59 réponses à ce sujet

[ledod]

Renmiri1 wrote...

DAO - Blight starts and ends
DA2 - Mage / Templar war starts
DA3 - ??

Those are the main stories IMHO. You can chose your journey on HOW you end the Blight or WHO you support on the Mage Templar War but you can't change the fact that the war and the Blight happen.

DA2 prepares things for an epic DA3 story with Civil War and intrigue ^^

I am excited for the potential DA3 story: hopefully we learn more about the fade/black city with the focus placed on mages- actually, I am suprised that there were visits to the fade in DA2 given the number of mages in Hawke's party.

[EricHVela]

All I want to ask of BWE is to not try to complete everything in the next Dragon Age game. They opened one can of worms in the main plot and some more in side plots and DLCs. I hear they even opened up more with other media.

There's too much to finish everything in the next game.

The problem: Most players that I know want a game to have an ending in that game. I want the next Dragon Age to be more like a novel series that doesn't end until the series does. Those leave many loose ends between books and don't tie them up until the final one. Almost all of the games I've seen leave only one unanswered question for the next game.

While I really liked the Hitchhiker series, the story could have stopped at the end of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe when Arthur states he threw the Book away. (The TV series ended there, after all.) The important stuff was finished, but then, he took any remaining strands and built stories on them and wrote some more. It was less H2G2 and more a new story with nearly the same cast.

I don't want BWE to do that. Leave a lot of the main story unfinished and not just a few off-hand strands for leeching a new story.

Don't do what ME1 and 2 did either. They left the threat as the only reason to play the next game.

Novel series leave so much unresolved until the end. One novel series I read ended the first book with the protagonist failing to usurp the crown (from another usurper), having his eyes gouged for good measure (despite knowing such wouldn't be permanent) and thrown into a dungeon intended for the rest of his unnaturally long life. Darn tootin' I wanted to read the next one.

Would gamers accept something on that level? I have doubts that most of them would. As I mentioned, they like their games to have an ending within the game even if there's another coming later. One common, incomplete thread to entice for the next game seems to be the limit for most players.

What about the second Dragon Age? Consider exactly how many threads they left open that are mandatory and canon. One. The Mage/Templar war. Everything else is optional or conjecture. We have only the War to tease us for the next game. We can assume that a DLC is canon, but the issue is not about the DLCs but the original game without any optional components. All there is without the DLC or optional quests is the war. Without any DLC, the rest is wrapped up at the end of Varric's story.

What about the disappearances of the Hero and the Champion? Given the Seekers' conversation, it seems they're just another part of the war, another part of the same, singular hook to lure you to the next game.

I want more than just that between games. Yet, would enough gamers be okay with that to warrant an attempt at such? I seriously doubt it.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 04 septembre 2012 - 11:56 .

[LinksOcarina]

You do realize that the series is going beyond 3 games, right Reggar?

[Heimdall]

ReggarBlane wrote...

-Snip-

. Well Reggar, you have to consider that the method of storytelling you suggest bears the risk of becoming what DA2 felt like to many, an entry in the series purely designed to set up for the next game rather than being an enjoyable story in its own right.

Gamers want a sense of satisfaction when they finish their character's journey, like they've accomplished something big for their character and/or the world.  Tossing their character into a dungeon and gouging out their eye... Would probably tick off some players.  This is a WRPG we're talking about, the player often has a greater stake in terms of emotional and time investment in the character they made than you do for the character in a book, and they'd like some resolution for that character, especially since the current policy for the Dragon Age games is a new protagonist for every game.

[Nefla]

Lord Aesir wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

-Snip-

. Well Reggar, you have to consider that the method of storytelling you suggest bears the risk of becoming what DA2 felt like to many, an entry in the series purely designed to set up for the next game rather than being an enjoyable story in its own right.

Gamers want a sense of satisfaction when they finish their character's journey, like they've accomplished something big for their character and/or the world.  Tossing their character into a dungeon and gouging out their eye... Would probably tick off some players.  This is a WRPG we're talking about, the player often has a greater stake in terms of emotional and time investment in the character they made than you do for the character in a book, and they'd like some resolution for that character, especially since the current policy for the Dragon Age games is a new protagonist for every game.

One of my favorite parts of Metal Gear Solid 3

[Chiramu]

If I want tragedy, I at least want the creators of the story to have a very good understand of Shakespeares plays, since he's written so many TRAGEDIES.
And if DA2 was suppose to be a tragic story why does it end on the climax? After the climax the Hero's story is suppose to decline into suicide or death or something equally tragic.

[Plaintiff]

Chiramu wrote...

If I want tragedy, I at least want the creators of the story to have a very good understand of Shakespeares plays, since he's written so many TRAGEDIES.
And if DA2 was suppose to be a tragic story why does it end on the climax? After the climax the Hero's story is suppose to decline into suicide or death or something equally tragic.

Shakespeare isn't the be-all and end-all of tragedy. His plays re-use the same plot devices again and again, and most of them aren't even very clever.

Also, there is no rule that says tragedy has to end in the death of the "Hero". A lot of tragedies don't even have heroes. Macbeth is certainly not a hero. If anything, death is exactly what he deserves.

A tragedy is a story that deal with tragic events and has an unhappy ending. DA2 certainly qualifies.

[Gibb_Shepard]

I would argue that DA2 is tragedy satire, and even the game itself seems to be aware of this. No "tragic" event goes down in this game without a couple jokes to lighten the mood. When apparently too much tragedy strikes, the characters or following events will give a little nudge, wink and self referential joke about how "saturated" the game is in "tragedy".

[Plaintiff]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I would argue that DA2 is tragedy satire, and even the game itself seems to be aware of this. No "tragic" event goes down in this game without a couple jokes to lighten the mood. When apparently too much tragedy strikes, the characters or following events will give a little nudge, wink and self referential joke about how "saturated" the game is in "tragedy".

There's no rule that says tragedy has to be maudlin. We have a whole genre called "black comedy" which is pretty much totally devoted to making tragedy funny.

It's actually a popular theory among some literary scholars that some of Shakespeare's tragedies (Romeo & Juliet and Titus Andronicus are two cited examples) were in fact, intended to be parodies of the genre.

[TheRealJayDee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DA2 had some good ideas, but oor execution.

More personal story? Good idea, but there is no phase of "normal life" before s*** hits hte fan. No time to kno your brother/sister before they get killed.

Having a single ending really isn't that big of a problem for me. Raliroading in regards to story isn't THAT big of a problem. I was more pissed that the railroading was everywhere - in every aspect of the game.
There was no avoiding combat or sneaking past encounters. There was little strategy. There were too few options to deal with various situations.

The passage of time was done horribly, since nothing changed.
The family lacked the proper emotional impact, since it was either too distant or too cliche/cheese (mothers death).
Roleplaying suffered badly in this game.

Soem good ideas, some bad ideas, overall a bad implementation of said ideas.
And mechanics overall sucked.

I agree with everything you wrote here 100%, and the part I bolded perfectly sums up everything I think there is to say about DA2.