312 réponses à ce sujet

[Lithuasil]

Crowlover wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Now if a game like Dragon Age tells me (or atleast very strongly suggests in word and motion picture) that the world, magic aside, does actually run on the same laws (be it of physics, emotions or swordplay) as our world does, I expect the game to stick to that. And if those rules of "realism" that the game accepted to be judged by are broken, my suspension of disbilief is taking cracks.

I'm not sure you can really say that though. Consider the rogue backstab ability, it literally transports the rogue from a enemies from front to their back in a sudden flash of smoke, and there is no indication its magical ability. Same thing with a warrior's Scythe ability, which seems to give them more charging power than a freight train (turning weak enemies into literal piles of gore). With those types of abilites is it really that "unrealistic" that Tallis can perform her arieal acrobatic nonsence in cut scenes?

In a theoretical perfect rpg, what happens in dialogues / cutscenes does not differ from what happens during gameplay. In most Bioware games (and DA2 is easily one of the worst offenders here), the gameplay and the dialogues/cutscenes take place in different cities, on different continents, on different planets, in different galaxies.
I'm not saying that stuff like the weapondesign, or the designs of various spells aren't fairly ridiculous, but through sheer desentization, I've come to begrudgingly accept these things, and generally try to just completely ignore the gameplay and replace it with my own little scenes, while accepting the dialogue/cutscenes as the games reality. The combat in these games *is* just busywork most of the time anyway. 
So in a way, Tallis is a worse offender, because she didn't put on her little show in the background while I was busy ramming twenty pounds of blunt metal through my own chest (because that's how bloodmagic works). Tallis intruded the "reality" of the game with her bull****, if my rambling makes any sort of sense here.

[Lithuasil]

Rojahar wrote...

If the story and the game weren't two completely separate/unrelated entities, we wouldn't have problems like cutscenes and battles not making sense. "Why didn't they just teleport?"

I've been saying that this kind of segregation needs to be overcome for years - but usually, that's the point where the "Screw realism, this is fantasy"-argument jumps out of the woodwork.

[Rawgrim]

Rojahar wrote...

If the story and the game weren't two completely separate/unrelated entities, we wouldn't have problems like cutscenes and battles not making sense. "Why didn't they just teleport?"

Correct.

[Crowlover]

Lithuasil wrote...

In a theoretical perfect rpg, what happens in dialogues / cutscenes does not differ from what happens during gameplay. In most Bioware games (and DA2 is easily one of the worst offenders here), the gameplay and the dialogues/cutscenes take place in different cities, on different continents, on different planets, in different galaxies.
I'm not saying that stuff like the weapondesign, or the designs of various spells aren't fairly ridiculous, but through sheer desentization, I've come to begrudgingly accept these things, and generally try to just completely ignore the gameplay and replace it with my own little scenes, while accepting the dialogue/cutscenes as the games reality. The combat in these games *is* just busywork most of the time anyway. 
So in a way, Tallis is a worse offender, because she didn't put on her little show in the background while I was busy ramming twenty pounds of blunt metal through my own chest (because that's how bloodmagic works). Tallis intruded the "reality" of the game with her bull****, if my rambling makes any sort of sense here.

That is true...it's almost like in-game combat is metaphoric: It repsersent the the skill, focus, and ability required to defeat our enemies that we are not seeing while watching fighting cutscenes...which is supposed to be the game's definition of 'reality'.

[Rawgrim]

Rojahar wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

I've been saying that this kind of segregation needs to be overcome for years - but usually, that's the point where the "Screw realism, this is fantasy"-argument jumps out of the woodwork.

But if the characters then have those powers, because the setting is fantasy, then why don't they have those powers in the story/cutscene? That's the flaw of having two totally disconnected things ducktaped together, instead of making one product which revolves around being both - and is better because it's both.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Cultist wrote...

1. She's a qunari.
2. She's annoying.
3. She have a list of traitors Inquuisitor could purge.

1. So was Sten. Being a Qunari does not seem reason enough to want to kill someone.
2. Perhaps to you, but even so, "annoying" does not seem reason enough to want to kill someone. 
3. If an Inquisitor wants the list. We don't know if that might even be significant to the story within the game. Who can say if she still has the list, or if she won't have some reason to hand it over to someone? 

Again, Hawke's issue with Tallis, if there is one, will likely be different from that of the DA3 protagonist, if the DA3 protagonist even encounters the elf.

You could leave Sten to die. You weren't FORCED to free him. Even if you did free him, you weren't forced to admire him or even help him in any of his personal goals. You could even argue against his beliefs.

The broader argument in this thread is about player railroading.

You can't play the type of character who wouldn't try to rob a nobleman and would try to stop a spy network of people trying to take over and brainwash the world as they know it.

It's about the games/story becoming more linear, and player choice being marginalized.

I agree 100 percent.

[whykikyouwhy]

Rojahar wrote...
You could leave Sten to die. You weren't FORCED to free him.

The broader argument is about player railroading.

You can't play the type of character who wouldn't try to rob a nobleman and would try to stop a spy network of people trying to take over and brainwash the world as they know it.

It's about the games/story becoming more linear, and player choice being marginalized.

Sure, you could leave Sten to die. My point is that he is a character that could become a companion to the Warden - someone that can be regarded with respect. So using that "she's a Qunari" in a manner that suggest Qunari = evil (and therefore, must be killable) when there are respected members of that faction just doesn't measure up as a viable reason. 

Is the broader argument about player-railroading? If so, then perhaps it's best to cut to that chase, instead of fomenting all sorts of misdirected character hate. Perhaps a thread requesting that for every character we encounter in a game, we are allowed a dialogue/action option to go all stabbity is what's in order? And if that's what some players want, ok. But that's probably not the game that Bioware is going to make.

[TEWR]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fenris also kills several slavers you simply do not get to see it.,. The captain of the slavers calls out to the other slavers to come into the clearing after Hawke and Co. had dealt with the one's in the clearing. One of the slavers comes out dripping blood saying Captain and falls dead. Fenris comes out and states all your men are dead. So Fenris killed all the other men who were not in the clearing. He tells the captain to run back to his master. The Captain still tries to capture Fenris and is met with a hand through the chest.

Isabela also has no problem handling three men at once and could have easily killed all three. Realistic? If I wanted realistic I would not be playing Fantasy games.

I found Isabela's perfectly realistic, and based on Fenris' comments on how difficult the trap would've been without Hawke we can assume that it wasn't easy for him to kill all of the men he did.

Still, my issues from Tallis' intro come not from it being unrealistic -- as the way she kills the Crows is realistic -- but in that it seems like it's trying too hard to cater to her skills. With Isabela, Hawke walks into the Hanged Man and witnesses the bar brawl as it begins, so there was little he could do.

With Fenris, we killed a large group of slavers while Fenris did his own work.

With Anders, we just see him healing someone. From the player's POV, we also see his skin crackle due to his merger with Justice.

With Merrill, from Hawke's perspective all she's doing is crouching/squatting. From our perspective, we see her using some sort of magic.

With Sebastian, we see him fire an arrow to pin a bill to the Chanter's Board -- a definite moment of awesome, if I do say so myself.

With all of these, while their skills are put on display their skills don't take center stage so much so that Hawke could be deemed irrelevant to the turn of events.

And I think that's largely what irritates other people in Tallis' intro. Certainly, it does that to me. I'm fine with how she kills people -- it is indeed realistic. What I'm not fine with is Tallis' skills getting center stage and Hawke standing there going "Derp" while the Crows have surrounded his party.

Because based on all of that, Tallis is a one woman army, which seems like it's trying just too hard to make her awesome.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 21 septembre 2012 - 02:31 .

[TEWR]

Rojahar wrote...

You could leave Sten to die

Doesn't mean he actually died.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

3. If an Inquisitor wants the list. We don't know if that might even be significant to the story within the game. Who can say if she still has the list, or if she won't have some reason to hand it over to someone?

Why should the DA3 protagonist be able to do what an anti-Qunari Hawke should've attempted to do -- whether he/she succeeded is really irrelevant to what he/she should've attempted to do -- right from the get-go when he/she learns about the details of the list?

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 21 septembre 2012 - 02:28 .

[TEWR]

True, which is really the crux of the matter. Bioware's failure to give choices any meaningful amount of... well... meaning -- Department of Redundancy Department -- when it comes to the views certain characters might hold.

It all comes down to what I said in these threads months back.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

They don't actually give the option the attention it deserves. That's why you'll regret it. Because it's one of the worst "but thou musts" in the game. Not that I'm anti-Qunari either, but I did accidentally choose that option and it made me just drop my jaw in disbelief.

Basically -- and read at your own peril, since this is a spoiler forum -- you'll demand the scroll and be brushed off. You'll tell her to hand it over, she'll dismiss it, and Hawke will say he tried.

Which is a load of Bronto**** if you'll pardon my Orlesian, because there are many other ways Tallis could still end up with the scroll that still allowed for Hawke to try and get the scroll.

As a result, it almost kills any incentive to play an anti-Qunari Hawke in the game. If you're fervently anti-Qunari and you side with Petrice, then it becomes a rather glaring disconnect between player and PC when Bioware automatically controls your character and makes him act out of character.

Which practically forces you to be Tallis friendly, so either way your anti-Qunari Hawke is not living up to what you've made him to be, unless you make him have a sudden change of heart about Qunari.

So then really, why should you be anti-Qunari in the main game if your Hawke won't be as anti-Qunari as he should be in the DLC? It's almost like Bioware is forcing the players to be pro-Qunari. Almost. You obviously still can be, but like I said you'll be disappointed and frustrated because your character won't be acting in-character.

Or you have to be at least ambivalent about the whole situation.

I have yet to see Bioware even admit that the way they had Tallis running off with the scroll from an anti-Qunari Hawke was very poorly done when there were other ways it could've been done. Ways that would've had the same end result, but made players feel like Hawke actually tried. It leaves me with some pretty low hopes for DAIII, considering the bad taste the main game left in my mouth.

It actually makes me worry a great deal. I think that they should be considering all viewpoints a player can play when creating choices. If someone's playing an anti-Qunari Hawke, is being told "No" really going to make them not try and be anti-Qunari?

What's logical for an anti-Qunari Hawke? Fighting a Qunari agent for evidence against the Qunari that could damage their war efforts? Or asking nicely and when you're told "No" you just let sleeping dogs lie, as it were?

Which is the logical path an anti-Qunari Hawke should take? The answer is pretty self-evident, if you ask me.
.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 21 septembre 2012 - 02:41 .

[Realmzmaster]

Crowlover wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Crowlover wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Now if a game like Dragon Age tells me (or atleast very strongly suggests in word and motion picture) that the world, magic aside, does actually run on the same laws (be it of physics, emotions or swordplay) as our world does, I expect the game to stick to that. And if those rules of "realism" that the game accepted to be judged by are broken, my suspension of disbilief is taking cracks.

I'm not sure you can really say that though. Consider the rogue backstab ability, it literally transports the rogue from a enemies from front to their back in a sudden flash of smoke, and there is no indication its magical ability. Same thing with a warrior's Scythe ability, which seems to give them more charging power than a freight train (turning weak enemies into literal piles of gore). With those types of abilites is it really that "unrealistic" that Tallis can perform her arieal acrobatic nonsence in cut scenes?

The DA2 combat messed up immersion, yes. But Talis made matters alot worse with he backflip. Why sneak through a whole castle to get to a balcony, when she can clearly just jump right up onto it?

She was wait for the ability to cooldown from before? 

All of the silliness began with DAO, but for some odd reason everyone wants to give it a pass. Talents like Scattershot, Arrow of Slaying, Aura of Pain, Rain of Arrows(Awakening), Whirlwind, Sweeping Strike, Massacre, Juggernaut etc. All of this came from DAO and its expansion.  
Scythe is a variation of Juggernaut. And DA2 messed up immersion?

[whykikyouwhy]

Rojahar wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Sure, you could leave Sten to die. My point is that he is a character that could become a companion to the Warden - someone that can be regarded with respect. So using that "she's a Qunari" in a manner that suggest Qunari = evil (and therefore, must be killable) when there are respected members of that faction just doesn't measure up as a viable reason.

But not everyone plays, or wants to play, who does the most reasonable thing.  DA is a world in which many people DO believe "she's a Qunari" means "she's evil" and want the ability to play that kind of character. It's not about playing the character who always chooses the right answer, it's about having the option to play the character with a choice of answers. You COULD respect Sten in DAO... or you could not.

And the Warden is not Hawke, and vice versa. Some people play the same character type across games, some people change it up across many playthroughs. I still maintain that while it might make sense for a Hawke to want to take revenge on Tallis, at this juncture, it's very much up in the air how a DA3 protagonist might feel, or who that person even might be. Sure, that protagonist may be anti-Qunari, or anti-elf, or anti-knife-wielding rogues. And players may have already decided that such is how they are going to play. But saying that a character should die simply because he/she belongs to a particular group, or faith, or is from a particular ethnicity/nationality is just another broad generalization - an easy label and category. It's a very weak reason, imo, to want to do someone the utmost of harm, be they fiction or otherwise.

[Crowlover]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Crowlover wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Crowlover wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Now if a game like Dragon Age tells me (or atleast very strongly suggests in word and motion picture) that the world, magic aside, does actually run on the same laws (be it of physics, emotions or swordplay) as our world does, I expect the game to stick to that. And if those rules of "realism" that the game accepted to be judged by are broken, my suspension of disbilief is taking cracks.

I'm not sure you can really say that though. Consider the rogue backstab ability, it literally transports the rogue from a enemies from front to their back in a sudden flash of smoke, and there is no indication its magical ability. Same thing with a warrior's Scythe ability, which seems to give them more charging power than a freight train (turning weak enemies into literal piles of gore). With those types of abilites is it really that "unrealistic" that Tallis can perform her arieal acrobatic nonsence in cut scenes?

The DA2 combat messed up immersion, yes. But Talis made matters alot worse with he backflip. Why sneak through a whole castle to get to a balcony, when she can clearly just jump right up onto it?

She was wait for the ability to cooldown from before? 

All of the silliness began with DAO, but for some odd reason everyone wants to give it a pass. Talents like Scattershot, Arrow of Slaying, Aura of Pain, Rain of Arrows(Awakening), Whirlwind, Sweeping Strike, Massacre, Juggernaut etc. All of this came from DAO and its expansion.  
Scythe is a variation of Juggernaut. And DA2 messed up immersion?

I love aura of pain.

[Rawgrim]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Crowlover wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Crowlover wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Now if a game like Dragon Age tells me (or atleast very strongly suggests in word and motion picture) that the world, magic aside, does actually run on the same laws (be it of physics, emotions or swordplay) as our world does, I expect the game to stick to that. And if those rules of "realism" that the game accepted to be judged by are broken, my suspension of disbilief is taking cracks.

I'm not sure you can really say that though. Consider the rogue backstab ability, it literally transports the rogue from a enemies from front to their back in a sudden flash of smoke, and there is no indication its magical ability. Same thing with a warrior's Scythe ability, which seems to give them more charging power than a freight train (turning weak enemies into literal piles of gore). With those types of abilites is it really that "unrealistic" that Tallis can perform her arieal acrobatic nonsence in cut scenes?

The DA2 combat messed up immersion, yes. But Talis made matters alot worse with he backflip. Why sneak through a whole castle to get to a balcony, when she can clearly just jump right up onto it?

She was wait for the ability to cooldown from before? 

All of the silliness began with DAO, but for some odd reason everyone wants to give it a pass. Talents like Scattershot, Arrow of Slaying, Aura of Pain, Rain of Arrows(Awakening), Whirlwind, Sweeping Strike, Massacre, Juggernaut etc. All of this came from DAO and its expansion.  
Scythe is a variation of Juggernaut. And DA2 messed up immersion?

Its more "in your face" in DA2. And when they go completely overboard with it in cutscenes as well, its alot harder to ignore. Talis leaping 70 backwards through the air was just cringeworthy.

[TEWR]

whykikyouwhy wrote...
. But saying that a character should die simply because he/she belongs to a particular group, or faith, or is from a particular ethnicity/nationality is just another broad generalization - an easy label and category. It's a very weak reason, imo, to want to do someone the utmost of harm, be they fiction or otherwise.

I think you're missing the point. No offense meant though.

The point is largely about creating a character that is more our own and less Bioware's. Obviously, they're all Bioware's. The question is just "How much" are they Bioware's.

In the base game, you could play an anti-Qunari Hawke who is very violent against the Qunari, for whatever reason. Perhaps because they don't really allow free will. Perhaps because Sten in Origins killed Bethany's best friend, among the other people he killed.

It's about consistency, the ability to shape our characters as we want, and other things.

What possible reason is there for an anti-Qunari Hawke who was so against the Qunari in Kirkwall and opposes them on all grounds to allow Tallis to walk away, scroll in hand, without even truly attempting to take the scroll from her?

Yes what Hawke is doing could be constituted as a hate crime or a generalization on par with "All Mages are evil". Is it right? No, not really. Is it something that was made possible in Origins and DAII? Yes.

Bioware let us shape both the Warden and Hawke as anti-Qunari people, if we so chose. And yet, in MotA, Hawke's anti-Qunari attitude is destroyed in one single moment by one character's "LOL nope, you can't have it. Neener neener neener."

If the scroll's going to have importance in DA3, fine. There are ways to keep Tallis with it and not have Hawke look like a blithering moron.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 21 septembre 2012 - 02:51 .

[Realmzmaster]

Rawgrim wrote...

Its more "in your face" in DA2. And when they go completely overboard with it in cutscenes as well, its alot harder to ignore. Talis leaping 70 backwards through the air was just cringeworthy.

You mean like warriors jumping10 feet or more in the air in heavy armor during the kill animation for the ogre?

[whykikyouwhy]

Rojahar wrote...

I do get that you're relating supporting this to supporting hate crimes, but these are games in which the player character has the ability to murder, steal, and all sorts of things. Why should one particular character be taboo from killing, or one particular reason to kill be taboo, in a fantasy game?

You're offended by people having the ability to kill people they disagree with, but others are offended by things you may support. Should those things then be removed from DA3 because "DA3 isn't DA2. And those things from DA2 offended someone."?

The post of mine that you originally quoted was directed to the OP. What I had posted prior to that was this:

Why would the DA3 protagonist want to kill Tallis? If you played a Hawke who was upset or angered by the encounter with Tallis in MotA, then yeah, maybe Hawke might have cause to seek revenge. But thus far, there has been no confirmation that Hawke will be in the next game.

If that's the case, just having Tallis make a cameo for the purpose of being stabbed doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

 

So no...I'm not against players being able to role-play as they see fit, within the confines of the game (because all games, even RPGs at the table, have some restrictions). But I don't see it as reasonable to put Tallis in the next game simply for the sake of killing her because that opportunity was not there in DA2.

[Rawgrim]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Its more "in your face" in DA2. And when they go completely overboard with it in cutscenes as well, its alot harder to ignore. Talis leaping 70 backwards through the air was just cringeworthy.

You mean like warriors jumping10 feet or more in the air in heavy armor during the kill animation for the ogre?

Its more like 5-6 feet, stab, then kind of hoist up abit via the sword. 70 backwards and up from a standstill position is still alot worse than 10 with some running start behind it.

When I saw Talis do that backflip, it made me feel like the whole quest was just an utter waste of time. She could have just solved the whole thing alone with 1-2 jumps in 1 minute. The whole scene was beyond silly. Every hint of immersion just vanished.

[Realmzmaster]

Rawgrim wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Its more "in your face" in DA2. And when they go completely overboard with it in cutscenes as well, its alot harder to ignore. Talis leaping 70 backwards through the air was just cringeworthy.

You mean like warriors jumping10 feet or more in the air in heavy armor during the kill animation for the ogre?

Its more like 5-6 feet, stab, then kind of hoist up abit via the sword. 70 backwards and up from a standstill position is still alot worse than 10 with some running start behind it.

When I saw Talis do that backflip, it made me feel like the whole quest was just an utter waste of time. She could have just solved the whole thing alone with 1-2 jumps in 1 minute. The whole scene was beyond silly. Every hint of immersion just vanished.

No she could not because she first has to get to that moment. Without Hawke she never gets there even if the Duke was laying a trap. Is it over the top? Probably, but so is a Ranger in DAO calling a Great Bear in the Deep Roads.

[Crowlover]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

So no...I'm not against players being able to role-play as they see fit, within the confines of the game (because all games, even RPGs at the table, have some restrictions). But I don't see it as reasonable to put Tallis in the next game simply for the sake of killing her because that opportunity was not there in DA2.

If they did do that, that would qualify as "fan service", no?