330 réponses à ce sujet

[batlin]

Aldandil wrote...

Well, that depends on how they express their opinion. Both the OP and esper said that they enjoyed DA2 more than DA:O. What are you going to say for criticism? "No, you didn't!"?

"I liked DA2 more than DA:O" can't really be criticised.

"I think DA2's story was better than DA:O's" can.

[Kais Endac]

batlin wrote...

Uh oh...now you've done it. Are you ready, boys and girls? 'Cause here it comes

*RANT MODE ENGAGED*

esper wrote...

I enjoyed da2 more than da:o, hence da2 is better. It is really that simple.

Opinions can be criticized just as anything else can. It's not that simple.

- Non-voiced protagonist in a voiced world. This is a big flaw for me, really big, as it makes the characther I am suppossed to indentify with feel fake.

Meanwhile, Hawke's dialog is stilted and inconsistent unless you always pick one of the three "tones".

- Boring unstrategic combat that took ages to finish. Unfortunately for me I accidently ran into the acene warrior/spirit healer who could fire ball everything to death without ever self risiking dieing, on nightemare. It was boring.

Yeah, I call bs. There's no way you can win every combat by just spamming fireball. It does no significant damage to enemies other than trash mobs; the benefit of the spell is to knock down a large group of enemies and put a DoT on them. That's it.

Meanwhile in DA2, enemies come at you in waves rather than being positioned strategically throughout the battlefield. It's really easy for tanks to get threat, so every fight will play out in the exact same way. Your companions can only ever use one type of weapon, so you can never mix and match your party. You will only ever have one loadout and that's how it will always stay. DA2 is the antithesis of tactical combat.

- Plot that didn't fit together. Each of the areas were interesting, but they never fit with the main story for me. I so wish that something more once done so it felt like there was more of a connection between the areas.

Every time you went to a new area in DA:O it was for the purpose of building an army. The entirety of the game was in fact building up to the climax at the end of the game.

In DA2 the ONLY way the first act is at all related to the third act is through the idol, and act 2 had absolutely nothing to do with the Templar and Mage war. The plot in DA2 is woefully disjointed and meandering, and I cannot comprehend how any professional writer could approve of it. What's the first thing they teach in writing 101? "A story has a beginning, a middle, and an end." What does DA2 have? It has a beginning, an end, a beginning, an end, a beginning, and a cliffhanger. Sorry, but in no way can it be said that DA2's story is more solid than DA:O's.

In fact I would say most stories are more slid than DA2's.

- The deep roads, always. Just urgh... And thee circle on replays because that shapeshifitng puzzle was really only funny the first time. The whole of the Kokari wilds. Urh.

That's interesting, because the Deeproads is often praised. The first part is a bit tedious, but it picks up after you get on Branka's trail.

- Boring side quest (off the notice boards kind) and not enough of the interesting side quest. I loathe getting x number of drop from enemies. At least the fetch quest in da2 was over so fast I barely noticed they were there.

You're looking at a pot and a kettle and only blaming one of them for being black?

- Most of the things dragging the enemies down being in the start/middle of the game, hence heightening in the chance that I lose interest in the character I am playing and drop her.

I have zero idea what you are trying to say here. Can you elaborate?

Really? do we need to do this? a personal opinion is just that personal. So what if someone prefers DA2 over DAO whether a game is good or bad is unique to each person what I might hate another might love. The OP and the author of that post explained why they liked or hated aspects of the games. trying to convince them that the game should be hated or aspects are not what they thought doesn't work.

The main point of this thread was (as I saw it) to praise positve aspects of the games and thank the team for the dragon age universe there is already alot of negativity on BSN why do we need to add to it.

Edit: I do acknowledge that there are problems with both games but there are already threads on these topics why do we need to turn this thread into one of them.

@XX-Pyro - hear hear 

Modifié par Kais Endac, 12 janvier 2013 - 07:39 .

[XX-Pyro]

batlin wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Well, that depends on how they express their opinion. Both the OP and esper said that they enjoyed DA2 more than DA:O. What are you going to say for criticism? "No, you didn't!"?

"I liked DA2 more than DA:O" can't really be criticised.

"I think DA2's story was better than DA:O's" can.

The same can be said the other way around. Considering "how good a story is" is fairly subjective, no, you can't even criticize them for saying that. It's their opinion, some agree and some don't. There isn't a quantifiable way to measure which story is better. Personally, I enjoyed both for different reasons. Playing hero was nice in Origins, while the more personal touch to DA2's was something different for me, which I also enjoyed.

[batlin]

Kais Endac wrote...

Really? do we need to do this? a
personal opinion is just that personal. So what if someone prefers DA2
over DAO whether a game is good or bad is unique to each person what I
might hate another might love. The OP and the author of that post
explained why they liked or hated aspects of the games. trying to
convince them that the game should be hated or aspects are not what they
thought doesn't work.

I see a lot of people saying that they liked DA2 but not a whole lot of why.

XX-Pyro wrote...

The same can be said the other way around. Considering "how good a story is" is fairly subjective, no, you can't even criticize them for saying that. It's their opinion, some agree and some don't. There isn't a quantifiable way to measure which story is better. Personally, I enjoyed both for different reasons. Playing hero was nice in Origins, while the more personal touch to DA2's was something different for me, which I also enjoyed.

Once again, you cannot criticize THAT they like DA2, but I can criticize WHY.

I for one would love to see an argument for exactly how DA2's story is better than DA:O's.

[Aldandil]

batlin wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Well, that depends on how they express their opinion. Both the OP and esper said that they enjoyed DA2 more than DA:O. What are you going to say for criticism? "No, you didn't!"?

"I liked DA2 more than DA:O" can't really be criticised.

"I think DA2's story was better than DA:O's" can.

Well, I think the OP was very good at describing why he prefered DA2 to DA:O, and I think those who thought DA:O was better should have followed his example. He presented a set of events in the story that he enjoyed and how they affected him. If the criticism on the forums had been provided in a similar fashion, I think the forums might have a nicer climate in general.

[ggghhhxxxpuf]

But story is better in DA2 than DAO, the characters were well developed.
It's the story pacing that has problems.

[In Exile]

batlin wrote...
I see a lot of people saying that they liked DA2 but not a whole lot of why.

A lot of people, myself included, are tired of being told why they're wrong about their tastes. I don't have the energy.

A company makes a flawed game I really like, and the forum has a concentrated group that wants nothing more than games like that to never be made again. It's just too tiring.

Modifié par In Exile, 12 janvier 2013 - 07:50 .

[Kais Endac]

batlin wrote...

Kais Endac wrote...

Really? do we need to do this? a
personal opinion is just that personal. So what if someone prefers DA2
over DAO whether a game is good or bad is unique to each person what I
might hate another might love. The OP and the author of that post
explained why they liked or hated aspects of the games. trying to
convince them that the game should be hated or aspects are not what they
thought doesn't work.

I see a lot of people saying that they liked DA2 but not a whole lot of why.

XX-Pyro wrote...

The same can be said the other way around. Considering "how good a story is" is fairly subjective, no, you can't even criticize them for saying that. It's their opinion, some agree and some don't. There isn't a quantifiable way to measure which story is better. Personally, I enjoyed both for different reasons. Playing hero was nice in Origins, while the more personal touch to DA2's was something different for me, which I also enjoyed.

Once again, you cannot criticize THAT they like DA2, but I can criticize WHY.

I for one would love to see an argument for exactly how DA2's story is better than DA:O's.

I will admit it is hard for me to say that the story is better than DAO considering I loved the grey warden story line.

But I will give it a go Hawke's story for some can be more personal than the warden given that we follow him/her through his flight from the blight to the rise of a champion, see the highs and lows for hawke as they lose their brother/sister then their mother. While the warden doesn't feel quite as personal the focus is mainly on the greater conflict (which I love)

The added family aspect does work (in my opinion) It took me a little while to realise that nothing I could do would save hawke's mother. The evolving city was interesting watching groups rise and fall over the years added to the living city aspect (even if most people just stood still most of the time). Although there is not enough time to really care about the dead sibling especally carver (in my opinion).

Characters in both games are interesting loved Merrill and Isabella even their storylines. Merrill's quest to restore the Eluvian was interesting especially considering she disended into bloodmagic to do so, making her a pariah of the clan and risking possession in the process.

The quanari conflict was well done if a little rushed at times especially loved gaining the respect of the arishok.

Both DLC expansions added greater depth to the overall universe made it feel more alive. Legacy expanded on the origins of the darkspawn and had some interesting story aspects. While Mark of the Assasin gave greater depth to the Quanari and Orlais. 

The thing I disliked was the rushed feeling of the final chapter, making all mages out to be essentially evil and the railroading of the final conflict.

That said this is just my opinion and I'm sure many will disagree with me.

Edit: Also there is the added fact that Hawke starts as a nobody, he's not a legendary grey warden, spectre, spirit monk or anything inbetween and I think that this aspect is interesting for some because it allows them to see the change in Hawke as it happens from common refuge at the start to Champion of Kirkwall and affluent citizen at the end.

Modifié par Kais Endac, 12 janvier 2013 - 08:06 .

[batlin]

In Exile wrote...

batlin wrote...
I see a lot of people saying that they liked DA2 but not a whole lot of why.

A lot of people, myself included, are tired of being told why they're wrong about their tastes.

A forum is a place where people exchange thoughts. If you would rather express your thoughts and recieve no feedback, then start a livejournal.

I will say this, however: I have never once seen anyone give a positive critical analysis of DA2's story. I see a lot of people say "I like this part", but very little explanation of why the story itself is good.

[batlin]

Kais Endac wrote...

I will admit it is hard for me to say that the story is better than DAO considering I loved the grey warden story line.

But I will give it a go Hawke's story for some can be more personal than the warden given that we follow him/her through his flight from the blight to the rise of a champion, see the highs and lows for hawke as they lose their brother/sister then their mother. While the warden doesn't feel quite as personal the focus is mainly on the greater conflict (which I love)

The human noble storyline in DA:O does the same exact thing and even presents the subtext of revenge throughout the narrative.

Also, "personal story" implies Hawke has a character arc somewhere within. As far as I can tell, there's none to be had in DA2. You always have the same (general) three tonality options throughout.

The added family aspect does work (in my opinion) It took me a little while to realise that nothing I could do would save hawke's mother.

Which reminds me, DA2 has this really annoying habit of preventing the player from taking really obvious steps to prevent tragedy. A serial killer is kidnapping attractive women? No need to protect any of your female friends/relatives close to you. Anders says he needs to get into the Chantry and can't tell you why? Eh, who cares. It's not like the guy who is calling for a war against the chantry and has already almost killed innocent people is going to do something bad.

Characters in both games are interesting loved Merrill and Isabella even their storylines.

Merril is an idiot who, despite being trained as a Keeper, thinks demons are tamable. Isabela has one small character arc, but it comes about for no reason other than "you are a good influence."

The thing I disliked was the rushed feeling of the final chapter, making all mages out to be essentially evil and the railroading of the final conflict.

Do you know why the final act was rushed? It's because they built none of it up during the first 2/3 of the game.

That said this is just my opinion and I'm sure many will disagree with me.

Yes, as well there are those who disagree with me. I openly invite people to criticize my viewpoints, so long as they cirticize it with relevant points. "I like the game, so there" Is not a relevant criticism.

Modifié par batlin, 12 janvier 2013 - 08:10 .

[ggghhhxxxpuf]

Because it depends on the person, I like DA2 story better for different reasons, which, for as long as I've been in these forums, tend to coincide with others that liked the story too.
There has been a lot of "why I like DA2 story" threads, just not recently because this is no DA2 forum, and people just gets tired of explaining "why" over and over again to someone who just wont budge.

But I can say this: the fact that it was a personal story, that many quests questioned your views, that you could feel everything going down to the drain and you could do nothing about it, that there was no "compromise", no middle option, all of this is what, in my opinion, makes a much more compelling story than recruit a large army to fight evil, it's less epic yes, that's what makes it personal and I like it as what it is.

[In Exile]

batlin wrote...
A forum is a place where people exchange thoughts. If you would rather express your thoughts and recieve no feedback, then start a livejournal.

Firstly: that's my point. A forum is apparenetly a platform for you to berate. If you want to talk about the superiority of your taste, why don't you start a blog? Then anyone who cares is free to tune-in to you.

But if you have to know, fine, let's dance.

DA:O's combat is pathetic, and people pretending that it's tactical because it has a top-down view doesn't make it so. DA2 isn't tactical in an objective sense, but it's far certainly far more so than DA:O, since encounters are actually dangerous. It's boss fights are not particularly well done, IMO, but they're better than DA:O's HP sponges (sometimes) even if what it boils down to is fighting the pathfinding. That's ignoring that DA2 actually includes its mechanics in-game, which is a minor point.

DA:O's lack of VO and presence of cinematics creates a neutered protagonist who's supposed to be a leader but whose dramatic moments are always determined by other characters - Flemeth and Alistair create the actual plan, then the people you run errands for tell you what to do, and finally Alistair/Anora (and Riordan and Eamon) actually create the plan in the final battle. DA2's VO and cinematic presentation corrects for this. Hawke is neutered because Hawke can't win in the end, but at least Hawke appears to be acting.

Bioware's never made a game where the protagonist is proactive, but at least in DA2 there's a justification for why Hawke needn't be proactive; in DA:O more important people than the PC make decisions all the time.

The story spins its wheels in DA2, but at least there are three acts: in DA:O 90% of the game is being an errand boy. The errand boy portions are very well done - arguably better than anything DA2 does except for maybe Act II's Arishok arc.

Shall we debate these points?

I will say this, however: I have never once seen anyone give a positive critical analysis of DA2's story. I see a lot of people say "I like this part", but very little explanation of why the story itself is good.

DA2's story is build up of three separate arcs. The first is supposed to be tied into the third, and because Act III isn't well-done, Act I feels pointless (because it's climax, the Priemeval Thaig, is left unexplained). Everyone likes Act II because it's a great self-contained story.

What makes DA2's story enjoyable is that it moves forward, unlike any Bioware story since JE (and only JE, really). If you want a critical literary analysis, then you won't have more than that.

But it's a story that (aside from Act III's blunder) does a good job at not being a particularly epic fantasy quest of saving the world.

It's also a very good deconstruction of the typical RPG hero, but I would wager you're not interested in that, and IMO it's part of why DA2 came off as making Hawke feel neutered.

[Kais Endac]

@batlin
the noble origin is bareley touched upon after it's conclusion the only time it is reappears in any substantial form is prior to confronting howe so that is of little consequence to me. The warden may be driven by revenge but it is secondary to the greater threat, The warden only confronts howe because of his interference in the wardens objective. it is obvious however that a confrontation is inevitable given the killing of his entire family. My warden would hunt him down but probably after the blight was over.

I actually think how personal the games are depend on how you like the narative (some will prefer da2) to the story and how connected you are to the characters. Personally I prefer origins and the Dwarf Noble origin is very personal (to me) and actaully changes how I proceed in Orzammar. (which is the only time an origin story changes how I proceed in the game)

can't really disagree with the second point but it's hardly unique to da2 a lot of games do it even happens in DAO in certain origins and through out the game.

Personally I loved Merrill she took a risk to ensure what she thought could help her people, yes she's naive and it's a stupid idea to give demons more power but obviously there are many in the DA universe willing to do the same thing both in DAO and DA2.

I'm actually playing devil's advocate here as I said I prefer DAO and DA2 is not as good for me.

Also I'm not criticizing your viewpoint (wasn't sure if that was directed at me)  I'm merely stating what I liked about the storyline.


Edit: also I'm done I love Dragon Age Origins and while DA2 is not as good in my opinion there are good aspects (hence my personal rating of 8/10)  to it and I do like the story, but I know that there are concerns with the plot and gameplay in DA2. Now I'm off to start Jade Empire again and beat Gao the lesser up again cya

Modifié par Kais Endac, 12 janvier 2013 - 08:36 .

[batlin]

In Exile wrote...

Firstly: that's my point. A forum is apparenetly a platform for you to berate. If you want to talk about the superiority of your taste, why don't you start a blog? Then anyone who cares is free to tune-in to you.

batlin wrote...

I openly invite people to criticize my viewpoints, so long as they cirticize it with relevant points. "I like the game, so there" Is not a relevant criticism.

DA:O's combat is pathetic, and people pretending that it's tactical because it has a top-down view doesn't make it so. DA2 isn't tactical in an objective sense, but it's far certainly far more so than DA:O, since encounters are actually dangerous.

Two things: Having a top-down view does not make a game more conducive to tactical gameplay. Controllable cameras, fast cooldowns of abilities, strategic potitioning of enemies, varied terrain and enemies does. Endless waves of the same enemy over and over does not.

It's boss fights are not particularly well done, IMO, but they're better than DA:O's HP sponges (sometimes) even if what it boils down to is fighting the pathfinding.

Are you kidding? The only difference between the difficulty settings in DA2 is enemies' HP.

DA:O's lack of VO and presence of cinematics creates a neutered protagonist who's supposed to be a leader but whose dramatic moments are always determined by other characters - Flemeth and Alistair create the actual plan, then the people you run errands for tell you what to do, and finally Alistair/Anora (and Riordan and Eamon) actually create the plan in the final battle. DA2's VO and cinematic presentation corrects for this. Hawke is neutered because Hawke can't win in the end, but at least Hawke appears to be acting.

Hawke is also neutered because he/she is reactionary reather than proactive. Bartrand tried to kill you? I guess you can't track him down. The Qunari occupation is getting tense? No need to try to find a solution, just wait until they finally go crazy and kill everyone in the city. You had a romantic encounter and they leave? Hawke doesn't think to follow up with them for three years.

I suppose this is where opinion comes in, but a silent protagonist seems way less neutered to me than one that sits around in a mansion for years until disaster strikes and he's forced to act.

Bioware's never made a game where the protagonist is proactive, but at least in DA2 there's a justification for why Hawke needn't be proactive; in DA:O more important people than the PC make decisions all the time.

If Hawke were the protagonist of DA:O, he's have waited around until the Archdemon destroyed Denerim before he did anything about it.

The story spins its wheels in DA2, but at least there are three acts:

Three completely insular acts. If acts are insular, then they aren't actually acts. They're episodes. And as a result, each is rushed and meaningless between each other.

in DA:O 90% of the game is being an errand boy. The errand boy portions are very well done - arguably better than anything DA2 does except for maybe Act II's Arishok arc.

He's an errand boy is a pretty loose sense. Is Link an errand boy because he only ever follows Zelda's orders? The Warden meanwhile follows no one's orders. He/she takes proactive steps to solve problems that are keeping kingdoms from lending their armies to the Grey Wardens.

DA2's story is build up of three separate arcs. The first is supposed to be tied into the third, and because Act III isn't well-done, Act I feels pointless (because it's climax, the Priemeval Thaig, is left unexplained). Everyone likes Act II because it's a great self-contained story.

What makes DA2's story enjoyable is that it moves forward, unlike any Bioware story since JE (and only JE, really). If you want a critical literary analysis, then you won't have more than that.

But it's a story that (aside from Act III's blunder) does a good job at not being a particularly epic fantasy quest of saving the world.

It's also a very good deconstruction of the typical RPG hero, but I would wager you're not interested in that, and IMO it's part of why DA2 came off as making Hawke feel neutered.

I guess I still haven't seen a positive critical analysis of DA2's story. You admit that 2/3rds of it is sub-par.

I would like you to elaborate on a few things though:

1) What do you mean by DA2's story "moves forward" as opposed to every Bioware game except JE? because if anything, it accomplishes the least since the first two acts do not build up the climax in any way.

2) In what ways specifically is DA2 a deconstruction of the typical RPG hero? What parts of the game explore how Hawke is or is not such a hero?

Modifié par batlin, 12 janvier 2013 - 08:46 .

[batlin]

Kais Endac wrote...

@batlin
the noble origin is bareley touched upon after it's conclusion the only time it is reappears in any substantial form is prior to confronting howe so that is of little consequence to me. The warden may be driven by revenge but it is secondary to the greater threat, The warden only confronts howe because of his interference in the wardens objective. it is obvious however that a confrontation is inevitable given the killing of his entire family. My warden would hunt him down but probably after the blight was over.

That's a fair point, but you must be fair to both sides. Leandra's death IIRC comes up once after the sidequest is over. Just saying, if you poo-poo Origins for not giving the family angle enough wieght, then there's no reasonable way you wouldn't criticize DA2 for the same thing.

Personally I loved Merrill she took a risk to ensure what she thought could help her people, yes she's naive and it's a stupid idea to give demons more power but obviously there are many in the DA universe willing to do the same thing both in DAO and DA2.

The most prominent example in DA:O of a person giving in to a demon because he thought it would help was a little kid who was completely untrained in magic. Merrill's sidequest made her look unbelievably stupid.

Modifié par batlin, 12 janvier 2013 - 08:54 .

[Kais Endac]

batlin wrote...

Kais Endac wrote...

@batlin
the noble origin is bareley touched upon after it's conclusion the only time it is reappears in any substantial form is prior to confronting howe so that is of little consequence to me. The warden may be driven by revenge but it is secondary to the greater threat, The warden only confronts howe because of his interference in the wardens objective. it is obvious however that a confrontation is inevitable given the killing of his entire family. My warden would hunt him down but probably after the blight was over.

That's a fair point, but you must be fair to both sides. Leandra's death IIRC comes up once after the sidequest is over. Just saying, if you poo-poo Origins for not giving the family angle enough wieght, then there's no reasonable way you wouldn't criticize DA2 for the same thing.

Personally I loved Merrill she took a risk to ensure what she thought could help her people, yes she's naive and it's a stupid idea to give demons more power but obviously there are many in the DA universe willing to do the same thing both in DAO and DA2.

The most prominent example in DA:O of a person giving in to a demon because he thought it would help was a little kid who was completely untrained in magic. Merrill's sidequest made her look unbelievably stupid.

Well I can't disagree with either points, however I think the greater issue with mages in the Dragon Age Universe is none of them have any common sense. Merril's side quest to me makes some of the out elves to be slightly stupd, I mean pol running away from you into the very creature he was trying to escape. And keeper marithari taking a demon into herself. There are issue with DAO of mages being equally stupid tho, They are humans after all and no one can accuse all humans of acting sensibly.

There is one major difference between Leandra and the noble's family in that you actually *see* hawke grieve. Both scenes are completly brushed over after though. (that is entirely a technical issue though how do you make an unvoiced character grieve). 

You are bringing up some good points though that make me rethink some aspects, still love DA2 tho 

Modifié par Kais Endac, 12 janvier 2013 - 10:40 .

[Blazingkats]

batlin wrote...

I'm really sorry to break up all the positivity in this thread, but



If you enjoyed Dragon Age 2 more than Dragon Age Origins, that's fine. It's your prerogative. But denying the glaring issues with DA2 has nothing to do with your opinion, it means you aren't being objective at all.

Hehe that pic made my day.

[In Exile]

[quote]batlin wrote...
I openly invite people to criticize my viewpoints, so long as they cirticize it with relevant points. "I like the game, so there" Is not a relevant criticism.[/quote]

No one wants to criticze you. You're just looking for a fight.

[quote]Two things: Having a top-down view does not make a game more conducive to tactical gameplay.  [/quote]

Good.

[quote]Controllable cameras, fast cooldowns of abilities, strategic potitioning of enemies, varied terrain and enemies does. [/quote]

There's no strategic positioning of enemies in DA:O. They are mobs you can mow down before they even approach you with 2-3 fireballs, mages you can exterminate from existence with Mana Clash, and then the game over.

Saying "fast cooldowns" is meaningless, and so is "varried terrain" which didn't exist in DA:O, other that elevated paltforms for achers, which also exist in DA2.

[quote]Endless waves of the same enemy over and over does not. [/quote]

It does, actually. It forces resource management. As the fight drags, your stamina, HP and mana all drop. You need to maintain them. You're forced to either use the environment to manage the waves (so chokepoints, like in DA:O) or to strategically target elements in the mob.

[quote]Are you kidding? The only difference between the difficulty settings in DA2 is enemies' HP. [/quote]

You're completely wrong. Potion drops are lower. On nightmare, enemies have resistance. FF is enabled. The game changes entirely.

If you want to rant and lie that's your busines, but waste someone else's time doing it.

[quote]Hawke is also neutered because he/she is reactionary reather than proactive.[/quote]

Thank you for the opening. The Warden is an errand boy. Flemeth comes up with the plan, and the Macguffin treaties dictate where you go. You then spend the entire game taking orders from pepople more important than you: Eamon, Teagan, Bhelen/Harrowmon, Wynne/Greagoire, and Tuvok Zathrian.

The only original thought the Warden ever has is the genocide of the elves.

[quote]Bartrand tried to kill you? I guess you can't track him down. [/quote]

Loghain tried to kill you? I guess you can't track him down. Not like Varric literally says that what he does at the end of act I.

Oh, unhappy that Varic is doing the tracking? Well, how did that choice to abandon Ferelden to it's own devices and go to Orlais work out for you in DA:O?

[quote[The Qunari occupation is getting tense? No need to try to find a solution, just wait until they finally go crazy and kill everyone in the city. [/quote]

Loghain's civil war gearing up? Find the magical macguffin to cure Eamon. Don't actually do anything about it the entire game, though.

What a brillaint, insightful point. How could I have not wanted to take part in this intellectually stimulating debate where you avoid perojative insults about the game and have a straightfoward discussion.

[quote]You had a romantic encounter and they leave? Hawke doesn't think to follow up with them for three years.[/quote]

Yeah, time completely stands still. Thank god that in DA:O the order that you chose to do quests in mattered, and it wasn't like you go to to Redcliffe first and then finish the Circle Tower, Brecilian Forest, most of the Denerim Quests and Orzammar while Connor patiently waits for you.

[quote]I suppose this is where opinion comes in, but a silent protagonist seems way less neutered to me than one that sits around in a mansion for years until disaster strikes and he's forced to act. [/quote]

Yeah, when you're told you're the leader of the armies and the party and can't:

(1) Pick whether to stay in Ferelden
(2) Pick whether to march on Denerim
(3) Decide your strategy in Denerim
(4) Give Riordan orders
(5) Address the army you're apparently leading

... Yeah, you're the big planning hero. How about all those times you don't run errands for people?

[quote]If Hawke were the protagonist of DA:O, he's have waited around until the Archdemon destroyed Denerim before he did anything about it. [/quote]

Look, insults! Wow, so well-reasoned. I see why you wanted to have this debate. Your insightful comments are not a rant at all. I'm done with you.

[quote]Three completely insular acts. If acts are insular, then they aren't actually acts. They're episodes. And as a result, each is rushed and meaningless between each other.[/quote]

You mean like how every single part of DA:O is completely irrelevant to every other part, and nothing outside of the self-contained area that you're in impacts everything, and once you leave everything is perfectly fixed with absolutely no fallout?

Yeah, I can ramble BS just like you can. We're done.

[quote]He's an errand boy is a pretty loose sense. [/quote]

He's an errand boy in the literal sense. What do you think you're doing in Orzammar?

[quote]The Warden meanwhile follows no one's orders.[/quote]

Okay. How did you beat the game without following Bhelen's orders or Harrowmonts? I'm really curious.

Or how was that scene where you tell Teagan he's an unhinged lunatic and you're not going to find Andraste's ashes? 

[quote]He/she takes proactive steps to solve problems that are keeping kingdoms from lending their armies to the Grey Wardens.  [/quote]

The Warden takes no such steps. You're only there because the magical treaties that Duncan found told you to go, and then you listen to orders. Whatever headcannon you invent is your business.

But let's play that game too: Hawke doesn't have to care. There's no need to react to the qunari - it's someone else's problem. There: I can invent narratives too.

[quote]I guess I still haven't seen a positive critical analysis of DA2's story. You admit that 2/3rds of it is sub-par. [/quote]

We're done.

[quote]I would like you to elaborate on a few things though:

1) What do you mean by DA2's story "moves forward" as opposed to every Bioware game except JE? because if anything, it accomplishes the least since the first two acts do not build up the climax in any way.

2) In what ways specifically is DA2 a deconstruction of the typical RPG hero? What parts of the game explore how Hawke is or is not such a hero?[/quote]

I'm done wasting my time with you.

[TheRealJayDee]

Yeah, I kind of have to agree with batlin on most points.

[upsettingshorts]

I agree entirely with In Exile because he's objectively correct.

These aren't issues of preference or impressions being discussed, but what is factual about both games.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 janvier 2013 - 09:52 .

[batlin]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

No one wants to criticze you. You're just looking for a fight. [/quote]

I'm looking for a debate. If that's indistinguishable from a fight to you, then I'm sorry.

[quote]There's no strategic positioning of enemies in DA:O. They are mobs you can mow down before they even approach you with 2-3 fireballs, mages you can exterminate from existence with Mana Clash, and then the game over.[/quote]

Really now



In this particular setup, there is a grease slick on the floor that trips you up if you walk on it, leaving you and your party easy targets for the archers positioned behind a barricade. "Oh, just throw a fireball at them." Not only do fireballs do insubstantial damage, but fire spells will actually ignite the grease below your feet, dealing huge damage to your party.



Here is a battlefield with traps strewn all over. Only characters with high cunning can sense them, so positioning your group around the battlefield is dangerous and requires patience and planning.

http://t0.gstatic.co...wcbD3AjjsvD57MF

This one starts you off on a low, winding path with Qunari berserkers right in front of you. Far up above you are some archers and a mage who are taking potshots at your party. AoE spells like fireball are almost useless since you do not have line of sight to the archers, and the Qunari can easily target your mages and archers since gaining threat is not easy. From there it takes a really long time to actually run to the high vantage point, and all the while the enemy has clear line of sight to you.

Meanwhile, every encounter in DA2 is the same. barring the boss fights, EVERY ENCOUNTER puts you in a big, featureless area where waves of the same enemy drop out of the sky from the edges where you cut them down as quickly as they arrive. Combat encounters in DA2 are lazy. They're boring. They're interminable. and worst of all, they're not fun to play.

[quote]Saying "fast cooldowns" is meaningless,[/quote]

What do you do when all your abilities are on cooldown? Mindlessly whack enemies while you wait for your abilities to come back. It's mindless combat.

[quote]It does, actually. It forces resource management.[/quote]

You would have a point...if your health and mana did not immediately regenerate after combat was over. You can quite easily get though DA2 without using any health potions. I had a huge stock of them by the time I had to fight the Arishok 1 on 1.

[quote]You're completely wrong. Potion drops are lower. On nightmare, enemies have resistance. FF is enabled. The game changes entirely. [/quote]

Sorry, I should have said the only meaningful difference is enemies' HP. FF is a non-issue unless you use your AoE's stupidly, and resistance only matters of you go in heavy with mages.

[quote]Thank you for the opening. The Warden is an errand boy. Flemeth comes up with the plan, and the Macguffin treaties dictate where you go. You then spend the entire game taking orders from pepople more important than you: Eamon, Teagan, Bhelen/Harrowmon, Wynne/Greagoire, and Tuvok Zathrian.

The only original thought the Warden ever has is the genocide of the elves. [/quote]

Flemeth doesn't come up with the plan to unite Ferelden. Why do you think they were looking for the treaties in the first place?

And, again, the Warden's actions are ultimately for his benefit, not the benefit of the people he helps. if he didn't find a solution to each group's problems, the warden would not have had an army to stand against the Archdemon.

[quote]Loghain tried to kill you? I guess you can't track him down. [/quote]

Wrong. You know where Loghain is from the beginning, and if you ever want a chance to get to him you need to get Arl Eamon's support. you DO in fact work to stop him since the end of Act 1 when he betrays Maric.

[quote]Well, how did that choice to abandon Ferelden to it's own devices and go to Orlais work out for you in DA:O?[/quote]

The Warden never went to orlais in DA:O.

[quote]Loghain's civil war gearing up? Find the magical macguffin to cure Eamon. Don't actually do anything about it the entire game, though. [/quote]

Did you stop playing DA:O right before the Landsmeet or something? You do work toward stopping Loghain. Ever since he betrays you, that is the primary goal of DA:O.

[quote]Yeah, time completely stands still. Thank god that in DA:O the order that you chose to do quests in mattered, and it wasn't like you go to to Redcliffe first and then finish the Circle Tower, Brecilian Forest, most of the Denerim Quests and Orzammar while Connor patiently waits for you. [/quote]

Not even comparable. The entire course of DA:O happens over two or three months, IIRC. Hardly enough time for much to matter. Meanwhile, Hawke allows the Qunari occupation to fester for YEARS,

[quote]Yeah, when you're told you're the leader of the armies and the party and can't:

(1) Pick whether to stay in Ferelden
(2) Pick whether to march on Denerim
(3) Decide your strategy in Denerim
(4) Give Riordan orders
(5) Address the army you're apparently leading[/quote]

You aren't as high a ranking Warden as Riordan nor the King of Ferelden.

It's odd though that you refuse to criticize DA2 for more greivous issues than the Warden not being a high-ranking leader. Hawke has no official status, Hawke's party often takes actions completely against his wishes, and worst of all he does nothing to solve problems until they hit the fan.

In other words,




[quote]Look, insults! Wow, so well-reasoned. I see why you wanted to have this debate. Your insightful comments are not a rant at all. I'm done with you. [/quote]

Oh no, have I offended Hawke? I'm so sorry.

[quote]You mean like how every single part of DA:O is completely irrelevant to every other part, and nothing outside of the self-contained area that you're in impacts everything, and once you leave everything is perfectly fixed with absolutely no fallout?[/quote]

Every part of DA:O's second act is for the purpose of building an army to fight the Acrhdemon. It is flat-out false to say that the Redcliffe, Dwarf, Elf, etc quests were irrelevant.

[quote]He's an errand boy in the literal sense. What do you think you're doing in Orzammar?[/quote]

Solving a crowning dispute so the drarven armies could join the fight against the Blight. what did you think you were doing?

[quote]Okay. How did you beat the game without following Bhelen's orders or Harrowmonts? I'm really curious.[/quote]

Following their orders and being their errand boy are two entirely different things. In one case, your goals are your own. In the other, your goals aren't.

[quote]Or how was that scene where you tell Teagan he's an unhinged lunatic and you're not going to find Andraste's ashes?[/quote]

It comes right before the scene where you turn off the game because the only possible outcome is that Eamon dies and you do not have the support to unseat Loghain.

[quote]I'm done wasting my time with you. [/quote]

in other words, you are being dismissive of me because you are unable to elaborate on your points because they are fallacious and disingenuous. Yes, I suppose you are done.

Modifié par batlin, 12 janvier 2013 - 11:19 .

[AlexanderCousland]

I think the Technicalities of gameplay are fundamentally the same.

Here' s why i dont like DA2:

Companions are more important then the PC; example:

Isabela stole the relic, Essentially making her the reason your a Champion

Ander' s blew up the chantry, singlehandedly the moment that changed Thedas religous structure and life for Mages everywhere. Hawke didnt have the option to make such a Descision.


Bioware is counting on a emotional connection to deliver it' s story, There is no sense of DUTY for the character,your simply deciding what you feel is right or wrong the whole game, playing the Moral Police, telling your companions how they should feel about their lives, What about Hawke? what makes Hawke special? Act 3 requires you to complete companion story arc' s like main quests.

Your Title is Insignificant, The city' s nobles let Meridith rule over You, if that isnt a slap in the face smh. Your a Rich mercenary who is friends with the defacto Police Chief who cover' s your ass, oh yet another companion (Aveline) who' s more important. 

These are my reasons.  Good Day:D

Modifié par FreshIstay, 12 janvier 2013 - 11:20 .

[SweQue]

another thing I disliked in many side-quest / main story of DA2 was how everything was in a grey zone, for some reason bioware think that if you create choices which are never simple / black&white it means the story is more deep and well put.
Its not. It just means that every choice I choose from doesnt really matter. I mean, since every choice I make is just as bad as good I rarely didnt even care or put a thought into any choices.

Its another thing to put up a few "rare" grey choices and let them make a bigger impact, but whenever quest is hunting done someone who appears to be innocent you can never be sure.

People should be able to be good/bad without having a "reason" for it.

Modifié par SweQue, 12 janvier 2013 - 11:28 .

[Kais Endac]

FreshIstay wrote...

I think the Technicalities of gameplay are fundamentally the same.

Here' s why i dont like DA2:

Companions are more important then the PC; example:

Isabela stole the relic, Essentially making her the reason your a Champion

Ander' s blew up the chantry, singlehandedly the moment that changed Thedas religous structure and life for Mages everywhere. Hawke didnt have the option to make such a Descision.


Bioware is counting on a emotional connection to deliver it' s story, There is no sense of DUTY for the character,your simply deciding what you feel is right or wrong the whole game, playing the Moral Police, telling your companions how they should feel about their lives, What about Hawke? what makes Hawke special? Act 3 requires you to complete companion story arc' s like main quests.

Your Title is Insignificant, The city' s nobles let Meridith rule over You, if that isnt a slap in the face smh. Your a Rich mercenary who is friends with the defacto Police Chief who cover' s your ass, oh yet another companion (Aveline) who' s more important. 

These are my reasons.  Good Day:D

sorry I'm gonna nit pick one point the nobles didn't let meridth rule she had enforced control after the viscount's death through the templars. The nobles had no choice but to accept. It is actually stated in game that without the backing of the templars specifically meridth, the viscount would be paralyzed and replaced with a pro-templar candidate.(she also was trying to exert control over the city guard too) She essentially had the city in a stranglehold.  

Otherwise you bring up some good points however some points you made will appeal to (some) people and turn others away. specifically "your simply deciding what you feel is right or wrong the whole game, playing the Moral Police" acting as the moral compass for yourself and others can be appealing. I think Hawke wasn't ment to be special he was the right person in the wrong place at the wrong time. but again that is down to personal preference whether it's a point for or against.

Edit: oh and Anders little crusade annoyed me especially since I worked out what he was doing with the components (not particularly hard to work out either) and had no way to stop it other than say "no i'm not going to help you" and then he goes and blows the chantry up anyway. 

Modifié par Kais Endac, 12 janvier 2013 - 11:41 .

[Uccio]

Batlin, where is that middle pic from?