177 réponses à ce sujet

[Megakoresh]

 What do you prefer?

It's an important question for this game. I liked both DA games. DA2 was rushed to hell, but that it thoroughly EA's fault and what they could do in that time they did well.
So here are stregths of Origins, which DA2 did not have:

• Character interactions and development. DA2 nearly completely failed to provide enough interaction and meaning to characters for their personality, stories and and development (which is very much there, which makes it even more sour) to have any meaning. Through pretty much entire game there are only few dialogues triggered by main plot events. Those are the only meaningful dialogues we have with them. It doesn't help that our Mission Log will ALWAYS shove thet time we can talk to them in our faces. In Origins we could go to camp any time when we wished, talk to charcaters when we wished. We might never discover a problem of some character if we do not talk to them regularly. That control, coupled with just closer relationships with all characters was the greatest strength Origins had over DA2 and all the other games in the gerne.
• Open world. This is simple, Origins was not a rushed game, World is free to explore and free of copy-paste. Locations were varied and interesting and there was always a story to unfold and loot to find.
• Characters themselves. I just find most of them to be more interesting. They were less cliche than in DA2. They all had problems beyond "I behave bad but I am good at heart". This made them a lot more engaging and helped players connect to their stories better. I am sorry but when every character's personal problems are "I need to do something bad to do something good" or vice versa, I just do not have the feel for those characters. Which is why Varric is the best character in DA2.

And DA2 has features in which it wins out against Origins:

• Combat. I still hate it. I am a man who like KoA: Reckoning. I absolutely despise autoattack combat in all it's variants. But I could play DA2 without installing "Skip combat" mod, which, I guess, is progress.
• [PERSONAL PREFERENCE] The storyline. No I am not talking about utterly cliche and unoriginal "Righteous Oppression vs Unjustly Oppressed" conflict. That is secondary. I am talking about Hawk. And how DA2 had a storyline in which he himself was a character. A personal story. You are not a mute emotionless shell with no agenda, will, desires. You are not a machine programmed to do a mission. You are an actual person. You have your own agenda, you have things to care about. That ridiculously simplistic conflict is your problem. It is not a conflict you are prescribed to resolve. It is a conflict you get dragged into. This is to me the biggest strength of DA2 vs Origins. My favourite game is Witcher 2, and yeah, Witcher 2 has the best writing ever seen in videogames, excellent graphics and a good combat system, but I do not like it for that. I like it because I get to play MY story.

So why was one recieved worse than another?
Well, in my opinion it comes down to what BioWare can do better. And that is characters. Origin had those. In Origins BiOWare did what they do best. In DA2, maybe because of time restraints, maybe because of other reasons, they deviated from that. They did not focus on characters. They did not use their greatest strength to full potential. Copy-paste all the way through and utterly predictable script did not help.

Can they combine what was great in both games and make DA3 the best one yet? I believe they can. But only if they learn from mistakes of DA2 and Mass Effect 3. And ONLY if they focus on making the game and ONLY the game. Not the product. It becomes a product when it's released. While it's being done, it's a game. It's your art. You do it because you are good at it, and not because you need "Appeal to wider audience" or any of that nonsence.

And as I always said to always remember:

We do not like the games you make. It's you who make the games we like. There is a difference.

Please discuss.

Modifié par Megakoresh, 14 février 2013 - 09:06 .

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

I think a deeply personal story that explores and/or deconstructs the Hero's Journey against the backdrop of a Save the World plot would be a happy medium. I don't think the two would necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 02 février 2013 - 09:53 .

[Megakoresh]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

I think a deeply personal story that explores and/or deconstructs the Hero's Journey against the backdrop of a Save the World plot would be a happy medium. I don't think the two would necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

Of course. Witcher 2, which I mentioned did both very well.

However there is another side of the coin. Witcher 2 did not do well with characters. In fact secondary characters and villains are most of the time more interesting that your friends and close charcaters themselves.

BioWare strength is characters. It;s why so many people care about this romance thing. BioWare MUST use that strength.

And combinging a global conflict that you can help resolve, a depply personal storyline and very good and interesting characters. Well... That is a goal to work towards, because I am pretty sure no game has ever managed to do that.


Yet.

Modifié par Megakoresh, 02 février 2013 - 09:58 .

[Wulfram]

DA:O was a better personal story for me than DA2

[Megakoresh]

Wulfram wrote...

DA:O was a better personal story for me than DA2

I don't think you understand the meaning of "Personal story".

Dragon Age: Origins did not have one. That is pretty much a fact.

You have a personal story up until the "Origins" quest ends. After that you 

• Get picked out by a bearded pal with sad face and "Old Hero_template" voice
• Thrown into battle/test
• Obviously the only one to survive
• Obviously "Old Hero_template" dies (that was evident just from how boring he was from the start)
• Now you and that other funny dude (First he looks like "Atmosphere_balancer_template" actually, until you get to know him better, are the only ones left
• Now you must go on a mission to save Ferelden

Where is "Personal" there? It doesn't exist. If you managed to get yourself into shoes of the PC, make up an agenda, desires and feelings and roleplay that, that is a strength of Game Designers and Writers who create dialogue choices. But the Storyline as it stands has absolutely NOTHING personal about it. Nothing.

That was my point. In Origins you are playing a PC. In DA2 you are playing Hawk.

Modifié par Megakoresh, 02 février 2013 - 10:13 .

[Wulfram]

What's personal about Hawke's story? Mum dies, Hawke looks sad for a couple of minutes. Then back to Qunari/Mage-Templar stuff that has nothing to do with you really.

At least the Warden's personality and character is occasionally relevant because they make meaningful choices.

In neither case is the the personal story particularly prominent, but what there is, is better in DA:O.

Doing a really personal story would require a pre-defined character, which I'd rather not have.

Modifié par Wulfram, 02 février 2013 - 10:31 .

[ianvillan]

To be fair to Bioware I believe if the story for DA2 had the same amount of time and resources as Origins did fans would probably not be talking about this now and would be saying how Bioware has developed a new style of story for RPGs.

I saw lots of good ideas in the story for DA2 but think that the execution let it down. I would have no problem with Bioware doing another personal story again and think if they had the time could make something not many people had played before.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Megakoresh wrote...

Of course. Witcher 2, which I mentioned did both very well.

However there is another side of the coin. Witcher 2 did not do well with characters. In fact secondary characters and villains are most of the time more interesting that your friends and close charcaters themselves.

Not sure what you mean by this, is it because they diddnt ramble on about their life's story with the subtlety of a firework display in some vain attempt to give the illusion of depth? Personally I loved the characters of the Witcher 2 because they actually felt like believable characters rather than walking cliches like those you would find in a Dragon Age game.

[nightcobra]

can't a story about saving the world be also a personal story? the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Sinophile]

I don't think you understand the meaning of "Personal story".

You say that as though there is a dictionary definition of personal story. Also, DA2 is just as if not more scripted than DAO.

That was my point. In Origins you are playing a PC. In DA2 you are playing Hawk.

The only real difference between Hawke and a PC is that Hawke was fully voiced, and had a dialog wheel for people too lazy to read. DA2 is just as scripted. By your definition, Final Fantasy X(or any JRPG with voice acting) has more of a personal story than any given Bioware game.

Personally I loved the characters of the Witcher 2 because they
actually felt like believable characters rather than walking cliches
like those you would find in a Dragon Age game.

Not quite sure how you can say Dragon Age is cliche but Witcher isn't. Both are heavily inspired(if not blatantly rip off) Dungeons and Dragons, which in turn is inspired by Lord Of The Rings(Wizard Works even got sued for copyright infringement because they had a race called "hobbits"). What I hate most about The Witcher is how women are essentially treated. At least in DA2, even Isabella, whose dress and mannerisms were very sexual, was more fleshed out than say that sorceress chick, whose main occupation seemed to be Geralt's love buddy.

Modifié par Sinophile, 02 février 2013 - 11:07 .

[Dean_the_Young]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

can't a story about saving the world be also a personal story? the two aren't mutually exclusive.

That's the digimon anime in a nutshell.

[JimboGee]

Origins was a good game but the story was to cliche for me. DA2 was more accidental in its approach. Hawke was never meant to get involved in the Mage-Templar conflict but it just happened because he was there. In Origins it felt staged somehow. They were still both good games n my view just different.

[perfect_victime]

I really liked Witcher 2, and I liked DA2. As to which one is better? I will say that the DLCs made DA2 a much better game. As to story? DA2 seemed rushed, Witcher did not. DA2 with a bit of polish would have left Witcher 2 in the mud. Area-wise Witcher 2 and Skyrim wins hands down. Again this is a polish it up before you put it out thing.
Megakoresh post is about the Story of Dragon Age. I think they missed one thing about Hawke, the WHY he was so impressive. Why when he cast his first spell in front of a Templar wasn't he arrested (if a Mage). Champion or not, a mage is a mage, they lock em up, why not Hawke? Here it seems you just have to have a tolerance for artistic license and over look the whole thing the story is about. These are things addressed in DA:O, Grey Wardens are alowed to be free mages. In DA2 its oh thats Hawke we are going to overlook him and his companions when they cast spells in front of Templars. Both Witcher games its; We need Witchers but they are evil beast. Much like my opinion of Wardens, sure they are needed, but they have the taint of evil.
So I agree with much of what Megakoresh wrote, but there are somethings that are taken for granted in the case of Hawke that are not in DA:O. I think for the most part Bioware made a Shepard that we could relate to, but like many said there was a lot that was dry in the story as well.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Saving the world only because it was done so much better. Plus the story of DA3 is to find to stop the mage vs. templar war so it's pretty much not a personal story.

Modifié par DarkKnightHolmes, 02 février 2013 - 11:52 .

[Knight of Dane]

There's no reason we can't have both.

I imagine that saving the world is a grand opportunity for some self-reflection too!

[wright1978]

Well i think a big issue for DA2 was the timeframe rather than it being a personal story. It is supposed to cover 10 years yet the player feels powerless over having any sense of influence over the larger story's course of events. Story is restricted to Kirkwall yet there isn't a sense of choices having different impacts on kirkwall.

Where player does feel like they get a say it is in companion stories and these are more rewarding as there are consequences.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

ianvillan wrote...

To be fair to Bioware I believe if the story for DA2 had the same amount of time and resources as Origins did fans would probably not be talking about this now and would be saying how Bioware has developed a new style of story for RPGs.

I honestly think people look for any opportunity to nitpick and crap on DA2 because of the butthurt they felt from being let down by a game which never realized its full potential due to being rushed out before BioWare could really polish it up.

I like DA2. It took time for it to grow on me. It wasn't the instant classics that DA:O, KOTOR, or Mass Effect 1 were for me. I'm not going to pretend that DA2 doesn't have its faults, but IMHO if you can look past the recycled maps, Button Awesome, and some of the dumbing down (I really didn't like not being able to equip armor on my companions), it's a fun game with a pretty good story and some really memorable characters (master snarker Varric; sweet, awkward fish-out-of-water Merrill; saucy, ribald, sexy Isabela; even Anders and Fenris whose primary purpose is to embody two extremes are complex characters who exhibit emotional nuances). Heck, at least Button Awesome actually better integrated Mages as frontline combatants rather than just support, if I can say one good thing about a combat system I wasn't overly fond of.

I'm in the midst of a second playthrough and I intend to finish the game of a few more times with other Hawkes connected by save file transfers to the numerous Wardens I finished DA:O with.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Saving the world only because it was done so much better. Plus the story of DA3 is to find to stop the mage vs. templar war so it's pretty much not a personal story.

Yes, but it can incorporate a personal element or at least feature a personal story as a B plot to the main plot concerning the conflict between templars and mages.

I'm only speculating, but I can't imagine why BioWare would include selectable backgrounds for our Player Characters in DA3 if not to provide us with some sort of personal story.

[philippe willaume]

I don't think it is personal vs saving the world.
the premices of DA:2 was quite good I thought.

DA:2 story is poorly ended and have a feeling of "bugger me, that will do, i can't be arsed anymore".
In some choice branches
DA:0 Main story arc is resolved and we have closure on all subplots and characters.

If DA:2 act III was of the same irk as DA:2 act II, we wouldn't have that conversation.
phil

[Megakoresh]

Sinophile wrote...
The only real difference between Hawke and a PC is that Hawke was fully voiced, and had a dialog wheel for people too lazy to read. DA2 is just as scripted. By your definition, Final Fantasy X(or any JRPG with voice acting) has more of a personal story than any given Bioware game. 

You see that is the problem of many people here. They come to the forums with their predfined brick wall opinions and read things without even the slightest attempt to clear bias and look at things from objective point of view. "I did not like DA2 so now I will ignore facts that are speaking in it's favor" is the common attitude.

Hawk had a personal problem. He fleed with the family to escape the blight. He ended up in Kirkwall when it was at the beginning of turmoil. He got dragged into the life there and made a carreer which made him noticable. Then people looked to him for advice and help. But he had trouble of his own. He had problems with his family, and own bias towards one way or another because of personal circumstances.

Origins PC. He got picked to be grey warden, is one of two of them left in the country. He must go and save the country. That is it.

Those are fact. I just descirbed the two games's plot initiations. You can't argue with that. You can argue that your personal story definition varies from mine, and if your points are based on facts then your opinion is valid.

My point is based on that Hawk's story revolves much more around him himself, with his bias towards things. The very initiation is triggered by him personally trying to escape the blight with the family. Whereas Origins just forces the PC into events because "he must".

Personally I loved the characters of the Witcher 2 because they
actually felt like believable characters rather than walking cliches
like those you would find in a Dragon Age game.

They are believable in both games. In DA2 they are more cliche but still believable and well-acted.

Do not confuse complex character agenda and involvement with the character itself. Here is an example that I think is very easy to understand:

Let's go Leliana VS Triss

Charcater traits of Leliana are:

Soft, charismatic, daredevil, has a roughe-like mind but an idealistic heart, is quick to trust people, romatic, has a bit of kleptomania.

Character traits of Triss:

Cynical, likes power (like every single sorceress in the game).... What else?
A character who's been with Geralt for 2 games, is his possible LI and an extremely important person of the plot is in fact a rather shallow person.

You see? Agenda=/=Character personality. Witcher 2 has insanely deep agendas with characters intertwining plots and schemes hunderds of time, and you need to replay the game many times to understand all that web. But on a personal level they are mostly very shallow when compared to Dragon Age games.

Not quite sure how you can say Dragon Age is cliche but Witcher isn't. Both are heavily inspired(if not blatantly rip off) Dungeons and Dragons, which in turn is inspired by Lord Of The Rings(Wizard Works even got sued for copyright infringement because they had a race called "hobbits"). What I hate most about The Witcher is how women are essentially treated. At least in DA2, even Isabella, whose dress and mannerisms were very sexual, was more fleshed out than say that sorceress chick, whose main occupation seemed to be Geralt's love buddy.

I am not even gonna touch this. Let's keep this on topic.

Modifié par Megakoresh, 02 février 2013 - 03:04 .

[Kenny Da Finn]

I do not believe open world is the best example in the way you explain it anyway.
In DA:O it was varied I agree but it was across a entire country. DA:2 was set in a single city so it was never going to be as varied as DA:O this being said the flaw I believe is not that recycled the same area (which was atrocious i agree) but that when the recycled the area they made very poor attempts to cover it up or make it relevant to go back there. Examples being the mini map showing paths you couldn't go to because of obvious pop in rock doors or the same dungeon being entered the same way from a different location.

What could have severely reduced the negative feedback was having caves for certain areas and keeping them in that area. As well as making sense why your in this cave again. I don't expect the cave at sundermount to change twenty times it can stay the same as long as I don't get the same cave at the wounded coast etc.

[Megakoresh]

Kenny Da Finn wrote...

I do not believe open world is the best example in the way you explain it anyway.
In DA:O it was varied I agree but it was across a entire country. DA:2 was set in a single city so it was never going to be as varied as DA:O this being said the flaw I believe is not that recycled the same area (which was atrocious i agree) but that when the recycled the area they made very poor attempts to cover it up or make it relevant to go back there. Examples being the mini map showing paths you couldn't go to because of obvious pop in rock doors or the same dungeon being entered the same way from a different location.

What could have severely reduced the negative feedback was having caves for certain areas and keeping them in that area. As well as making sense why your in this cave again. I don't expect the cave at sundermount to change twenty times it can stay the same as long as I don't get the same cave at the wounded coast etc.

QFT

[Jzadek72]

I'd say that I prefer the personal story, but I don't believe that is what DA2 really delivered. I never felt involved in any of the events; it was never me driving the plot. Instead, other people did things, and then when they'd played their role, I'd come in and kill them. So I'd have to say that I prefer Origins' storytelling.

EDIT: Also, if you're calling the Warden a shell with no agenda, then you're missing the entire purpose of a role-playing game. The Warden was a blank slate, but it was up to you to paint something on that.

Modifié par Jzadek72, 02 février 2013 - 02:54 .

[Joy Divison]

Megakoresh wrote...

You see that is the problem of many people here. They come to the forums with their predfined brick wall opinions and read things without even the slightest attempt to clear bias and look at things from objective point of view. "I did not like DA2 so now I will ignore facts that are speaking it's favor" is the common attitude.

I wonder if you appreciate the irony of this statement.