3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Teddie Sage wrote...

They were a mix of these three elements. if you choose to focus on one behaviour type, no wonder it limits your type of Hawkes. There are multiple possibilities, you know.

Some people didn't like Hawke. Didn't like his paraphrasing, his auto-line, his mandatory religious views, his passivity...

Or the fact that he was a character Bioware created for the player to play. "Here is a roleplaying game for you. You get to play Luke Skywalker! But you have to pick if he uses a lightsaber, the force, or a blaster! Can`t get any more rpg`is than that!"

[Rawgrim]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Eh. We're set as human in most games, and in many RPGs. Never stopped me from playing those games

Rawgrim wrote...
And did any of these "thousands of variations" give you a different ending to the story? Or was it just an illusion of choice, maybe?

Every BioWare game has been the illusion of choice rather than choice. The core plots of their games are almost identical playthrough to playthrough. Some choices are given in-universe significance (genophage cure, ascending to godhood in BG2, siding with mages/templars) but they also have minimal effect on the main plot.

Only RP experience I've found where the world is 100% reactive to everything you do and branches for every choice with completely different plots are tabletop games.

Minimal is still better than Zero.

[WhiteThunder]

LinksOcarina wrote...

WhiteThunder wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Please stop being just bitter about all this. Then step back and try to look at it objectively. Right now you stink of a vendetta and are really hard to take serious.

Well, as long as you can take me seriously I won't mind.

Let's look at the facts:

1. There was a tactical camera in DA:O.
2. Said tactical camera was universally acclaimed.
3. Mike Laidlaw said that in DA2 there would be the "Tactical Camera 2.0" in an interview with Game Informer.
4. There was no tactical camera of any sort in DA2.

Please, anyone, enlighten me as to any factual errors in this list.

None, really, although in origins I wouldn't call the camera tactical in any way personally. 

That said, who honestly cares other than you? It didn't really deter the play experience for me in the end, and I still paused/played like I have in all BioWare games since Baldurs Gate. 

It was just really, really annoying on Nightmare, especially with the parachuting enemies that I couldn't see because it wouldn't let me scroll out enough.  It's one of my pet peeves about DA2, because there was just no rhyme or reason for it's removal and, again, Laidlaw had explicitly said that it would be included.

And sorry for using that BS devspeak "Tactical Camera".  I normally just call it isometric view, but I was quoting Laidlaw's interview so I wanted to maintain consistent terms.

[dheer]

LinksOcarina wrote...

WhiteThunder wrote...
Well, as long as you can take me seriously I won't mind.

Let's look at the facts:

1. There was a tactical camera in DA:O.
2. Said tactical camera was universally acclaimed.
3. Mike Laidlaw said that in DA2 there would be the "Tactical Camera 2.0" in an interview with Game Informer.
4. There was no tactical camera of any sort in DA2.

Please, anyone, enlighten me as to any factual errors in this list.

None, really, although in origins I wouldn't call the camera tactical in any way personally. 

That said, who honestly cares other than you? It didn't really deter the play experience for me in the end, and I still paused/played like I have in all BioWare games since Baldurs Gate. 

Ah, now there I have to disagree. I spent the majority of time in DA2 fighting the camera during battle. It was my #1 problem with the game and hurt it more than any other feature removed in the transition from DA:O to DA2. The inclusion of a tactical camera in DA3 could be the difference in my buying decision.

Modifié par dheer, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:39 .

[Teddie Sage]

Rawgrim wrote...

So the fact that nothing you did in the game itself mattered in the end. And that, as a roleplayer, didn`t disapoint you one bit?

Most of the choices you did had interactions in the game itself, so I was satisfied with the outcomes of my choices and the relationships I had with the characters. I didn't import my Dragon Age Origins file since I wanted to do a fresh start, the first time I played this game and liked how things were handled, except the dungeons of course. I wasn't expecting everything to be given to me on a silver platter anyways, so this is why I enjoyed the fresh start and getting to know the characters.

On my  second playthrough I saw a bunch of stuff I did with my warden being imported through codex entries and rumours, I liked that. I'm playing this video game mostly as a gamer first and for most, role playing comes second in my mind because I prefer writing the rest of the holes in my mind or on paper. I personally do a bunch of headcanons after each playthrough, thinking where there characters are going next, what will happen to them, etc. I have no problem using my imagination at all whenever I play a different Hawke with his different relationships.

I would like to see, however, the remaining of his adventures through Dragon Age III, though I know it might not be possible. I'm on the same boat as many players who loved their Wardens, I want my Hawke to come back and see the rest of his story, because I'm not really happy with the fact Dragon Age II ended so abruptly. I knew then we would have an expansion which would happen post game, and I was excited to play Hawke again, but nope. Exalted March got cancelled. This still isn't a real problem to me since I just do imagine the rest of his story in my mind. Role playing isn't hard, the only issue people have with Hawke is the fact he's voiced and say stuff that they wouldn't say. It's not something that bothers me that much. I thought the writing was pretty well done for this game, even though the third act was a mess.

This leads me to say, Dragon Age 2 is one of my favourite video games. It's not the best, but I love it despite its flaws.

[WhiteThunder]

dheer wrote...
Ah, now there I have to disagree. I spent the majority of time in DA2 fighting the camera during battle. It was my #1 problem with the game and hurt it more than any other feature removed in the transition from DA:O to DA2. The inclusion of a tactical camera in DA3 could be the difference in my buying decision.

This.

[Rawgrim]

WhiteThunder wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

WhiteThunder wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Please stop being just bitter about all this. Then step back and try to look at it objectively. Right now you stink of a vendetta and are really hard to take serious.

Well, as long as you can take me seriously I won't mind.

Let's look at the facts:

1. There was a tactical camera in DA:O.
2. Said tactical camera was universally acclaimed.
3. Mike Laidlaw said that in DA2 there would be the "Tactical Camera 2.0" in an interview with Game Informer.
4. There was no tactical camera of any sort in DA2.

Please, anyone, enlighten me as to any factual errors in this list.

None, really, although in origins I wouldn't call the camera tactical in any way personally. 

That said, who honestly cares other than you? It didn't really deter the play experience for me in the end, and I still paused/played like I have in all BioWare games since Baldurs Gate. 

It was just really, really annoying on Nightmare, especially with the parachuting enemies that I couldn't see because it wouldn't let me scroll out enough.  It's one of my pet peeves about DA2, because there was just no rhyme or reason for it's removal and, again, Laidlaw had explicitly said that it would be included.

And sorry for using that BS devspeak "Tactical Camera".  I normally just call it isometric view, but I was quoting Laidlaw's interview so I wanted to maintain consistent terms.

The console version didn`t have the isometric view, for some reason. Seems to be why alot of users are confused when PC players talk about the tactical view from DA:O.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The onle downside I see of allowing only human protagonists is that the choise of race can no longer matter. If there are race options, then the choice of race - even for the majority who chosoe human - can make a difference in the game. Having choices that matter seems to be something people like, and not being able to chosoe race eliminates one such choice.

Other than the usual suspects of  the BioWare catalogue, name me a game that has the choice of race as a major factor in the storyline.

That seems to be the biggest issue in the end. Not so much that race never mattered, but moreso the fact that its difficult to make race matter.  Origins got close with the casual moments of dialogue were all we got, and while they were awesome to see how it affected little moments that made the story personal, it was still not fully perfect and in the end, had little impact on major story elements.

Other games gloss over it, so the reason for races to be existant is to let the theatre of the mind run wild. Hell, its why I always pick half-elves and elves in most games, because its slightly different. That said, it is also only a stat-builder for some to get more crunch in the system.  

And yes, I know you are going to say their story is irrelevent compared to the experience you make for your character, but then we will just go into a circular debate on how its supposed to be a story driven RPG vs a free-form one, yadayada, mutally agree to disagree and have tea later.  

Choice can mean other things. They talk about origin stories again being akin to backgrounds, so it would be like your school of training in Jade Empire, or your starting class in Neverwinter Nights, that helps define the character more than the characters race does. You could argue thats a fair substitute, as it may pertain to chosen class or initial personality or even contacts you have at the beginning of your inquisition. 

For me, race in all honesty works best in tabletops, but has always had issues in making them meaningful in a game design sense, other than stat bonuses and tips to the hat via side-conversations. It's not that its a missing choice, but I have yet to see it as a meaningful one. Maybe one day BioWare will crack that code, but were just not there yet. 

[LobselVith8]

Monica21 wrote...

Edit: I misread this. Without knowing the story, how do you know the inclusion of a mage option won't make sense?

Key words: "doesn't seem" were used. Since the Andrastian Chantry vilified magic and mages for nearly a thousand years, Andrastians kill mages in lynch mobs, mages are legally forced into the Circles of Magi unless they are members of the Grey Wardens, and Chantry law prohibits them from inheriting a title and serving leadership positions, I'm going out on a limb here and saying it doesn't seem to make much sense.

[Icinix]

WhiteThunder wrote...

dheer wrote...
Ah, now there I have to disagree. I spent the majority of time in DA2 fighting the camera during battle. It was my #1 problem with the game and hurt it more than any other feature removed in the transition from DA:O to DA2. The inclusion of a tactical camera in DA3 could be the difference in my buying decision.

This.

Indeed. This was a killer for me.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Rawgrim wrote...
Minimal is still better than Zero.

The plot choices in DA2 (the mage/templar conflict, the Arishok's fate, Feynriel, what happens to sibling, etc.) have about as much effect on the main plot as the quest hub choices in DA:O did--which is to say, very little at all.

It's fluff.  And that's fine.  It's just a matter of how much fluff players consider necessary to maintain the illusion, and that varies from player to player.  But there's no point in pretending "choice" in BioWare's games is anything significant to the plot.

The "old-school" RPGs held up as paragons of BioWare's early days around here (mostly Baldur's Gate) had even less of that fluff--except in character creation--than ME or DA ever did.  No one seems to mind 

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:44 .

[Rawgrim]

Teddie Sage wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

So the fact that nothing you did in the game itself mattered in the end. And that, as a roleplayer, didn`t disapoint you one bit?

Most of the choices you did had interactions in the game itself, so I was satisfied with the outcomes of my choices and the relationships I had with the characters. I didn't import my Dragon Age Origins file since I wanted to do a fresh start, the first time I played this game and liked how things were handled, except the dungeons of course. I wasn't expecting everything to be given to me on a silver platter anyways, so this is why I enjoyed the fresh start and getting to know the characters.

On my  second playthrough I saw a bunch of stuff I did with my warden being imported through codex entries and rumours, I liked that. I'm playing this video game mostly as a gamer first and for most, role playing comes second in my mind because I prefer writing the rest of the holes in my mind or on paper. I personally do a bunch of headcanons after each playthrough, thinking where there characters are going next, what will happen to them, etc. I have no problem using my imagination at all whenever I play a different Hawke with his different relationships.

I would like to see, however, the remaining of his adventures through Dragon Age III, though I know it might not be possible. I'm on the same boat as many players who loved their Wardens, I want my Hawke to come back and see the rest of his story, because I'm not really happy with the fact Dragon Age II ended so abruptly. I knew then we would have an expansion which would happen post game, and I was excited to play Hawke again, but nope. Exalted March got cancelled. This still isn't a real problem to me since I just do imagine the rest of his story in my mind. Role playing isn't hard, the only issue people have with Hawke is the fact he's voiced and say stuff that they wouldn't say. It's not something that bothers me that much. I thought the writing was pretty well done for this game, even though the third act was a mess.

This leads me to say, Dragon Age 2 is one of my favourite video games. It's not the best, but I love it despite its flaws.

Glad you liked it, and that you had lots of fun playing it. the reason why people didn`t like Hawke wasn`t just the fact that he was voiced. It was also the fact that he was human, religious, he was named Hawke. And pretty much all of the stuff about him that was outside of the players controll. Most players felt like they were in the passangers seat and watching the story, instead of in the drivers seat and living the story and being somewhat in control of it.

[Teddie Sage]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Some people didn't like Hawke. Didn't like his paraphrasing, his auto-line, his mandatory religious views, his passivity...

I didn't mind the paraphrasing at all. I'm used to Mass Effect's dialogue wheel. As for the auto-lines, I thought they were appropriate with the current mood I was usually using my Hawke in conversations. I never really had problems with Hawke's religious views in most of my playthroughs since I avoided the Chantry and options that had mentions of faith in them. Whenever he mentioned the Maker or Andrasté while fighting, I always assumed he was just cursing. I always considered my main Hawke as non-praticant andrastean, see atheist. As for his passivity, he wasn't meant to be the Grey Warden, he was just a normal citizen trying to live a quiet and peaceful life while Kirkwall was a real hell to live in. I never expected Hawke's character to surpass the Warden and I kinda like how the Champion title felt ironic to my Hawke on one of my playthroughs, since I decided to use my whole team to fight against him and his crew, instead of doing a dual. Still fun.

[MorningBird]

Rawgrim wrote...

MorningBird wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

Not for everyone.

In DAO, I only ever finished the game with one Warden, but I really liked the Warden that I had created, so I played again as the SAME Warden several times.

In DA2, we were restricted to playing as a human, but I created and finished it with three DIFFERENT characters (and I'm planning on playing a fourth character closer to the release of DA3.)

You found race restrictions limiting.  I didn't.  Replayability is going to be different for each person.

You can only play DA2 as 3 different characters. "Funny, Mean or Kind". None of these options has any effect on the game whatsoevers. they only affect the tone of the conversations, all of wich leads to the excact same ending of the game.

Wrong.

I played one diplomatic warrior Hawke, one diplomatic/sarcastic mage Hawke, and one sarcastic/aggressive rogue Hawke.  I'm planning a diplomatic/aggressive warrior Hawke next.  You can change up dialogue as much or as little as you please, and have as many different characters based on those choices as you please.

Just because you decided to play straight up diplomatic, sarcastic or aggressive doesn't mean everyone was as uncreative.

And your choices DO affect the game.  Off the top of my head, your decisions determine whether or not Bethany/Carver dies in the Deep Roads, as well as whether or not they join the Wardens or Templars/Circle respectively.  You can choose whether or not to help get Harrowmont out of Kirwall or stab him in the back.  Depending on your choices, Feynriel can end up in Tevinter, the Circle, or tranquil.  Depending on your choices, Merrill's entire clan can end up wiped out, etc...

To claim that your choices mattered in one game but had no effect on the events in the second is just plain wrong. =/

[panamakira]

I kind of wanted to have the option to play as an elf at least but I'm not going to lie and say my primary character wasn't going to be human. So I'm not entirely surprised or upset about it. Just would've liked that option again for the sake of variety.

I think as long as we have more freedom than Hawke's background I'm good. Something maybe like with the Orlesian Warden Commander in Awakening. There's some background story but there's a lot more freedom in how we imagine our PC's background or story up to that point.

Also to be fair I think it would have been weird for a non-human to have a high rank in the Chantry/Templars as an Inquisitor knowing how prejudiced they are as an organization that adding an elf or dwarf into the equation would be kind of stretching it since well, we all know how closed minded the Chantry can be. Plus the fact they would have to address why a non-human has any authorization to do anything in these organizations would have to be stressed out. If it were ignored (like being a blood mage in DA2) it would definitely bug me.

I don't know I know some people are disappointed but that's just building false expectations and getting set up for disappointment. There might be other more exciting stuff happening like having a Warden companion or going back to the Wilds from the concept art released.

[LinksOcarina]

WhiteThunder wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

WhiteThunder wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Please stop being just bitter about all this. Then step back and try to look at it objectively. Right now you stink of a vendetta and are really hard to take serious.

Well, as long as you can take me seriously I won't mind.

Let's look at the facts:

1. There was a tactical camera in DA:O.
2. Said tactical camera was universally acclaimed.
3. Mike Laidlaw said that in DA2 there would be the "Tactical Camera 2.0" in an interview with Game Informer.
4. There was no tactical camera of any sort in DA2.

Please, anyone, enlighten me as to any factual errors in this list.

None, really, although in origins I wouldn't call the camera tactical in any way personally. 

That said, who honestly cares other than you? It didn't really deter the play experience for me in the end, and I still paused/played like I have in all BioWare games since Baldurs Gate. 

It was just really, really annoying on Nightmare, especially with the parachuting enemies that I couldn't see because it wouldn't let me scroll out enough.  It's one of my pet peeves about DA2, because there was just no rhyme or reason for it's removal and, again, Laidlaw had explicitly said that it would be included.

And sorry for using that BS devspeak "Tactical Camera".  I normally just call it isometric view, but I was quoting Laidlaw's interview so I wanted to maintain consistent terms.

isometric view is not the end-all, be all though. And to be frank, it's more cumbersome in most cases than a typical 3-D pov, especially when you have pathing issues and the lack of depth perception in such images. 

It has its place, no doubt, but I just don't see it being a part of the series anymore. If it is, great, if not, well it never bothered me personally. Sorry it hurt you so much. 

[Rawgrim]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Minimal is still better than Zero.

The plot choices in DA2 (the mage/templar conflict, the Arishok's fate, Feynriel, what happens to sibling, etc.) have about as much effect on the main plot as the quest hub choices in DA:O did--which is to say, very little at all.

It's fluff.  And that's fine.  It's just a matter of how much fluff players consider necessary to maintain the illusion, and that varies from player to player.  But there's no point in pretending "choice" in BioWare's games is usually anything significant to the plot.

The fact that DA:O has 4 different endings, means the choices in that game has just as little impact on the ending as in a game with just 1 ending?

Your character dying at the end of DA:O is pretty significant. If he creates an old god baby is pretty significant. the PC becoming a king or queen is significant. Placing alistair on the throne is also significant.

Killing Meredith before orsino, or vice versa isn`t significant at all.

[WhiteThunder]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Minimal is still better than Zero.

The plot choices in DA2 (the mage/templar conflict, the Arishok's fate, Feynriel, what happens to sibling, etc.) have about as much effect on the main plot as the quest hub choices in DA:O did--which is to say, very little at all.

It's fluff.  And that's fine.  It's just a matter of how much fluff players consider necessary to maintain the illusion, and that varies from player to player.  But there's no point in pretending "choice" in BioWare's games is usually anything significant to the plot.

Alistair vs. Loghain, Templars vs. Mages, Werewolves vs. Elves, killing Leliana/Wynne.  The Dark Ritual vs. Alistair/Loghain dying vs. The Warden dying.  Bhelen vs. Harrowmont

Even when there was little effect on the main plot in Origins, there was a real sense that what you were doing was affecting these peoples' lives.

[Fast Jimmy]

DA:O hub quests gave you great influence on the fate of the world. The game did not reflect these choices markedly (although the epilogue slides gave a great indication of the larger impacts of your choice) but they still are rather large. DA2's choices are given about the same level of service in game (but with no proper follow up in the ending) but the choices were small. The life of your sibling pales in comparison to crowning a king. Saying you support the mages or the Templars before a battle where you slaughter both sides is inconsequential compared to unearthing one of the most powerful artifacts in the history of the dwarves, and the ability to make an army of golems from it that could reclaim the Deep Roads.

DA:O's choices made you feel like you were molding the world. DA2's choices felt... lacking.

Which is a shame, because if I had to get money, we're going to get a lot more choices like DA2 rather than big choices like DA:O.

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Minimal is still better than Zero.

The plot choices in DA2 (the mage/templar conflict, the Arishok's fate, Feynriel, what happens to sibling, etc.) have about as much effect on the main plot as the quest hub choices in DA:O did--which is to say, very little at all.

It's fluff.  And that's fine.  It's just a matter of how much fluff players consider necessary to maintain the illusion, and that varies from player to player.  But there's no point in pretending "choice" in BioWare's games is usually anything significant to the plot.

The fact that DA:O has 4 different endings, means the choices in that game has just as little impact on the ending as in a game with just 1 ending?

Your character dying at the end of DA:O is pretty significant. If he creates an old god baby is pretty significant. the PC becoming a king or queen is significant. Placing alistair on the throne is also significant.

Killing Meredith before orsino, or vice versa isn`t significant at all.

It's the implications leading up to the ending that matter more, over the ending result. To say its not significant is correct, but do dismiss it because of the supposed lack of impact is foolish. 

Sound familiar, by the way? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:51 .

[Rawgrim]

MorningBird wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

MorningBird wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I saw another user make a very good point earlier. As gamers grow older, they have less time for gaming, and less money to spend on games as well. Replayability is key. if the game has very poor replayability, 60 bucks for a game is pretty damn expensive if you only get 30 hours of play from it.

Limiting the character options limits the replayability.

Not for everyone.

In DAO, I only ever finished the game with one Warden, but I really liked the Warden that I had created, so I played again as the SAME Warden several times.

In DA2, we were restricted to playing as a human, but I created and finished it with three DIFFERENT characters (and I'm planning on playing a fourth character closer to the release of DA3.)

You found race restrictions limiting.  I didn't.  Replayability is going to be different for each person.

You can only play DA2 as 3 different characters. "Funny, Mean or Kind". None of these options has any effect on the game whatsoevers. they only affect the tone of the conversations, all of wich leads to the excact same ending of the game.

Wrong.

I played one diplomatic warrior Hawke, one diplomatic/sarcastic mage Hawke, and one sarcastic/aggressive rogue Hawke.  I'm planning a diplomatic/aggressive warrior Hawke next.  You can change up dialogue as much or as little as you please, and have as many different characters based on those choices as you please.

Just because you decided to play straight up diplomatic, sarcastic or aggressive doesn't mean everyone was as uncreative.

And your choices DO affect the game.  Off the top of my head, your decisions determine whether or not Bethany/Carver dies in the Deep Roads, as well as whether or not they join the Wardens or Templars/Circle respectively.  You can choose whether or not to help get Harrowmont out of Kirwall or stab him in the back.  Depending on your choices, Feynriel can end up in Tevinter, the Circle, or tranquil.  Depending on your choices, Merrill's entire clan can end up wiped out, etc...

To claim that your choices mattered in one game but had no effect on the events in the second is just plain wrong. =/

The Bethany\\Carver lives isn`t your choice at all. Hawke doesn`t get to influence, in game, wich of them gets bashed by the ogre. Its a default based on your class.

As for the Deep Road bit, you can influence some of it, but you can`t prevent them getting infected if you bring them there. It happens by default too.

Harrowmount is in Kirkwall? Never saw him.

Feynriel can end up as alot of things, yes. Does any of those choices have impact on the ending? Nope. Same goes for Merrill`s clan. She actually even stays with you no matter what you do. Impossible to get rid of her.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Rawgrim wrote...
The fact that DA:O has 4 different endings, means the choices in that game has just as little impact on the ending as in a game with just 1 ending?

Your character dying at the end of DA:O is pretty significant. If he creates an old god baby is pretty significant. the PC becoming a king or queen is significant. Placing alistair on the throne is also significant.

Killing Meredith before orsino, or vice versa isn`t significant at all.

Just because it turns up in the ending slides doesn't mean it's significant for the world or the plot.

Who you romance, whether you die, who's on the throne in Denerim or Orzammar, etc.: none of that matters for the main plot.  The main plot for each Warden is exactly the same--kill Archdemon, go to four places, solve problem, save country.  And the effect the Warden has on the world is almost identical except for a few slides in DA:O and sidequests in DA2.  Besides, the devs themselves said the DA:O slides aren't canonical.

The illusiion is there to give us room to roleplay the protagonist, to make it feel like each character is unique.  Just because Wardens and Hawkes vary wildly in appearance, personality, motives, and actions doesn't mean those differences are significant for the plot.

Can you imagine what a mess the games would be if your decisions WERE actually significant?  If every semi-important roleplaying decision led to a branching plot point that drastically affected subsequent events in DA:O and DA2?  Everyone would play a different game, with literally millions of permutations.  That might be the ideal, but it's certainly never happened short of a homebrew.

WhiteThunder wrote...

Even when there was little effect on the main plot in Origins, there was a real sense that what you were doing was affecting these peoples' lives.

Bolded emphasis mine.  It's a SENSE that you're important to the world and the plot.  Whether you actually are is irrelevant.  It's an illusion of importance and significance.  Every RPG uses it to draw us in.  The question is how to maintain the illusion while keeping the plotline as cohesive and non-branching as possible.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 22 octobre 2012 - 03:57 .

[WhiteThunder]

LinksOcarina wrote...

isometric view is not the end-all, be all though. And to be frank, it's more cumbersome in most cases than a typical 3-D pov, especially when you have pathing issues and the lack of depth perception in such images. 

It has its place, no doubt, but I just don't see it being a part of the series anymore. If it is, great, if not, well it never bothered me personally. Sorry it hurt you so much. 

See, my issue is that both of our playstyles could easily have been accommodated,  and were, in fact , accommodated in Dragon Age: Origins.  There is no way in which removing that feature improved the gameplay for anyone.  All it did was worsen it for some people.  That's why I listed it as an example of Bioware denying a solid portion of the fanbase something they wanted for no reason.

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Minimal is still better than Zero.

The plot choices in DA2 (the mage/templar conflict, the Arishok's fate, Feynriel, what happens to sibling, etc.) have about as much effect on the main plot as the quest hub choices in DA:O did--which is to say, very little at all.

It's fluff.  And that's fine.  It's just a matter of how much fluff players consider necessary to maintain the illusion, and that varies from player to player.  But there's no point in pretending "choice" in BioWare's games is usually anything significant to the plot.

The fact that DA:O has 4 different endings, means the choices in that game has just as little impact on the ending as in a game with just 1 ending?

Your character dying at the end of DA:O is pretty significant. If he creates an old god baby is pretty significant. the PC becoming a king or queen is significant. Placing alistair on the throne is also significant.

Killing Meredith before orsino, or vice versa isn`t significant at all.

It's the implications leading up to the ending that matter more, over the ending result. To say its not significant is correct, but do dismiss it because of the supposed lack of impact is foolish. 

Sound familiar, by the way? 

To dismiss choices that doesn`t matter at all is foolish? If something has no consequence, it gets dismissed. Pretty common practice.

[Icinix]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
The fact that DA:O has 4 different endings, means the choices in that game has just as little impact on the ending as in a game with just 1 ending?

Your character dying at the end of DA:O is pretty significant. If he creates an old god baby is pretty significant. the PC becoming a king or queen is significant. Placing alistair on the throne is also significant.

Killing Meredith before orsino, or vice versa isn`t significant at all.

Just because it turns up in the ending slides doesn't mean it's significant for the world or the plot.

Who you romance, whether you die, who's on the throne in Denerim or Orzammar, etc.: none of that matters for the main plot.  The main plot for each Warden is exactly the same--kill Archdemon, go to four places, solve problem, save country.  And the effect the Warden has on the world is almost identical except for a few slides in DA:O and sidequests in DA2.  Besides, the devs themselves said the DA:O slides aren't canonical.

The illusiion is there to give us room to roleplay the protagonist, to make it feel like each character is unique.  Just because Wardens and Hawkes vary wildly in appearance, personality, motives, and actions doesn't mean those differences are significant for the plot.

Can you imagine what a mess the games would be if your decisions WERE actually significant?  If every semi-important roleplaying decision led to a branching plot point that drastically affected subsequent events in DA:O and DA2?  Everyone would play a different game, with literally millions of permutations.  That might be the ideal, but it's certainly never happened short of a homebrew.

Maybe AAA developers should start reaching for the stars...