82 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiacre]

In Exile wrote...
The game is made for I <3 Ferelden and I <3 Warden characters, full-stop.

Not really. I love Ferelden or I love the Wardens, sure, but they're not both necessary. I have plenty of characters who are either indifferent towards the Warden or even actively dislike them (my canon does the latter).

Actually... thinking about, neither is necessary -- the motivation could be something as simple as wanting to save innocent people, regardless of majority. Maybe your Warden was simply touched by that little kid in Lothering searching for its dead mother and decided to fight the Blight. Or maybe they're pious and believe what Leliana says. Or maybe they think that if an ancient witch tells them that they have to stop the Blight and even goes to the trouble of saving them it's a good idea to do that. Or mabe they just feel indebted to Flemeth. Or maybe they're an elf and hope that what they do might make a difference in how Ferelden treats their people. Maybe they just want to save their family's home. Maybe they do it because their father or Keeper told them to. Maybe they just think that fighting darkspawn is a good thing to do. Maybe they hope that they could use it all to elevate their position in the aftermath. Maybe they think it's a suicide mission but simply want to go out in a blaze.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

The acts are all related, becasue from Cassandra's POV they're all a scheme, but from Hawke's POV they were just unrelated experiences that led to wrong-place, wrong-time.

But we are playing from Hawke's POV as intended by BioWare. Not Cassandra. Cassandra is not meant to be a PC. I said it before it was mistake for BioWare to make Hawke a PC if the point of the story is about wanting to figure out what's Hawke been up to for course 10 years. 

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
But we are playing from Hawke's POV as intended by BioWare. Not Cassandra. Cassandra is not meant to be a PC. I said it before it was mistake for BioWare to make Hawke a PC if the point of the story is about wanting to figure out what's Hawke been up to for course 10 years.

We are introduced to Cassandra's POV. That's the start of the game. Her misconception. Varric even says that he'll tell the true story. And then that's what we play the truth.

But what ties all the stories toghether is that Cassandra wants to look back on them. That's why we see the adventures we see.

[In Exile]

[quote]Fiacre wrote..
Not really. I love Ferelden or I love the Wardens, sure, but they're not both necessary. I have plenty of characters who are either indifferent towards the Warden or even actively dislike them (my canon does the latter). [/quote]

They're absolutely necessary. Because, like I said, you can't abandon Ferelden.

[quoteActually... thinking about, neither is necessary -- the motivation could be something as simple as wanting to save innocent people, regardless of majority. [/quote]

Yeah. In Orlais. And Antiva. And the Free Marches.

[quote]Maybe your Warden was simply touched by that little kid in Lothering searching for its dead mother and decided to fight the Blight. Or maybe they're pious and believe what Leliana says. Or maybe they think that if an ancient witch tells them that they have to stop the Blight and even goes to the trouble of saving them it's a good idea to do that. [/quote]

Or maybe the Warden thinks the kid is loss, hates the Maker as a mage (and thinks Leliana is nuts) and doesn't trust a manipulative old witch.

You've given great reasons for stopping the Blight -  but none of them for stopping it in Ferelden.

[upsettingshorts]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The acts are all related, becasue from Cassandra's POV they're all a scheme, but from Hawke's POV they were just unrelated experiences that led to wrong-place, wrong-time.

But we are playing from Hawke's POV as intended by BioWare. Not Cassandra. Cassandra is not meant to be a PC. I said it before it was mistake for BioWare to make Hawke a PC if the point of the story is about wanting to figure out what's Hawke been up to for course 10 years. 

Except that's not the point.

While the narrative of the game reveals that Cassandra's notion of what happened is false regardless of anything we do, that's not what we're really intended to control.  The proof of this is we can't decide to make it play out so that Cassandra's assumptions are correct.  Yet Hawke's actions are part of history, Varric's account is simply a more accurate retelling of it.

What's up to us - and this is the point - is the why.   There's a persistent disconnect between some of DA2's biggest admirers and some of its biggest critics who preferred DAO on the forums, and it's revealed in this subtle difference of opinion over the nature of choice in both games:

The refrain of the latter group laments the reduction in "choices that matter" from DAO to DA2.  They cite things like Bhelan/Harrowmont, or the boon, or whatever.  It's a list of whats.  What did the Warden do?  DAO cares deeply about what you choose to do, and tells you all about what you did in epilogue cards at the end of the story.  DAO is a game of whats.  That has an appeal, no question.  The Warden's reasons for doing any of what he/she does don't matter to anyone, and that has the benefit of allowing players to imagine whatever motivation they want as the game won't really endeavor to contradict them by actively asking them to explain themselves.

Overall DA2 is not a game of whats.  The whats already happened.  Cassandra learns about them through Varric, and the big picture stuff never really changes all that much, because Hawke is in the context of DA2's narrative a historical figure and the setting is effectively in past tense.  What DA2 is, and what most of its choices offered are, is a game of whys.  Without getting sidetracked into a discussion of paraphrases or voiced protagonists, DA2 asks your character's opinion on things a lot and tracks/responds to them in a meaningful way.  It influences how your companions feel about you, and their own motivations for behaving the way they do.   That isn't to say it did this perfectly, but that's a different post.

If there's one aspect of DA2's marketing that was more accurate than anyone I think anticipated, it was the question: "Who is the Champion of Kirkwall?"  

The answer is:  "That's completely up to you."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2012 - 04:48 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
But we are playing from Hawke's POV as intended by BioWare. Not Cassandra. Cassandra is not meant to be a PC. I said it before it was mistake for BioWare to make Hawke a PC if the point of the story is about wanting to figure out what's Hawke been up to for course 10 years.

We are introduced to Cassandra's POV. That's the start of the game. Her misconception. Varric even says that he'll tell the true story. And then that's what we play the truth.

But what ties all the stories toghether is that Cassandra wants to look back on them. That's why we see the adventures we see.

See? That why it's a ****** poor storytelling design. You don't just change POV as if something like The Song of Ice and Fire. You're assigned with one role and that role is marketed as Hawke. Not Cassandra. I don't care how they introduce the POV. If the PC is meant to be Cassandra then stick to Cassandra's POV. Don't bother with Hawke's POV and vice versa. Switching POV's somewhere in the story only mess up with how you perceive the entire story. 

[upsettingshorts]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

See? That why it's a ****** poor storytelling design.  

For 1st person roleplayers it sure is.  I have no problem admitting it's harder to get into the role.

For 3rd person roleplayers it plays right into our expectations and desires.  We want to direct the story in a manner that appeals to us, and nothing DA2 does prevents this.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2012 - 04:52 .

[Fiacre]

In Exile wrote...

They're absolutely necessary. Because, like I said, you can't abandon Ferelden.


Yeah. In Orlais. And Antiva. And the Free Marches.

Or
maybe the Warden thinks the kid is loss, hates the Maker as a mage (and
thinks Leliana is nuts) and doesn't trust a manipulative old witch.

You've given great reasons for stopping the Blight -  but none of them for stopping it in Ferelden.

Incidentally, that was supposed to be nationality, I have no idea how I ended up typing majority. So the warden wants to save the Fereldan people not out of love for Ferelden, but because they're innocent people that he wants to save as much as those in Orlais, Antiva, the Free Marches, etc.

Sure the warden can think that. But wanting what happened to that kid not happen to more people? Excellent reason to save Ferelden and cut down on casualties. If they believe Leliana? Leliana wants to save ferelden as well. Flemeth? Implies that you should start in Ferelden. Garavel showed that people aren't all that appreciative of elves stopping the Blight, but maybe if you save Ferelden directly like that, it might at least change a little there.The CE's family lives in Denerim -- wanting to protect their home means protecting Denerim, regardless of one's feelings about Ferelden in general. Bryce tells you to do your duty and implies that he wants Ferelden safe -- maybe your HN doesn't give a **** about their country, but does care deeply for their father and what their father would have wanted. And in case of the suicide mission, it would actually be counter productive to go to Orlais instead.

And even if we accept that love for Ferelden is necessary, love for the Wardens is not. My canon character... dislikes the Wardens a lot, to say it nicely. He stopped the Blight because it was his duty to his country and his family, he became Warden Commander because like hell was he gonna have some Orlesian as Arl of Amaranthine.

I don't dispute that the game assumes some things to tell the story (though imho less than a Rise to Power story that wasn't -- possibly -- an accidental rise, would have), but I don't agree it makes all the assumptions that you say it makes.

Modifié par Fiacre, 02 décembre 2012 - 04:58 .

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
See? That why it's a ****** poor storytelling design. You don't just change POV as if something like The Song of Ice and Fire. You're assigned with one role and that role is marketed as Hawke. Not Cassandra. I don't care how they introduce the POV. If the PC is meant to be Cassandra then stick to Cassandra's POV. Don't bother with Hawke's POV and vice versa. Switching POV's somewhere in the story only mess up with how you perceive the entire story. 

What are you on about? The PC isn't meant to be Cassandra. There's no switch in POV. Unless you're going to argue that DA:O was fundamentally broken because the game started with Duncan's POV and we saw Loghain's POV at multiple interludes in the story? Because otherwise you're just railing for the sake of railing.

The story is Hawke's story. But what ties toghether the acts is the framed narrative. You said the acts were disconnected and the rise to power is bad - but the story isn't about that.

[In Exile]

Fiacre wrote...
Incidentally, that was supposed to be nationality, I have no idea how I ended up typing majority. So the warden wants to save the Fereldan people not out of love for Ferelden, but because they're innocent people that he wants to save as much as those in Orlais, Antiva, the Free Marches, etc.

But what if the Warden doesn't believe that? My point is that you have to get locked into this. It has to be about the people of Ferelden somehow - because you have to believe there's somehow either (a) a better chance of saving them or ( that they're special and deserve saving.

Sure the warden can think that. But wanting what happened to that kid not happen to more people? Excellent reason to save Ferelden and cut down on casualties.

No, it's an absolutely insane reason, because "wanting to save people" != Ferelden is special. There has to be a reason for the PC to believe that saving Ferelden is worth it and possible. And the game doesn't give you a reason for that. You can think what happened to the kind is terrible, so that's why you have to cut and run and get the Orlesian Wardens, who can actually stop the blight outside.

All of Alistair's appeals to you are about saving Ferelden.

And even if we accept that love for Ferelden is necessary, love for the Wardens is not. My canon character... dislikes the Wardens a lot, to say it nicely. He stopped the Blight because it was his duty to his country and his family, he became Warden Commander because like hell was he gonna have some Orlesian as Arl of Amaranthine.

I <3 Wardens is absolutely necessary. Wynne asks you what being a Warden means to you. You don't get an option of, these kidnappning mosters made me watch my father die, murdered someone during their bloodmagic ritual, and after I'm done with the Blight I'm going after them next.

The same with DA:A. It doesn't even pretend that you're a dedicated GW.

I don't dispute that the game assumes some things to tell the story (though imho less than a Rise to Power story that wasn't -- possibly -- an accidental rise, would have), but I don't agree it makes all the assumptions that you say it makes.

Then we can agree to disagree.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Except that's not the point.

While the narrative of the game reveals that Cassandra's notion of what happened is false regardless of anything we do, that's not what we're really intended to control.  The proof of this is we can't decide to make it play out so that Cassandra's assumptions are correct.  Yet Hawke's actions are part of history, Varric's account is simply a more accurate retelling of it.

In other word, it a story that have been set in stone. 

Upsettingshorts wrote...

What's up to us - and this is the point - is the why.   There's a persistent disconnect between some of DA2's biggest admirers and some of its biggest critics who preferred DAO on the forums, and it's revealed in this subtle difference of opinion over the nature of choice in both games:

If we are not the one who actively alter the course of story then bother to explain why? It's like trying to reason with something that we don't do.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The refrain of the latter group laments the reduction in "choices that matter" from DAO to DA2.

Of cource it shouldn't matter. The story already set in stone.

 

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Overall DA2 is not a game of whats.  The whats already happened.  Cassandra learns about them through Varric, and the big picture stuff never really changes all that much, because Hawke is in the context of DA2's narrative a historical figure and the setting is effectively in past tense.  What DA2 is, and what most of its choices offered are, is a game of whys.  Without getting sidetracked into a discussion of paraphrases or voiced protagonists, DA2 asks your character's opinion on things a lot and tracks/responds to them in a meaningful way.  It influences how your companions feel about you, and their own motivations for behaving the way they do.   That isn't to say it did this perfectly, but that's a different post.

If there's one aspect of DA2's marketing that was more accurate than anyone I think anticipated, it was the question: "Who is the Champion of Kirkwall?"  

The answer is:  "That's completely up to you."

And how do you purpose to explain the why when you do not play the game of what? Hawke know nothing about Cassandra's Interrogation. And how would this suppose to be played for player?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 02 décembre 2012 - 05:06 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

In other word, it a story that have been set in stone.

If we are not the who actively alter the course of story then bother to explain why? It's like trying to reason with something that we don't do.

Just say it:  "I like making choices about whats more than whys."

I wouldn't even argue with you.  I'd say, "Okay."  It's a perfectly reasonable position.  I don't see the need to convince you why I like making why choices, nor do I think you're going to convince me that what choices are the only way to go. 

I only ask that you acknowledge that the different preferences exist, and that what DA2 does is perfectly enjoyable from a different perspective.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

And how do you purpose to explain the why when you do not play the game of what? Hawke know nothing about Cassandra's Interrogation. And how would this suppose to be played for player?

I don't follow, could you rephrase?

Are you saying it's not possible to arrive at the same conclusion/take the same action despite different reasons or motivations?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2012 - 05:11 .

[Fiacre]

In Exile wrote...

But what if the Warden doesn't believe that? My point is that you have to get locked into this. It has to be about the people of Ferelden somehow - because you have to believe there's somehow either (a) a better chance of saving them or ( that they're special and deserve saving.

No, it's an absolutely insane reason, because "wanting to save people" != Ferelden is special. There has to be a reason for the PC to believe that saving Ferelden is worth it and possible. And the game doesn't give you a reason for that. You can think what happened to the kind is terrible, so that's why you have to cut and run and get the Orlesian Wardens, who can actually stop the blight outside.

I <3 Wardens is absolutely necessary. Wynne asks you what being a Warden means to you. You don't get an option of, these kidnappning mosters made me watch my father die, murdered someone during their bloodmagic ritual, and after I'm done with the Blight I'm going after them next.

The same with DA:A. It doesn't even pretend that you're a dedicated GW.

Then we can agree to disagree.

I agree that it does assume that ferelden is saveable, but not necessarily out of love fo it.

And as far as the Wardens and Wynne's uestion goes, possible answers include:

I suppose it's about killing as many darkspawn as possible.
It means everyone needs to show me some respect.
I don't know. Does it have to mean something?

Doesn't sound like "I love Wardens" to me. Shea managed to get through the story perfectly fine with having a strong distaste for the Wardens, but refraining from ranting about it for political reasons and because he didn't want to talk about his family's murder more than necessary.

But yeah, we can agree to do that, I guess.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
See? That why it's a ****** poor storytelling design. You don't just change POV as if something like The Song of Ice and Fire. You're assigned with one role and that role is marketed as Hawke. Not Cassandra. I don't care how they introduce the POV. If the PC is meant to be Cassandra then stick to Cassandra's POV. Don't bother with Hawke's POV and vice versa. Switching POV's somewhere in the story only mess up with how you perceive the entire story. 

What are you on about? The PC isn't meant to be Cassandra. There's no switch in POV. Unless you're going to argue that DA:O was fundamentally broken because the game started with Duncan's POV and we saw Loghain's POV at multiple interludes in the story? Because otherwise you're just railing for the sake of railing.

Duncan and Loghain do not ties the plot together in the end like Cassandra did,  hence we never have any contradicting issue with multiple POVs like Cassandra's POV vs Hawke's POV. Duncan is dead at Ostagar. Loghain know nothing about the warden plan to gather the army and landsmeet. The entire story can only be concluded and justify from the warden's POV. Not Duncan or Loghain or Not Cassandra not anyone else. The sole POV is the Warden's POV. I don't give a damn with Duncan's or Loghain's POV. They're both dead in my game and my POV. 

In Exile wrote...

The story is Hawke's story. But what ties toghether the acts is the framed narrative. You said the acts were disconnected and the rise to power is bad - but the story isn't about that.

Then what is the story about?

[upsettingshorts]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Then what is the story about?

That's what's up to you?

In a broader sense it's a deconstruction of hero tropes.  If that's what you're asking.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2012 - 05:20 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

In other word, it a story that have been set in stone.

If we are not the who actively alter the course of story then bother to explain why? It's like trying to reason with something that we don't do.

Just say it:  "I like making choices about whats more than whys."

I wouldn't even argue with you.  I'd say, "Okay."  It's a perfectly reasonable position.  I don't see the need to convince you why I like making why choices, nor do I think you're going to convince me that what choices are the only way to go. 

I only ask that you acknowledge that the different preferences exist, and that what DA2 does is perfectly enjoyable from a different perspective.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

And how do you purpose to explain the why when you do not play the game of what? Hawke know nothing about Cassandra's Interrogation. And how would this suppose to be played for player?

I don't follow, could you rephrase?

Are you saying it's not possible to arrive at the same conclusion/take the same action despite different reasons or motivations?

Nevermind, when you said this, you already answered my question.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

For 3rd person roleplayers it plays right into our expectations and desires. We want to direct the story in a manner that appeals to us, and nothing DA2 does prevents this.

[Taritu]

Writing in games is different from writing in other media, because the player expects agency. I understand what they were trying to do in DA2, they failed. Especially in Chapter 3, which made player agency a joke (and I'm not just talking about the Chantry blowup, I'm referring to how nothing you did in act i or ii matters, having to fight both bosses, being unable to fight when it makes sense, and many other things.

Games are not books. The rules of storytelling are different.

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Duncan and Loghain do not ties the plot together in the end like Cassandra did,  hence we never have any contradicting issue with multiple POVs like Cassandra's POV vs Hawke's POV.

Oh, so all of a sudden it's a POV that ties the plot toghether. +5 for moving the goalposts.

The entire story can only be concluded and justify from the warden's POV. Not Duncan or Loghain or Not Cassandra not anyone else. The sole POV is the Warden's POV. I don't give a damn with Duncan's or Loghain's POV. They're both dead in my game and my POV.

So can't DA2s. Whatever rant you're on about now it just wrong, since  this has absolutely nothing to do with the story structure.

Then what is the story about?

Finding out Hawke's actual role in the Mage-Templar war (or, specifically, in Thedas being on the brink of war and Hawke being the only one that can stop it).

DA2's story's bad not because of the 3 acts, but because it desperately needed a 4th Act in the present. Which has nothing to do with anything you've brought up.

[In Exile]

Taritu wrote...

Writing in games is different from writing in other media, because the player expects agency. I understand what they were trying to do in DA2, they failed. Especially in Chapter 3, which made player agency a joke (and I'm not just talking about the Chantry blowup, I'm referring to how nothing you did in act i or ii matters, having to fight both bosses, being unable to fight when it makes sense, and many other things.

But that's just par for the course in a Bioware game. Your choices are always irrelevant story-wise, except for maybe at the end of a quest tree (and you usually never see the irrelevant consequence) because they were always designed to be flavour choices for you to RP. But games have overshawdowed Bioware in this regard, and created branching quest trees, and braching future content, and bioware hasn't adapted.

But re: agency, this is the wrong company to look at.

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...

But games have overshawdowed Bioware in this regard, and created branching quest trees, and braching future content, and bioware hasn't adapted. 

Pfft, Wing Commander had cinematic-style roleplaying - in the form of FMV - and branching quest trees in the mid 1990s.  Granted, that's probably easier to do when the setting is as empty as space.

Hell, Wing Commander III even had romance options and IV (iirc) had variable relationships with wingmen/companions.

...but that's kinda offtopic.  Sort of.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2012 - 05:29 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Duncan and Loghain do not ties the plot together in the end like Cassandra did,  hence we never have any contradicting issue with multiple POVs like Cassandra's POV vs Hawke's POV.

Oh, so all of a sudden it's a POV that ties the plot toghether. +5 for moving the goalposts.

You already acknowldge that the 3 acts are not relevent from Hawke's POV and yet you are trying to justify the connections of the 3 acts by using Cassandra's  POV which I dispute. Why don't you just stick to Hawke's POV as intended by BioWare? Since you want to compare with DAO, I ask you, Can you eloborate how the entire DAO story supposed to be concluded from Duncan's or Loghain's POV?   

In Exile wrote...

So can't DA2s. Whatever rant you're on about now it just wrong, since  this has absolutely nothing to do with the story structure.

My rant is about Hawke irrelevent role structured in 3 acts to the opening and ending story. It has everything to do with the story structure. Do not try to use Cassandra's POV to tie it all together. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 02 décembre 2012 - 05:40 .

[Sir George Parr]

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Duncan and Loghain do not ties the plot together in the end like Cassandra did,  hence we never have any contradicting issue with multiple POVs like Cassandra's POV vs Hawke's POV.

Oh, so all of a sudden it's a POV that ties the plot toghether. +5 for moving the goalposts.

The entire story can only be concluded and justify from the warden's POV. Not Duncan or Loghain or Not Cassandra not anyone else. The sole POV is the Warden's POV. I don't give a damn with Duncan's or Loghain's POV. They're both dead in my game and my POV.

So can't DA2s. Whatever rant you're on about now it just wrong, since  this has absolutely nothing to do with the story structure.

Then what is the story about?

Finding out Hawke's actual role in the Mage-Templar war (or, specifically, in Thedas being on the brink of war and Hawke being the only one that can stop it).

DA2's story's bad not because of the 3 acts, but because it desperately needed a 4th Act in the present. Which has nothing to do with anything you've brought up.

This is what i hoped for in the stillborn DLC Exalted March at the very least. Or picking up the story in DA i with Hawke in the lead role. 

[Hatchetman77]

I think what upset most people about the story of DA2 was the unused potential and that that potential was unused due to the game being rushed.  It was made by some talented people who weren't given enough time to do their job properly.  Everything to make DA2 a great game was in the game, it just needed to be structured better. 

[CaptainBlackGold]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

I think what upset most people about the story of DA2 was the unused potential and that that potential was unused due to the game being rushed.  It was made by some talented people who weren't given enough time to do their job properly.  Everything to make DA2 a great game was in the game, it just needed to be structured better. 

Nothing personal, Hatchet but I am going to use your comment here as the stepping off point for a rant.

Almost every time a criticism of DA2 comes up, the explanation offered is that the game was "rushed" - probably by EA.

I want to dispute that, especially in light of the discussion of "story." The developers were given resources and a time frame to produce a game. They could have focused on making the story as good as possible, but they spent a lot of those limited resources on changing the game-play, redesigning the elves, darkspawn, new combat mechanics, etc. They even ended up having to re-use areas, because they ran out of time.

But my argument is that they would not have run out of time and resources if they hadn't "wasted" both in reinventing the wheel, and "fixing" things that were not broken. I do not think the game was rushed so much as resources were misallocated.

As an outsider, who has no idea of how things actually work at Bioware, it looked to me as if someone wanted to put their distinctive mark on the game - and so therefore pushed to change things just for the sake of change.

As a result, the story suffered. I am guessing that most people assume that the way Bioware makes a game is that the writers create a story and then the company turns into an RPG. However, I suspect that the process is more like Hollywood, where the "leads" come up with a concept, over arching plot points, etc., and the writers are left to fill in the blanks. Of course, the writers can also present a story concept - but still, the leads decide whether to accept that or not, change it, or whatever.

Computer games, like movies are incredibly complex affairs with a lot of talented people having to work together to bring it to the public. Most of that process is hidden to us as consumers - but what we can see is the "story" and how it is told. But the writers are only a part of that process.

This is why I think we can get brilliant characters and interesting side quests one moment, but have an epic fail for the overall story - because the writers have to plot the story the way that the Big Boys Upstairs decide.

Anyway, if there is a failure in DA2's story, one we hope will be avoided in DA3, it is not necessarily the writers' fault, nor the amount of resources available (either time or money) but how those resources are used.

Just my opinion of course - but EA should not be used as the scape-goat when other "villans" are lining up...

[upsettingshorts]

The fact the game was rushed explains some things. It does not explain all things.

In that respect, Dragon Age 3 will probably go a long way to further highlighting which was which in DA2.

Basically, if it occurs again, it is safe to say that its presence in DA2 was intentional and not mandated by time constraints.

Though I do think some decisions were likely made with the consideration that there wouldn't be time to do something else, like setting the game almost entirely in Kirkwall.  If you know in advance you're not gonna have the time to flesh out a bunch of different locales, might as well structure your narrative in light of that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2012 - 06:31 .