190 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

I don't know about "most reactive", but I'd rather see the impact my actions have during play than in some crappy slideshow that doesn't mean anything. This is one of the main reasons why I prefer DA2 to DA:O.

A lot of people seem to really want the epilogue slides, and I can't fathom why. They suck. They suck big time.

If it's important, show it to me IN THE GAMES. If it's not important, then don't bring it up at all. I don't need to know every single little thing. I don't give a crap who Teagan married, or if some kid grew up to have adventures that I am never going to play. Time spent writing this stuff is time that could've been better spent elsewhere.

I don't think there's any good reason to complain about the way DA2 finishes. We saw how the world was going to end up at the beginning of the game. That was always going to be our destination.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 août 2012 - 12:21 .

[Shadowvalker]

Eh...? What legend is he talking about? All I saw was a lousy excuse for a "hero".

But I guess they learned something from Hollywood - You can always pep up a bad movie with some hightech speciel effects..

[Plaintiff]

Tommyspa wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

Don't all quest lines in Dragon Age end with killing a bunch of dudes?

It is the kinda thing people do when they only want to down talk DA2. Kinda like how they complain about exploding enemies being awful in DA2 and not being awful in Baldur's Gate. :/

I don't see how they're "downtalking" anything. People on this forum ****ed incessantly about the exploding enemies and STILL do (personally, I couldn't give less of a ****). Bioware isn't admitting that DA2 is bad, or that their design choice was wrong (and I don't think they should), they're just acknowledging that a lot of people complained about it.

Exploding enemies aren't "awful" in Baldur's Gate, because the audience didn't complain about them.

[Renmiri1]

Tommyspa wrote...

It was reactive in the way that choices like Feynriel and Keran's fates completely altered or gave you new quest lines in later acts depending on the choices. Can't say many BioWare games ever did that in the same game.

Also felt Hawke had to "react" a lot, he/ she couldn't drive the stuff happening.. 

 All he / she could do was to try to keep family and friends alive in the middle of a city hellbent into going to war. Hawke defuses one war and gets to be Champion, only to be in the middle of another 3 years later. 

And Mr. Gaider, where were the marriages and blue babies ? We saw none!!! 

[bEVEsthda]

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't know about "most reactive", but I'd rather see the impact my actions have during play than in some crappy slideshow that doesn't mean anything. This is one of the main reasons why I prefer DA2 to DA:O.

A lot of people seem to really want the epilogue slides, and I can't fathom why. They suck. They suck big time.

If it's important, show it to me IN THE GAMES. If it's not important, then don't bring it up at all. I don't need to know every single little thing. I don't give a crap who Teagan married, or if some kid grew up to have adventures that I am never going to play. Time spent writing this stuff is time that could've been better spent elsewhere.

I don't think there's any good reason to complain about the way DA2 finishes. We saw how the world was going to end up at the beginning of the game. That was always going to be our destination.

Amazingly, a post by Plaintiff that I find myself almost entirely agreeing with.

I've posted on that subject before, stating a similar case: I want the future to be unwritten. I do not want those 'what happened after' texts. As I remember it, I met with a pretty stiff opposition. A lot of people seem to want those after-texts, and they also don't seem to understand how determing the future could ruin it for others.

But as for the game (DA2) being reactive, it's pretty clear that Mike and Mark are only talking about combat. In particular about console combat. And this pretty much goes through everything that Mike says about DA2 in early interviews. He's completely focused on combat and seem to assume that this is all the 'gameplay' there has to be, while they tell the story. I think that was a big factor for Mike as he considered the task - how DA:O combat played on the consoles. That was what they saw as the big thing they had to 'fix' in DA2, thus losing focus on what's important.

While Mike was obviously concerned with how DA:O played on consoles, I'm still rather unconvinced that this was entirely Mike or Mark's idea. I suspect it came from EA marketing geniuses and EA gameplay-, game-design consultants transfered to Bioware.

Now, the idea that DA2 is more reactive to the player's choices than DA:O is flagrantly ludicrous. I really don't think we need to have that discussion yet again. One of the first things I reacted consciously at, in DA2, was exactly - that no matter how I tried to steer events, tried to make "choices", the bl** game wouldn't let me. The dialogue choices would affect companion responses, but that's pretty much all they ever affected. If you're claiming to prefer DA2 to DA:O for this reason, you either never played DA:O, or are so deeply submerged in a DA2-defend mode that you've lost your foothold and grasp of things.

But otherwise, considering combat and how dialogues play out, I think the statement is factually correct: DA2 is more "reactive" than DA:O. But with those restrictions, that's not the least important. Totally wasted effort on an indifferent feature. Not that I think reactive dialogue need to be worthless, but when all I can think of is how the game defeats my will all the time, that is totally worthless because there's no chance of immersion.

I think I also get the feeling that Mike and Mark are very much talking about a story that they will tell, in DA2. The frame-narrative has something to do with that, of course, but I do get the vibes that Mike and Mark are in JRPG-mode.

[Maria Caliban]

BioWare games are about as reactive as my dead grandmother.

[Sir JK]

I do think it is quite accurate to describe DA2 as reactive and definantely more so than DAO. Note however that reactive does not imply branching storylines or the ability to steer the plot. It does not account for what you wanted to do, merely what you did.

In DAO, most stories are self contained. You arrive, you solve it and you get the "reward" (the armies). There isn't much to see outside of that until we reach the epilogue slides. Only Kinloch Hold actually contain a reaction in that it's fate can affect how another storyline is resolved (Redcliffe), arguably the DR could also be seen as one. So while DAO presents you with Branching Storylines it does not provide you with a reaction ingame. Once a story has run it's course it's not touched upon again.

While many of the Storylines run a similar course in DA2 there's plenty of ones that are reactive. The Storylines does not branch but in the details the game reacts to the choices you did make (if not the reason you made them). You can dramatically alter the fates of Keran and Feynriel for instance. How you deal with the Qunari and whom you bring with you and befriend radically alters how the finale of act 2 plays out. To a lesser extent the game also acknowledges how you deal with Bartrand, Kelder and the game does pick up and react to some choices made in DAO.

This is how DA2 is more reactive. The differences lie mostly in the details, yes. In a way one could describe the difference that DAO is about the destination whereas DA2 is about the journey.

However, as has been correctly summarised. While DA2 might be more reactive, it is at the same time more restrictive due to not featuring Branching Storylines to any particularly large degree. In that DAO shines (or at the very least, presents us with the illusion that it does).

If there is one lesson I hope Bioware takes to heart after both games is to merge both methods. DAOs Branching Storylines (to give us a sense of agency and importance) and DA2s reactivity (showing us the result ingame, when appropriate) should both be ingredients in a future game. Allowing us to make an impact on the world, but also seeing all the little things that come with our choices.

[Foolsfolly]

Some may disagree but I feel Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins are the most reactive games they've made.

In Mass Effect 2 12 companions can die based on your actions. Kal'Reegar can die based on how slow you complete the boss fight or if you tell him to calm the hell down and let the bad asses take charge, Grunt and Legion exist entirely as possible companions since you can sell one and use the other as a paper weight if it strikes your fancy, and while not the last example in the game this is the last example in my post: the Suicide Mission is all about your actions having immediate reactions!

Then in Dragon Age: Origins you can annul the Circle, save the Circle, kill the Dalish, murder the werewolves, cure the werewolves and have the Dalish live in peace with humans, pick the king/queen of two different kingdoms one of which has at least 5 different outcomes, save golem nightmare fuel devices, destroy said golem creating horror, save the golem creating horror just to say "but at what cost" to the crazy lady which causes her to destroy the horror and then commit suicide, and that's just examples from half of the game!

There are reactions in-game not in epilogue.

In Dragon Age 2 you can sell Isabela or not. Good I guess but we don't get anything for it and the end result is the same as fighting the Arishok only with less experience for you. Your class somehow results in which ever sibling lives for reasons no one could possibly explain. But in reward for that choice the surviving sibling is taken out of 3/4s of the game. There is a choice in the Deep Roads but it's likely you don't realize that choice the first time you play it and even more likely that you realized bringing Anders gets the sibling to be a Warden. After all who would bring two healers to the Deep Roads otherwise?

Other than that everything else plays the same perhaps with a bit of different dialogue if you did X instead of Y. There's the personality system which IS really reactive but it's not the same as the choices we're used to having in these games.

[mousestalker]

It depends upon what you mean by reactive. I did a blind comparison test of the DA2 DVD with several other DVDs (My Fair Lady, Trivial Pursuit and Clue).

Exposure to oxygen, nitrogen, H2O, common household soap, acetic acid and a chlorine solution in succession showed no difference between the test disc and the controls.

Dropping the discs, in their cases, also produced no dissimilarity. Poking them with a cotton tipped stick produced no reaction at all for any of them.

Each disc received two minutes of verbal abuse and again each showed no obvious reaction.

In conclusion, DA2 is every bit as reactive , or non-reactive, as any other game.

Modifié par mousestalker, 26 août 2012 - 10:07 .

[nightscrawl]

Tommyspa wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

Don't all quest lines in Dragon Age end with killing a bunch of dudes?

It is the kinda thing people do when they only want to down talk DA2. Kinda like how they complain about exploding enemies being awful in DA2 and not being awful in Baldur's Gate. :/

I think Evil was making a joke here.

[Firky]

Is he talking about combat, there? Sounded more like linearity and storyline to me.

I dunno. The choices in Origins seemed fairly binary, like do this or do that, and carried lots of "wow, man, I just killed a whole race of people" kind of weight. In DA2, it was like, side with the elven smuggler lady, and then have to fight the other guy in the next chapter (which I thought was one of the hardest fights in the game.)

And, I had *no* idea it was possible to keep lady spoiler after act 2 until I read the forum. She just disappeared without a trace, before even the bit with the - battle spoiler - and never came back.

I'd probably argue that DA2 was more "reactive" in that subtleties of the plot weaved around your choices more, but that you didn't always know you were making choices. Both Origins and DA2 had moments where your choices would be reflected through gameplay, like, choose a path and you get an ability, or whatever. (But, probably more so in Origins.)

I'd say that's more of an old school thing, like Baldur's Gate. Sure, take Viconia, but suffer a -2 reputation hit. If you do good stuff, maybe lose her. Witcher-esque style narrative branching is all well and good, but I like choices intertwined with play more, I think.

Modifié par Firky, 26 août 2012 - 12:02 .

[Giltspur]

The party companion interactions were reactive.  In a sense you can imagine seeing "epilogue cards" for them throughout the game.  The main story didn't feel reactive though.  If it had been reactive it would have been in shaping what the truth is behind what Hawke was blamed for.  But I never felt like that really happened.

Mostly, I feel that the outer frame never really posed interesting questions for you to answer in the inner frame's gameplay.  It could have been cool if it had the structure of 1) Cassandra asks an interesting question 2) Hawke plays through a sequence 3) Cassandra and Varric connect to the consequences  to the decisions you made.  And if you'd had choices in 2) and there'd been different ways 3) could play out, then that would have cool.  But the game didn't really feel like that.

[Momiji.mii]

Sir JK wrote...

However, as has been correctly summarised. While DA2 might be more reactive, it is at the same time more restrictive due to not featuring Branching Storylines to any particularly large degree. In that DAO shines (or at the very least, presents us with the illusion that it does).

If there is one lesson I hope Bioware takes to heart after both games is to merge both methods. DAOs Branching Storylines (to give us a sense of agency and importance) and DA2s reactivity (showing us the result ingame, when appropriate) should both be ingredients in a future game. Allowing us to make an impact on the world, but also seeing all the little things that come with our choices.

I actually agree with Sir_JK's whole post, but this was particularly well put, because it not only puts the finger on how the two games differs, but also underlines something I've felt while browsing the message boards ever since they calmed down this last year: It's time to stop discussing things that have already been discussed again and again, and high time to talk about realistic solutions and ideas.

I'm sure Bioware are well aware of what people liked or didn't like, and as far as I can tell from all the hints and possible leaks, etc, they're smack middle in the process of planning or possibly even creating the next game at the moment. So complaining and arguing about the same ol' things for the nth time won't help them any longer, if it ever did, but instead trying to present them with ideas and clever solutions for how to make a DA sequel even better might.

Don't say that you've already done that if you continue to paint them all black and call them idiots, because that won't make them interested in your ideas and opinions (who wants to open an envelope covered in venom, right?). Inspire them! Challenge them to prove you wrong, make them want to amaze you. 

[CELL55]

No it is not. You can see the railroad tracks in this game from a mile away. Yes, every game must necessarily have a certain amount of railroading, but in DA2 it is so blatant, so contrived, that it stands out like a sore thumb. For example: There are three different options you can take in Anders' final quest, but they all lead to the same conclusion.

This is clear marketing hype, and I think an argument can be made that it is also an objective lie.

[Shevy]

Even the Fable series is more reactive than DA II.

[Foolsfolly]

Example of how reactive Dragon Age: Origins is over Dragon Age 2?

While busting Anora out of Howe's estate you can either fight the guards or surrender.

If you fight the guards and win you've completed the mission. If you fight and lose you end up going to jail. Surrender you go to jail.

Did you have Alistair with you? He goes to jail too. Did you out Anora as being with you? She betrayed you. Once you wake up any two of your entire team can come and rescue you or you can rescue yourself. Each pairing of companions results in different cover stories as they attempt to rescue you. It can be incredibly successful or hilariously ineffectual. If you escape by yourself you can battle your way out, sneak out, pretend to be guards going out on patrol, dress as a guard and pickpocket the keys and password, or mix and match.

What mission in DA2 can compare to the game reacting to your choices like this?

[Plaintiff]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Example of how reactive Dragon Age: Origins is over Dragon Age 2?

While busting Anora out of Howe's estate you can either fight the guards or surrender.

If you fight the guards and win you've completed the mission. If you fight and lose you end up going to jail. Surrender you go to jail.

Did you have Alistair with you? He goes to jail too. Did you out Anora as being with you? She betrayed you. Once you wake up any two of your entire team can come and rescue you or you can rescue yourself. Each pairing of companions results in different cover stories as they attempt to rescue you. It can be incredibly successful or hilariously ineffectual. If you escape by yourself you can battle your way out, sneak out, pretend to be guards going out on patrol, dress as a guard and pickpocket the keys and password, or mix and match.

What mission in DA2 can compare to the game reacting to your choices like this?

DA2, Act 1, Wayward Son.

While talking to Arianni you can be reassuring or cruel and she will respond accordingly. While searching for Feynriel, you can choose to speak to his estranged father or to Ser Thrask. If you are a mage or if Bethany is with you, you have a special dialogue that will convince Feynriel's father to share information with you. If you have an 'aggressive' personality, you can threaten him for the information. If not, then you are forced to speak to Ser Thrask instead. Three varying paths leaad you to the same destination: Samson.

Samson points you to a warehouse owned  by a known slaver. After cleaning it out and failing to rescue a young female apostate who becomes an abomination, you find a letter on her person: she is the daughter of Ser Thrask, and you can either promise to keep his secret or blackmail him for monetary gain. Two choices with different outcomes right there.

Also in the warehouse, you find a receipt of sale leading you to another slaver. You can fight him or have Fenris threaten him. Either way, he points you to the slaver caverns, where you find Feynriel held hostage. This situation has four ways that it can play out. If Hawke is a rogue, he can kill the lead slaver outright and fight the rest. If not, then he can fight or attempt to negotiate. If Fenris is present he will interrupt and start the fight without you. If Varric is present, he can convince the slavers to release Feynriel without incident.

Once freed, you can convince Feynriel to go to the Circle or allow him to go to the Dalish Clan in Sundermount.

If Feynriel is sent to Sundermount, then a band of Templars will harass the Dalish during Act 2. You can choose to fight the templars or the elves, or convince the templars to leave peacefully without further incident.

Also in Act 2, you access the quest Night Terrors, in which you enter Feynriel's dreams in the Fade. Here you have the opportunity to strike a deal with the sloth demon Torpor. If Anders is here, he will become angry and turn on you if you appear to be considering the demon's deal. After accepting or rejecting said deal, you will encounter two more demons, and depending on which companions accompany you, different ones will betray you here for different reasons, leading to a variety of 'apology' scenes later, which differ again, depending on your pre-existing relationship with each companion.

Depending on how you handle each demon here, Feynriel will either be more confident in his powers, or he will feel weak and helpless, and beg to be made tranquil. Either way, here you can choose to 'kill' him and make him tranquil, or allow him to leave. If he is lacking confidence, then he will need prompting. If you struck the deal with Torpor, you can allow him to possess Feynriel, turning him into a powerful abomination, or you can change your mind at the last moments, fighting Torpor and allowing Feynriel to escape.

If Feynriel is made Tranquil, his mother will commit suicide by poison. If he is made into an abomination, then Hawke and co will later encounter people who have been driven insane by their dreams. If Feynriel is freed, and has learned to master his powers, he will travel to Tevinter for training, which will lead to a different quest later.

So yeah, that's an extremely reactive quest chain with relatively far-reaching conesquences in several different directions.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 août 2012 - 04:53 .

[Foolsfolly]

Alright. I never thought that quest was so reactive. Likely because of the constant reusing of maps and spider/shade/thug drops. And no matter your choice in Act 1 the quest in Act 2 remains the same. But the second Act mission is quite reactive.

[AmstradHero]

As many people have stated before, the problem is that DA2 is ultimately non-reactive while being somewhat reactive on the micro level. Some of the quests have variances within them, but ultimately we end up getting the same immutable events occurring every single time, even if you hate them as a player, and even if you as a character do everything in your power to attempt to stop them from happening.

Ultimately, the "big" events needed to be able to play out differently based on the player's actions in order for the player to feel empowered and as though they were living in a reactive world. This is by no means a simple task - there are some events that as a writer you need to happen in order to be able to progress a plot. The delicate balance is managing the railroading so that the player doesn't feel like their "big" choices are invalidated by the preset story while still maintaining narrative coherence (and not having the end snowball into hundreds of possible endings). This is something that BioWare failed pretty miserably with at points in DA2 and ME3, which is why both made a lot of people upset.

So I'd say both yes and no. On the micro level, the small scale stuff, DA2 is arguably BioWare's most reactive game to date. However, on the macro level, it is woefully non-reactive.

PS Did anyone else notice that Mark Darrah didn't pronounce Lothering correctly?

[Naughty Bear]

Maria Caliban wrote...

BioWare games are about as reactive as my dead grandmother.

[Jamie9]

I think it probably is from a dev standpoint. The problem from a player standpoint is DA2's choices were on a much smaller scale than Origins.

That's why it seems to the player that Origins is more reactive. Just the fact you're changing entire races in Fereldan gives a sense of scale.

[Darth Death]

thats1evildude wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Why should it? Think of the replay value if it wasn't the case. How interesting would a playthrough be if the player was given the power to prevent the qunari invasion?

I don't see how interesting that would be. Why would you want to avoid one of the central conflicts of the game? That'd be like beating the darkspawn at Ostagar.

It's the power of choice. It'd be interesting depending on player's decisions on handling a major conflict, the reputation the player had chosen, complimenting their title. As an example: If the player was able to avoid war with the qunari, then Hawke obtains the title "Peace keeper of Kirkwall." If the player allowed war with the qunari, then Hawke obtains the title "Champion of Kirkwall." Those choices will impact how NPC, your companies, & the world of DA thinks of Hawke. Depending on how importation is done in DA3, Hawke would be mentioned by the title groomed by players previous actions. This adds replay value.  

[hussey 92]

I thought Origins was very reactive. Like how the allies you got in the final battle depended on who you helped in the game (elf/werewolf, dwarf/golem, mage/templer). Theres also the possibility of companions turning on you.

Or am I misunderstanding what they meant by "reactive"?

[Teddie Sage]

hussey 92 wrote...

I thought Origins was very reactive. Like how the allies you got in the final battle depended on who you helped in the game (elf/werewolf, dwarf/golem, mage/templer). Theres also the possibility of companions turning on you.

Or am I misunderstanding what they meant by "reactive"?

Most of those things were applied in Dragon Age 2, too. On smaller scales, but they still appeared. Companions also did turn on you depending on your choices.

[Rxdiaz]

Maria Caliban wrote...

BioWare games are about as reactive as my dead grandmother.

DA2 was very reactive to me, at least as far as my bowels were concerned...

Modifié par Rxdiaz, 27 août 2012 - 05:00 .