siblings gives me some idea of what an appropriate reaction might be.

[RussianSpy27]

magodesky wrote...

I also don't like how often I see people here making comments like, "Well, I understood what was going on, but if I hadn't played the previous game, I'd be lost."  First of all, if you got it, regardless of the reason why, then what's the problem?  Second, the fact of the matter is that you did play the previous game, so you can't honestly say what the game looks like to someone who hasn't.  Give new players some credit at least.  Most players are pretty good at following along with a story.  They don't need to have the entire history of Thedas dumped on them in one sitting before they can enjoy the sequel.  They're perfectly happy to wait until a piece of information become relevant to the story to learn about what's going on with the templars, or the elves, or the Deep Roads.

Thanks for the post. I'll clarify that in my case, I wouldn't have gotten lost. I'd follow along and perhaps enjoy some aspects of the story. However, I would care about the lore and the story less. The darkspawn part in the beginning was particularly odd. Those creatures played no role in the rest of the game and here there is some huge world-consuming horde of grey dudes I should be worried about for 10 minutes before ending up in some city? I had those thoughts, but the familiarity and love from the lore attained in DA:O superceded them  and I ended up not minding the beginning that much.

For the record, yes it is very possible for a person's mind to like a plot point mostly
because of familiarity with the lore from before and understand that
that's why it is so. Certian boring moments of The Phanrom Menace, for example, resonated with me in a similar way.

[magodesky]

RussianSpy27 wrote...

Thanks for the post. I'll clarify that in my case, I wouldn't have gotten lost. I'd follow along and perhaps enjoy some aspects of the story. However, I would care about the lore and the story less. The darkspawn part in the beginning was particularly odd. Those creatures played no role in the rest of the game and here there is some huge world-consuming horde of grey dudes I should be worried about for 10 minutes before ending up in some city? I had those thoughts, but the familiarity and love from the lore attained in DA:O superceded them  and I ended up not minding the beginning that much.

Of course people who have played a series from the beginning will care more about the lore than someone who just picked up the latest installment.  That's not something you can really convey to new players in 10 minutes of exposition, nor would it make much sense to try.

Yes, a new player wouldn't have the same reaction to the darkspawn as a player who had previously spent 80 hours fighting them.  But then, they don't really have to.  For the purposes of DA2, you only need to know how the darkspawn are involved in Hawke's story.  They forced him to flee his home village.  It's a beginning that's used so often in fantasy adventures, it's a cliche.  They simply used Lothering as a convenient jumping off point from Origins.  So returning fans get to start off in familiar territory before being whisked away to the Free Marches.  But the fact that it has extra meaning to people who played DA:O doesn't make it devoid of meaning to someone starting with the sequel.  DA2 is its own independent story.  You don't have to understand all the little references to Origins to know and care about what's happening to Hawke.

RussianSpy27 wrote...

For the record, yes it is very possible for a person's mind to like a plot point mostly
because of familiarity with the lore from before and understand that
that's why it is so.

Granted.  However, there also seems to be a tendency among fans to overemphasize how critical understanding previously established lore is to the enjoyment of a sequel.  I've enjoyed a lot of material that fans told me I have to play the previous game or read the book before I can fully enjoy it.  And you know what?  It didn't matter.  Because I enjoyed them anyway.  In some cases, I enjoyed it more than much of the existing fanbase precisely because I didn't walk in with any preconceived expectations as to what it "should" be.  Sure, there may be quite a few references and in-jokes that I completely missed.  But generally, those aren't vital to enjoying the sequel.  They're just an added bonus for people who have been with the series from the beginning.