330 réponses à ce sujet

[SweQue]

esper wrote...
I would and do recommond da2 to my friends who I know have the same taste in gaming as I.

hmm I don't, any game that ends up with 78% on gamerankings should be treated with caution.
DA2 story and gameplay had huge flaws in them.

[addiction21]

SweQue wrote...

esper wrote...
I would and do recommond da2 to my friends who I know have the same taste in gaming as I.

hmm I don't, any game that ends up with 78% on gamerankings should be treated with caution.
DA2 story and gameplay had huge flaws in them.

People do not form their opinions, preferences or tastes based on numbers.

The only people I see spouting these numbers are those trying to prove theirs is the only valid opinion, preference, or taste.

And no one arguing that DA2 is without its flaws or faults but again that will be different. Some love a voiced character others despise and other are indifferent. Same with the graphics, artstyle, combat the dialogue wheel etc etc etc...

[Sutekh]

SweQue wrote...

esper wrote...
I would and do recommond da2 to my friends who I know have the same taste in gaming as I.

hmm I don't, any game that ends up with 78% on gamerankings should be treated with caution.
DA2 story and gameplay had huge flaws in them.

How can you be so sure that this number doesn't come from people whose tastes are radically different from yours?

I'll take a friend's advice - someone who knows me and my tastes - over some number on the internet from people who doesn't even know I exist anytime.

This obsession with sales and reviews percentages is beyond me. If someone likes something, they like something. Sales and such of that something is completely irrelevant.

[Master Shiori]

SweQue wrote...


Lets be honest, if someone just picked up DA2 and played through it, would he be satisfied with the story and ending at all?

Considering there are plenty of people in this thread that liked DA2, I'd say, yes, there's a good chance for that. 

[Commander Kurt]

FreshIstay, mate, that's still not what it means. Think about a mother taking her baby shopping. Now, she knows that the baby might get hungry and raise all hell so she brings a bottle of formula. This is proactive.

Perhaps she forgot the bottle though, or just didn't think about it. Perhaps she had no way of knowing that it would be needed. So, all hell breaks loose and now she needs a battle plan. She decides what to do, how and in which order to do it, and then she strides to action. This is of course a killer story for a game, but it is also reactive by definition.

You with me?

[Master Shiori]

SweQue wrote...


hmm I don't, any game that ends up with 78% on gamerankings should be treated with caution.
DA2 story and gameplay had huge flaws in them.

If there's one thing I've learned in over 20 years of playing video games, it's that I should never judge something purely on the score it got or the reviews.

Heck, if I followed your logic I'd never have picked up Alpha Protocol. Despite the general opinion at the time, it was a game that I greatly enjoyed.

Same goes for DA2. Despite the popular opinion people have about it, it's easily my favorite rpg of 2011.

Modifié par Master Shiori, 15 janvier 2013 - 08:48 .

[AlexanderCousland]

Sutekh wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

let' s try this again. Wether or not you wanted to be a Warden has no bearing on my point, the Warden still took the nesscary step' s to defeat the blight. NOBODY forced the Warden to do it, You dont wanna be a warden? dont play. Was it not the Warden spearheaded that movevment? Did you not complete the game in the order of your choosing?

"You don't wanna be a Warden don't play" is the worst argument I've ever heard. Really. So if I want my character to be proactive, all I can do is not play? Basically, me, the player, controls nothing in the game except shutting it down. OK.

As for nobody forced the Warden? The plot forces the Warden. The plot puts the Warden into situations to which the Warden always reacts. Look what happens from Redcliffe to Denerim. Everytime, the Warden comes for one thing (generally, to enforce the Treaty) they are confronted to an unrelated situation they have to solve. They react to the problem. Circle, Orzammar, Brecilian, Sacred Ashes, Battle of Denerim: reaction after reaction after reaction. The only time he's really in control is the Dark Ritual.

Proactive means "Acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty". The Warden never acts in advance (except the DR). That they solve the problem isn't the point. They do. We know that.

Analogy: Vaccination is proactive. Treatment is reactive. Proactive action against the Blight: killing Urthemiel before he (she?) awakes. Reactive: Killing Urthemiel after he's awake and the Blight has begun. The Warden is the treatment, not the vaccination.

And, again, there's nothing wrong with that.

Your expected problem is the Blight sacking nations, Your advance is stopping it before it spreads past Ferelden. Darkspawn Chronicles show' s what happens without the Warden. Wether or not you wanted to be a Warden is subjective. There' s no option to kill the sleeping old god. Your not aware it' s a true blight until After Ostagar. 

Simple stuff. Proactivity is not cancelled out because you didnt create the situation. It' s cancelled if You know about something and dont do anything about it until the birds hit the fan. 


Why do you go to Redcliffe, Denerim, Orzammar, The Circle, Brecillian Forest? Oh yea...because You Need an Army you have a purpose to be there, your not just twidling your finger' s "What to do..What to do". Which order did you complete those Quests in, tell me...I have time, How did your Warden stop the Blight, who did he leave in power of those nations and why, what kind of army did He/She assemble, did He/she die, did you do your companions quests, if so which ones and why? 

^ Try to answer all those questions without writing a short story, and then see if your Warden matches with 50% of what mine did, Only thing we have in common is that we slayed the Archdemon. 

DA2:
I took Bethany to the deep roads, because her fireball is deadly, she became a Warden.
I Killed the Arishok. because I love Isabela.
I killed Anders. He blew up a chantry
I Chose Templars, Mage' s shouldn' t be free. 

If you notice, those middle choices have companions involved in them, Why? because THEY caused the event Hawke was stuck like chuck, cleaning it up. What was his purpose (no one answer' s that question)? He/She tucked their tail and ran to Kirkwall, everything else was just a coincidence? hmmm..some kind of champion.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Commander Kurt wrote...

FreshIstay, mate, that's still not what it means. Think about a mother taking her baby shopping. Now, she knows that the baby might get hungry and raise all hell so she brings a bottle of formula. This is proactive.

Perhaps she forgot the bottle though, or just didn't think about it. Perhaps she had no way of knowing that it would be needed. So, all hell breaks loose and now she needs a battle plan. She decides what to do, how and in which order to do it, and then she strides to action. This is of course a killer story for a game, but it is also reactive by definition.

You with me?

This is a great metaphor, well done haha.

[AlexanderCousland]

Here' s were we agree people :

The Blight is a reactive event.

Here' s where we disagree:

The Warden isnt proactive in solving it.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

By that logic how is DA2 not simply a series of smaller-scale reactive events that Hawke can be proactive in solving?

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 15 janvier 2013 - 09:22 .

[esper]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...

FreshIstay, mate, that's still not what it means. Think about a mother taking her baby shopping. Now, she knows that the baby might get hungry and raise all hell so she brings a bottle of formula. This is proactive.

Perhaps she forgot the bottle though, or just didn't think about it. Perhaps she had no way of knowing that it would be needed. So, all hell breaks loose and now she needs a battle plan. She decides what to do, how and in which order to do it, and then she strides to action. This is of course a killer story for a game, but it is also reactive by definition.

You with me?

This is a great metaphor, well done haha.

Translated to da:o this would be: 
The Mother did not know that the baby needed a bottle or thought it would be that bad, and then is then told by her mysterious aunt from nowhere and her new adopted father (who knows as little about parenting as her.) 'You need to go this, this and this store to buy the bottle and the ingredients in the bottle and no returning home to where you baby equipment is or breast feeding is not an option'.

[hoorayforicecream]

SweQue wrote...

esper wrote...
I would and do recommond da2 to my friends who I know have the same taste in gaming as I.

hmm I don't, any game that ends up with 78% on gamerankings should be treated with caution.
DA2 story and gameplay had huge flaws in them.

Totally. Who'd be silly enough to recommend games like Mirror's Edge, Assassin's Creed, Scribblenauts, Dragon's Dogma, or Soul Calibur V?

[esper]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

SweQue wrote...

esper wrote...
I would and do recommond da2 to my friends who I know have the same taste in gaming as I.

hmm I don't, any game that ends up with 78% on gamerankings should be treated with caution.
DA2 story and gameplay had huge flaws in them.

Totally. Who'd be silly enough to recommend games like Mirror's Edge, Assassin's Creed, Scribblenauts, Dragon's Dogma, or Soul Calibur V?

My friends gives about as much regards to these ranking as I do. And since I liked it, I would recommend it. My friends knows my taste, they would know what an recommendtion from me means.


And I totally need to finish Mirror's Edge... if just it didn't give me motion sickness.

[AlexanderCousland]

Pseudocognition wrote...

By that logic how is DA2 not simply a series of smaller-scale reactive events that Hawke can be proactive in solving?

It' s gone too long without saying that I like DA2 check my character page, Ive got 3 Hawke' s.

but no, Hawke has knowledge of perceived problem' s and doesnt do anything about them  until they' ve exploded on him, smaller- scale yes, Hawke proactive? no, but you can certainly RP him/her that way. 

[SweQue]

I also liked Mirrors Edge, (...Swedish game btw) however, I can fully understand why its not for everyone.

That is what some people lack, they can't understand/ or accept that a game may be flawed when they themself like it.

Modifié par SweQue, 15 janvier 2013 - 09:41 .

[Sutekh]

FreshIstay wrote...

Your expected problem is the Blight sacking nations
<snip>

 I think you're confusing proactive / reactive and active / passive. The Warden isn't proactive, he is active. He doesn't stand there and do nothing, but he acts in reaction to a problem, not in prevention. There's really not much more I can give you at this point than the dictionary definition I already gave you.

The fact that the plot doesn't give him other possibilities is exactly what I said: the plots dictates. And you know what? That's fine. The best stories I've read, seen or played, including DAO, are mostly made of a series of reactions. 

Why do you go to Redcliffe, Denerim, Orzammar, The Circle, Brecillian Forest?
<snip>

The order of quests has nothing to do with proactivity.  It's branching (kind of). Same with the choices. I have many Wardens, each have different journeys, made in a different order, different motivations, romances, some are dead, some live etc... but that's not the point.

DA2:
I took Bethany to the deep roads,
<snip>

OK. So There's your motivations for Hawke. Mine were different (again, a bunch of Hawkes, not only one). If you must know, first playthrough Isabela wasn't even around, so he killed the Arishok for his own reasons. And anyway, he reacted to problems and solved them... except for the last one (and yes, I understand it can be a real downer, not discussing that), but the mechanic proactive / reactive and active / passive isn't that different in both games.

The real difference, IMHO, is that Hawke has no clear final goal in sight, so the story is less driven and can feel sometimes as though you're just going through the motion, as opposed to the Warden's.

Modifié par Sutekh, 15 janvier 2013 - 09:45 .

[hoorayforicecream]

FreshIstay wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

By that logic how is DA2 not simply a series of smaller-scale reactive events that Hawke can be proactive in solving?

It' s gone too long without saying that I like DA2 check my character page, Ive got 3 Hawke' s.

but no, Hawke has knowledge of perceived problem' s and doesnt do anything about them  until they' ve exploded on him, smaller- scale yes, Hawke proactive? no, but you can certainly RP him/her that way. 

The warden is not proactive, but you can certainly RP him/her that way.

[AlexanderCousland]

Sutekh wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

Your expected problem is the Blight sacking nations
<snip>

 I think you're confusing proactive / reactive and active / passive. The Warden isn't proactive, he is active. He doesn't stand there and do nothing, but he acts in reaction to a problem, not in prevention. There's really not much more I can give you at this point than the dictionary definition I already gave you.

The fact that the plot doesn't give him other possibilities is exactly what I said: the plots dictates. And you know what? That's fine. The best stories I've read, seen or played, including DAO, are mostly made of a series of reactions. 

Why do you go to Redcliffe, Denerim, Orzammar, The Circle, Brecillian Forest?
<snip>

The order of quests has nothing to do with proactivity.  It's branching (kind of). Same with the choices. I have many Wardens, each have different journeys, made in a different order, different motivations, romances, some are dead, some live etc... but that's not the point.

DA2:
I took Bethany to the deep roads,
<snip>

OK. So There's your motivations for Hawke. Mine were different (again, a bunch of Hawkes, not only one). If you must know, first playthrough Isabela wasn't even around, so he killed the Arishok for his own reasons. And anyway, he reacted to problems and solved them... except for the last one (and yes, I understand it can be a real downer, not discussing that), but the mechanic proactive / reactive and active / passive isn't that different in both games.

The real difference, IMHO, is that Hawke has no clear final goal in sight, so the story is less driven and can feel sometimes as though you're just going through the motion, as opposed to the Warden's.

Thanks for snipping my points, and responding to partial parts of my statements. and I appreciate you answering none of my question' s. 

Proactivity doesn' t mean prevention before occurrence, I suggest you read the Meriam-Webster and Google definitions I posted on this thread. 

Modifié par FreshIstay, 15 janvier 2013 - 09:57 .

[esper]

SweQue wrote...

I also liked Mirrors Edge, (...Swedish game btw) however, I can fully understand why its not for everyone.

That is what some people lack, they can't understand/ or accept that a game may be flawed when they themself like it.

But what if those flaws means little to nothing to me?

I have yet to play the perfect game. The day I do I will hold all other games to that game's standard, but untill then I know that games, like everything else created by human's have flaws.

The flaws of da2 didn't bring down the enjoyment I had of the game very much and for me the flaws da:o had was worse and more glaring flaws that brought my enjoyment down a lot more. Hence I had a better experience with da2.

(And at no point have I said I hated da:o).

Why should I lie about this because of some rankign number I have never cared about in my whole life?

[SweQue]

esper wrote...

SweQue wrote...

I also liked Mirrors Edge, (...Swedish game btw) however, I can fully understand why its not for everyone.

That is what some people lack, they can't understand/ or accept that a game may be flawed when they themself like it.

But what if those flaws means little to nothing to me?

I have yet to play the perfect game. The day I do I will hold all other games to that game's standard, but untill then I know that games, like everything else created by human's have flaws.

The flaws of da2 didn't bring down the enjoyment I had of the game very much and for me the flaws da:o had was worse and more glaring flaws that brought my enjoyment down a lot more. Hence I had a better experience with da2.

(And at no point have I said I hated da:o).

Why should I lie about this because of some rankign number I have never cared about in my whole life?

I don't think its a big conspiracy of "bioware haters" which made Dragon Age 2 land on an avg of 78%.
However, when a fan point out the flaws he is a "hater" when the critic does it, well you see everyones point is just subjective.
But if thats so, then Bioware should stop market themself as the developers behind AAA-titles, since everything is subjective and their game is no more better then an indie game - see how silly that sounds?

Modifié par SweQue, 15 janvier 2013 - 09:50 .

[esper]

SweQue wrote...

esper wrote...

SweQue wrote...

I also liked Mirrors Edge, (...Swedish game btw) however, I can fully understand why its not for everyone.

That is what some people lack, they can't understand/ or accept that a game may be flawed when they themself like it.

But what if those flaws means little to nothing to me?

I have yet to play the perfect game. The day I do I will hold all other games to that game's standard, but untill then I know that games, like everything else created by human's have flaws.

The flaws of da2 didn't bring down the enjoyment I had of the game very much and for me the flaws da:o had was worse and more glaring flaws that brought my enjoyment down a lot more. Hence I had a better experience with da2.

(And at no point have I said I hated da:o).

Why should I lie about this because of some rankign number I have never cared about in my whole life?

I don't think its a big conspiracy of "bioware haters" which made Dragon Age 2 land on an avg of 78%.
However, when a fan point out the flaws he is a "hater" when the critic does it, well you see everyones point is just subjective.
But if thats so, then Bioware should stop market themself as the developers behind AAA-titles, since everything is subjective and their game is no more better then an indie game - see how silly that sounds?

No, I don't see how silly that is. AAA is not a quality mark it is a: 'A lot of money was poured into this game' mark.

And critics are subjective. I never care about their opion or ranking. I care about why they have them which the good critques gives, the bad don't. Games critics are not just bad, they are also a fickle and chances their opinion with on the drop of the hat, which makes for terrible critques. So I never pay attention to anything they said. LP's and demo's which shows game play is my method of finding games, along with recommendation from people I share a gaming taste with (the last one being the absolutely best).

And Acamagicka and indie game is a lot better than 80% of all AAA games I have played last year. In fact I have being playing mostly indie game last year, because the AAA's one have been dull.

Maker, I am still swooning over Acadamagicka and I have had it for years:
- LOT OF NPC's with their own distinct personality
- Lots of oppertunities to form the PC's personality and background.
- Lots of stats.
- Lot of spells
- Lots of adventures

I am still in love with that game. Better than anything and AAA have offered me for years.

[addiction21]

SweQue wrote...


I don't think its a big conspiracy of "bioware haters" which made Dragon Age 2 land on an avg of 78%.
However, when a fan point out the flaws he is a "hater" when the critic does it, well you see everyones point is just subjective.
But if thats so, then Bioware should stop market themself as the developers behind AAA-titles, since everything is subjective and their game is no more better then an indie game - see how silly that sounds?

I can play this game.
When someone points out they like DA2 they are a mindless fan boy. When a critic is positive about DA2 its because they were paid for the review to be positive.

But again where are these people declaring either DA:O or DA2 are without flaws here? Where is the call of haters here?
Yes it sounds silly but because its not even a coherent point. What does being an AAA studio or indie studio have to do with how good or how much someone can enjoy a game?
Or are you making the argument that indie games by just being a indie game are not as fun as a AAA?
When it comes to entertainment almost everything comes down to subjectivity for the individual person.

[Commander Kurt]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...

FreshIstay, mate, that's still not what it means. Think about a mother taking her baby shopping. Now, she knows that the baby might get hungry and raise all hell so she brings a bottle of formula. This is proactive.

Perhaps she forgot the bottle though, or just didn't think about it. Perhaps she had no way of knowing that it would be needed. So, all hell breaks loose and now she needs a battle plan. She decides what to do, how and in which order to do it, and then she strides to action. This is of course a killer story for a game, but it is also reactive by definition.

You with me?

This is a great metaphor, well done haha.

Why, thank you. 

[Sutekh]

FreshIstay wrote...

Thanks for snipping my points, and responding to partial parts of my statements. and I appreciate you answering none of my question' s. 

Proactivity doesn' t mean prevention before occurrence, I suggest you read the Meriam-Webster and Google definitions I posted on this thread. 

I always snip large quotes, like many people around here. It's not to erase your statement but to prevent clutter.

Your questions were "Do your wardens have the same journeys than mine, same order, same results". I didn't answer them directly, because they weren't related to the topic at hand at all. And the answer is, obviously "no". As for not responding to all your statements? My answer would have been the same: reaction to existing situations that they didn't initiate.

Proactive (from Webster): acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes

Proactive (from dictionary.com) serving to prepare for, intervene in, or control an expected occurrence or situation, especially a negative or difficult one; anticipatory: proactive measures against crime.

Proactive (from Google): Creating or controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than responding to it after... [seems to be something missing here]

The last one is particularly interesting, because different from the others. Now, do you think that the Warden causes things to happen, or that they solve a series of existing situations? 

Do you think Commander Kurt's analogy is a good one? Because he's saying exactly what I've been saying.

((Also, honestly, if you're looking for a fight on semantics, you're gonna fight alone.))

[AlexanderCousland]

Commander Kurt wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...

FreshIstay, mate, that's still not what it means. Think about a mother taking her baby shopping. Now, she knows that the baby might get hungry and raise all hell so she brings a bottle of formula. This is proactive.

Perhaps she forgot the bottle though, or just didn't think about it. Perhaps she had no way of knowing that it would be needed. So, all hell breaks loose and now she needs a battle plan. She decides what to do, how and in which order to do it, and then she strides to action. This is of course a killer story for a game, but it is also reactive by definition.

You with me?

This is a great metaphor, well done haha.

Why, thank you. 

Think about the blight spreading across the land, The Warden knows the Horde can cause devestation beyond Ferelden, so he brings an army to stop it. 

What youre arguing is that Prevention=Proactivty that' s false,  The Mother reacted to what might happen, proactivity is reactive in itself. read the definition.