190 réponses à ce sujet

[PounceTeazle]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Because attempting to stop him, and failing to do so makes the story even more tragic.

The point behind Ander's as a character is to show the manifestation of the mages plight to an extreme method, and to make it personal because you know him, or even worse in some cases, you are in love with him. Ander's is either a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter, but that is up for Hawke to decide, and in the same vein, the player, based on his actions.

My main point is not an change in the outcome of the story, my point is that Anders story is a complete railroad and it feels that way, not covering it up by diverting his actions to something different that in the end has the same outcome.
Games need railroading for technical reasons but they need to be covered!
Plot wise interacting with him does not make a difference.

I mean he is an smart guy, and acts like an idiot, so it feels to me like the author of that piece of the game just wanted to have something happen, period.

This turns DA2 in so many places into an movie where you are allowed to play out the fights.
The only thing he shows in my eyes is that he acts contrary his personality (running a free clinic in the slums)

DA2 is not an book, it is an game, and that means if you interact with something in game there should be different outcomes due interacting.

Yes you can kill him in the end or not, funny how that is not possible with the sister in ACT2 where either you kill her (and make plus points with the arichok) or not kill her and the arichoks assassine does it) would have the same story results but made a difference due your actions, plus or minus respect with the Qunari

There are many times this small things in DA2 where it would have been possible to splice in such player decisions who do not change the big picture but allowed meaningfull player decisions AND meant little if at all extra coding

The whole anders story just feels like one poorly covered railroad, and that you can decide to kill him or not in the end does not really make it feel better, the story is at that point anyways near over, there happens a fight and everyone knows it, as much as everyone knows there is the archdemon at the end of DAO, but there decision meant something regarding your personal fate (ritual, suicide by archdemon or not) so it did not change the plot but meant A LOT to the player, I am the shining hero who sacrifices its life or do i try to weasel out of destiny..

It is not even so that your decision has much impact as long you did not cough up 7 bucks for Sebastian if anders lifes or not..

I do NOT say i should be able to decide between bombing or not, but this railroad is so much out in the open it hurts.

There is no finesse in telling a story in an rpg game this way, it lacks the depth and the feeling of having an impact in personal meaningfull ways.

In DAO giving someone an souvering or five had an small meaning full impact at the end, that makes it more worthwile this way (And that Anders was done with from the beginning was covered so badly it looked like an 4x4 waved in front of your face.)

The best part of DAO making the player beliefe that there is no railroading beside " you have to kill the archdemon" was failed on.

[Renmiri1]

I think DA2 was poorly marketed. It isn't a sequel to DAO, it isn't a "rags to riches" story.

DA2 is essentially the story of how the mage templar war started, told from Hawke / Varric's point of view.

The writers needed the war for many reasons, but I'll name just one: Prepare the world of Thedas for an "Epic" DA3 where you (again) end a civil war, save the world and uncover a sacred relic 


Which means NOTHING you did on DA2 would have changed the fact that the mage / templar war started. Game 1 is about the Blight, Game 2 is about the start of a turbulent era in Thedas.

When DAO ends, Thedas is about to go through several world encompassing turbulent crisis. No Hawke didn't cause them but he /she was in the middle of it, facilitated it, made it happen faster. Hawke is an "iconic figure". In the furture when historians want to point out how the war started they will look at Hawke's life  and actions in Kirkwall, just as Cassandra does.

Listen to Flemeth at the start.. Hawke gets tossed by destiny into the brink of abyss. Flemeth tells Hawke to don't hesitate to leap. She means the civil war, Qunari invasion, etc...  

The game does not let you do it, but the way we see the tensions growing we can be certain that even if you killed Anders BEFORE he bombed the Chantry, you wouldn't stop the war. Tahrone, Decimus or someone else would still give an excuse for massacre to Meredith or other radical Templar (Seeker Lambert from Asunder f.e. ).

As a matter of fact, someone does. Ser Alrick calls for the mutilation of all mages, without a lyrium sword to make him insane. Things are going to hell in Kirkwall even before Hawke arrives, the violent start of a mage / templar war will be just a matter of timing and opportunity. And Hawke will have an effect on both of those.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 03 septembre 2012 - 06:57 .

[philippe willaume]

LinksOcarina wrote...

PounceTeazle wrote...

What irks me is that anders does something and thats it.
Ir does not matter how you interact with him and he is default pro mage.
I do not mind that he is 100% pro mage and an lunatic but it feels as if it does not matter if you interact with him or not beside some different audio.
An npc does his thing in game, with an companion i expect some sort of meaningful interaction (and not just another romance option), not that i am able to change what the character does but an slightly different outcome depending on what i do (how hawke decides and acts) otherwise why bother.

Because attempting to stop him, and failing to do so makes the story even more tragic.

The point behind Ander's as a character is to show the manifestation of the mages plight to an extreme method, and to make it personal because you know him, or even worse in some cases, you are in love with him. Ander's is either a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter, but that is up for Hawke to decide, and in the same vein, the player, based on his actions.

The slightly different outcome is you trying to stop him, and his fate after the event. Does it do anything? No, he still goes forth with his plans irregardless of what you say before. What you say after is also important to what happens as well, because his fate is still an important choice for both this game, and the next. 

hello 
The problem is not with what it tells us, we are just bright enough to get it, honnest. it is with how it is told.

The problem ar that you can't  even attempt to stop him and that the in game lame ****** presidential campain argument for the action of the said cat lover is two fingers  to good old Rene.

it sort of holds together in the rivalry scenario but it it as abysmall  when you are in friendship.
In three year of doing tidily squat else Hawke did not see that Anders had a bee in his bonnet?


Honnestly, if anders had told me, "i don't know what possessed me it is if an unstopable force pushed me to get granny on orbit" . it would have worked better.

Seriously, if we compare the plot evolution of the Act II and Act III, we are bound to have a Hammlet momment. 

Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 03 septembre 2012 - 07:08 .

[philippe willaume]

Renmiri1 wrote...

I think DA2 was poorly marketed. It isn't a sequel to DAO, it isn't a "rags to riches" story.

DA2 is essentially the story of how the mage templar war started, told from Hawke / Varric's point of view.

The writers needed the war for many reasons, but I'll name just one: Prepare the world of Thedas for an "Epic" DA3 where you (again) end a civil war, save the world and uncover a sacred relic 


Which means NOTHING you did on DA2 would have changed the fact that the mage / templar war started. Game 1 is about the Blight, Game 2 is about the start of a turbulent era in Thedas.

When DAO ends, Thedas is about to go through several world encompassing turbulent crisis. No Hawke didn't cause them but he /she was in the middle of it, facilitated it, made it happen faster. Hawke is an "iconic figure". In the furture when historians want to point out how the war started they will look at Hawke's life  and actions in Kirkwall, just as Cassandra does.

Listen to Flemeth at the start.. Hawke gets tossed by destiny into the brink of abyss. Flemeth tells Hawke to don't hesitate to leap. She means the civil war, Qunari invasion, etc...  

The game does not let you do it, but the way we see the tensions growing we can be certain that even if you killed Anders BEFORE he bombed the Chantry, you wouldn't stop the war. Tahrone, Decimus or someone else would still give an excuse for massacre to Meredith or other radical Templar (Seeker Lambert from Asunder f.e. ).

As a matter of fact, someone does. Ser Alrick calls for the mutilation of all mages, without a lyrium sword to make him insane. Things are going to hell in Kirkwall even before Hawke arrives, the violent start of a mage / templar war will be just a matter of timing and opportunity. And Hawke will have an effect on both of those.

Hello 
We are fine with the story and the ineluctability of the final event. 
as you said we know from the start that something cataclismic has happened.
Aside that I found the gaming experience in DA:2 far bellow DA:0, i though the game was very good until act III.

It is like ME3, i did noy want a different ending i wanted an ending that made sense and was on the par with the rest of the game.

Phil

[Renmiri1]

Act 3 was indeed rushed but is nowhere near the train wreck that the ME3 ending is.

For Act 3 to be comparable, we would need to teleport the gallows to Denerin, have a robotic kid show up and tell Hawke that she could either make mages merge with templars (and die), kill all templars (and maybe survive) or be the next Maker, ordering the templars and Chantry to leave mages alone (and die).

Modifié par Renmiri1, 04 septembre 2012 - 01:04 .

[philippe willaume]

over active right index

Modifié par philippe willaume, 04 septembre 2012 - 08:23 .

[philippe willaume]

philippe willaume wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Act 3 was indeed rushed but is nowhere near the train wreck that the ME3 ending is.

For Act 3 to be comparable, we would need to teleport the gallows to Denerin, have a robotic kid show up and tell Hawke that she could either make mages merge with templars (and die), kill all templars (and maybe survive) or be the next Maker, ordering the templars and Chantry to leave mages alone (and die).

weeelllllllllllllll  to be fair we do have a a reaper like big red sword and a patronizing God like woman that can do rocket assisted jump
in fact, come to think of it  i am pretty sure the armour is the prototype for cerberus kit.
:innocent:

Phil

[Lotion Soronarr]

PounceTeazle wrote...

My main point is not an change in the outcome of the story, my point is that Anders story is a complete railroad and it feels that way, not covering it up by diverting his actions to something different that in the end has the same outcome.

I do NOT say i should be able to decide between bombing or not, but this railroad is so much out in the open it hurts.

Then what?
What would you change with Anders specificly?
Examples would be nice.

You cannot tell a story without having set events - and set characters.

[Knight of Dane]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

PounceTeazle wrote...

My main point is not an change in the outcome of the story, my point is that Anders story is a complete railroad and it feels that way, not covering it up by diverting his actions to something different that in the end has the same outcome.

I do NOT say i should be able to decide between bombing or not, but this railroad is so much out in the open it hurts.

Then what?
What would you change with Anders specificly?
Examples would be nice.

You cannot tell a story without having set events - and set characters.

[SPOILERS]
Let the bomber be someone else than Anders. Anders is a companion and a player invest more attention towards their companion. Anders can't be changed from his ending goal no matter what you try and that lessens him. You can turn over Fenris to Denarius, Turn over Isabela to the Arishok, make Merrill destroy the eluvian and you can decide wther Bartrand lives or dies plus what happens to the shard in Varric's quests.
When Anders is invested in the ending the player wants to change it. Like it was possible to alter the setting of the ening in DAO between Alistair and Loghain. The players simply needed an alternative for Anders not to automatically become a lunatic criminal but with another consequense. Perhaps it could lead to Orsino killing the Grand Cleric and thsu only being able to help the Templars?
I know not.

[Spicen]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Act 3 was indeed rushed but is nowhere near the train wreck that the ME3 ending is.

For Act 3 to be comparable, we would need to teleport the gallows to Denerin, have a robotic kid show up and tell Hawke that she could either make mages merge with templars (and die), kill all templars (and maybe survive) or be the next Maker, ordering the templars and Chantry to leave mages alone (and die).

Thats quite arguable, i felt DA 2 as a game was far worse than ME 3 ending. Please not shame the ME franchise with that ..............that thing called DA 2(aka silent killer).

[Lotion Soronarr]

Knight of Dane wrote...
Let the bomber be someone else than Anders. Anders is a companion and a player invest more attention towards their companion. Anders can't be changed from his ending goal no matter what you try and that lessens him.

How does that make  the story better? And how does that lessen Anders?
So people with strong personaloty who dont' let themselves be manipulated are "lesser"?
Why the idea that every companion must be mellable to your wishes?

Yeah, I know some people find the idea they can change someone very attactive (especially women who love tortured men and want to "fix them" with their love), but really?

When Anders is invested in the ending the player wants to change it. Like it was possible to alter the setting of the ening in DAO between Alistair and Loghain.

And there's pletny of things and people in DA:O you COULDN'T influence that way.

You coudln't sweettlk Shale out of beating you to paste if you kill Caradin. Does that make Shale "lesser"?

A plot or character not going the way you want to does not make either the character or plot lesser.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 04 septembre 2012 - 01:17 .

[Renmiri1]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

PounceTeazle wrote...

My main point is not an change in the outcome of the story, my point is that Anders story is a complete railroad and it feels that way, not covering it up by diverting his actions to something different that in the end has the same outcome.

I do NOT say i should be able to decide between bombing or not, but this railroad is so much out in the open it hurts.

Then what?
What would you change with Anders specificly?
Examples would be nice.

You cannot tell a story without having set events - and set characters.

[SPOILERS]
Let the bomber be someone else than Anders. Anders is a companion and a player invest more attention towards their companion. Anders can't be changed from his ending goal no matter what you try and that lessens him. You can turn over Fenris to Denarius, Turn over Isabela to the Arishok, make Merrill destroy the eluvian and you can decide wther Bartrand lives or dies plus what happens to the shard in Varric's quests.
When Anders is invested in the ending the player wants to change it. Like it was possible to alter the setting of the ening in DAO between Alistair and Loghain. The players simply needed an alternative for Anders not to automatically become a lunatic criminal but with another consequense. Perhaps it could lead to Orsino killing the Grand Cleric and thsu only being able to help the Templars?
I know not.

I'd like that too, particularly because my Hawke romanced Anders so she feels guilty as hell for enabling the bombing. 

I think the story works as it is but it does feel a bit "much" that one of your own does something so radical. I blame it on Act 3's rushed writing. Anders goes from partner / companion to lunatic too abruptly. I would love an alternative to convince him to drop his plan (which would be picked up by Orsino or another). Or at least a more gradual transition from good Anders healer and friend to loony Vengenace Anders. 

[philippe willaume]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

PounceTeazle wrote...

My main point is not an change in the outcome of the story, my point is that Anders story is a complete railroad and it feels that way, not covering it up by diverting his actions to something different that in the end has the same outcome.

I do NOT say i should be able to decide between bombing or not, but this railroad is so much out in the open it hurts.

Then what?
What would you change with Anders specificly?
Examples would be nice.

You cannot tell a story without having set events - and set characters.

[SPOILERS]
Let the bomber be someone else than Anders. Anders is a companion and a player invest more attention towards their companion. Anders can't be changed from his ending goal no matter what you try and that lessens him. You can turn over Fenris to Denarius, Turn over Isabela to the Arishok, make Merrill destroy the eluvian and you can decide wther Bartrand lives or dies plus what happens to the shard in Varric's quests.
When Anders is invested in the ending the player wants to change it. Like it was possible to alter the setting of the ening in DAO between Alistair and Loghain. The players simply needed an alternative for Anders not to automatically become a lunatic criminal but with another consequense. Perhaps it could lead to Orsino killing the Grand Cleric and thsu only being able to help the Templars?
I know not.

[spoiler ahead]
Yes what he said or at least a decent rational explanation and a series of quest that shows us where anders is going or at least expose his point of view.
I am fine with the bomb being planted and set off by the cat-lover but it would have worked better if helping, remaining neutral or stoping him was what act III was all about  and with a single boss fight (M when supporting mister Miaow and O if we tried to stop it) or may be two if we remained neutral.
The GC was a intersteing and nice char and it would have been a great moral dilema to help or doom her.

as it is ACT III is almost as if the story is getting in the way of the bosses fight.

 

[Darth Death]

AmstradHero wrote...

The problem is that BioWare marketed DA2 as a "Rise to Power" and a hero's journey. Chalk it up as another awful gaffe from the marketing team, of which there were many. DA2 and ME3 have both been party to some awful marketing which gave people some specific expectations that in many cases were not met by those games.

People expect BioWare games to be reactive to their decisions and have well written stories. People barely bat an eyelid at the tripe that passes for writing in things like Call of Duty and Halo, but if you got that in a BioWare game, people would be bringing out the pitchforks. BioWare developed a reputation for writing and choice, so when they make promises on those issues and people don't believe they deliver, they get a lot of criticism. If that's what you're promoting in your PR material, then I'd consider that entirely valid.

Yes, I agree. Stepping in a new direction should not be an issue as long as BioWare maintains their core values & prestige. If something didn't work the first go-around, don't be in a haste for its complete removal. Instead, examine the root of the problem, & depending on how bad it is, take an appropriate action being fully conscience of what players "wants" are. Passionate fans generally know more about a product better than the actual creator/author(s) themselves do in some cases. Don't belittle their knowledge, it tends to have a pernicious effect.      

[Knight of Dane]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...
Let the bomber be someone else than Anders. Anders is a companion and a player invest more attention towards their companion. Anders can't be changed from his ending goal no matter what you try and that lessens him.

How does that make  the story better? And how does that lessen Anders?
So people with strong personaloty who dont' let themselves be manipulated are "lesser"?
Why the idea that every companion must be mellable to your wishes?

Yeah, I know some people find the idea they can change someone very attactive (especially women who love tortured men and want to "fix them" with their love), but really?

When Anders is invested in the ending the player wants to change it. Like it was possible to alter the setting of the ening in DAO between Alistair and Loghain.

And there's pletny of things and people in DA:O you COULDN'T influence that way.

You coudln't sweettlk Shale out of beating you to paste if you kill Caradin. Does that make Shale "lesser"?

A plot or character not going the way you want to does not make either the character or plot lesser.

As I said, the player gets invested. Mostly it was a suggestion, but if bioware really wanted to avoid the ****storm they should have thosen someone else. Personally I don't really care, I just kill the man unless I RP my Hawke to agree with him.
I guess it depends on point of view.

Sure DAO had points you couldn't change, but at the very least you could alter points of interest that altered the further progress to the ending. In DA2 the same thing happens no matter what you do and if you keep Anders alive it just boils down to a "thank you."

In DAO you get to set the final stone of the legacy of Loghain, decide between the monarchs and choose if you want your character to commit to the ultimate sacrifice or keep it safe with untold consequense of Morrigan's baby.
In DA2 the only thing you really alter is who is angry with you and if Anders stays down.
Meredith and Orsino goes crazy either way and Sebastian has no Kirkwall chantry to return to no matter what you do with him and Anders situation.

[FieryDove]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


And there's pletny of things and people in DA:O you COULDN'T influence that way.

You coudln't sweettlk Shale out of beating you to paste if you kill Caradin. Does that make Shale "lesser"?

A plot or character not going the way you want to does not make either the character or plot lesser.

Um not entriely true. I was already friends with Shale and left Shale at camp for that quest. I talked her down to staying with me no problem. (I only wanted to redeem Branka that run anyhow not keep the anvil).

Knight of Dane wrote...

[SPOILERS]
Let the bomber be someone else than Anders. Anders is a companion and a player invest more attention towards their companion. Anders can't be changed from his ending goal no matter what you try and that lessens him. You can turn over Fenris to Denarius, Turn over Isabela to the Arishok, make Merrill destroy the eluvian and you can decide wther Bartrand lives or dies plus what happens to the shard in Varric's quests.
When Anders is invested in the ending the player wants to change it. Like it was possible to alter the setting of the ening in DAO between Alistair and Loghain. The players simply needed an alternative for Anders not to automatically become a lunatic criminal but with another consequense. Perhaps it could lead to Orsino killing the Grand Cleric and thsu only being able to help the Templars?
I know not.

This is a great idea...instead of blob Orsino we have BOOM Orsino and something varied near the end which really was all so samey no matter how your Hawke rolled.  imho