177 réponses à ce sujet

[Yumichika]

I agree with almost all the points in the first post.
Where i do not agree is where it says "DA2" has a better personnal story.
The way DAO act is letting u building ur own personnal story that for an RPG is just great. I felt bad very bad being forced to play hawk who already belong to something ah and always as hero in stories coming from a rich familly trying to get it name back etc etc plus getting rich etc etc a lot of bad "cliché" in my opinion.

In Origin u are from nowwhere and trying to built urself throughout the game and also with the relationship u can make with the companions and other persos from different quests. It's why we wre able also to be close enough to those virtual characters. Why People can still talk about the whole of the origin companions.

In DA2 we have to agree that except varric well the other companions are too something.
And honestly hawk father, mother, brother, sisters stories does not interest me.
In Origin they were always sometimes answers about ur life u can choose ur mother is alive or she died or etc etc. U were the one deciding really what is the past of or character and that is a point so GREAT, i can't understand where are the good points in DA2 storyline personal, general, multiculture what ever.

And the wheel is so confused when Aveline got mad at me when i was thinking i was going to offer her some comfort, is just destabilizing.

And a point why did they announce there is sexual content in DA2 where obviously there is nothing ?

Also as i played as a mage in both they are some spells i prefer in Origin like the fire tornado or some other very spectacular that should come back. About the rest of the gameplays specially rogue it's better in DA2.

[deatharmonic]

Megakoresh wrote...

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".
.

No that's not right, your deliberately diminishing DAO to its overarching plot. Take the human noble for example, you have parents/family (just like hawke), close family members get killed and you have to flee your own home (just like hawke). Despite being roped into the grey wardens there's always that personal entanglement, a vendetta against arl Howe, and it makes for a nice personal story which is no less personal than Hawke's. The term 'personal story' gets thrown around for DA2 because the whole game centres around the journey of one character as opposed to DAO, where the focus is much wider than your PC. A good personal story still exists within that wider focus though.

Modifié par deatharmonic, 02 février 2013 - 08:31 .

[Megakoresh]

humes spork wrote...
...you never played a human noble origin into Awakening, have you.

I have done it 2 times.

EntropicAngel wrote...

The things you describe in your OP have nothing to do with your title, outside of your final point where you actually cite the storyline itself.

I don't think good characters are relegated only stories about saving the world. In fact, you'd think that it would be the opposite: games that focus on the macro have incredibly bland characters, while micro games have far more fleshed out characters.

This seems to be a general pattern yes, though not always. Mass Effect 1 and 2 had an extremely large scale yet managed to deliver very good characters as well.

The title has exactly everything to do with what i discuss. I compare two games. One has a Personal Story setting and another is about Saving the World.

Setting is created first. It affects characters, plot, locations, everything. PC in Origins was completely empty, so the focus of the game is on the outer conflicts and your missions. In DA2, Hawk is in his own trouble, and the story revolves around him and his friends getting out of it. DA2 is not focused on the Mage Vs Templar. It's focused on Hawk in the Mage Vs Templar war. Whereas Origins is not focused on the Warden in the Blight, but rather Blight itself.

Seeing these things does not just require multiple playthroughs but analytical thinking as well. DA2 was celarly subpar to Origins, that was obvious to anyone, so if the game's audience is to be judged by the forums they create, vast majority formed opinion in the brick wall fashion without even trying to dig deeper.

Its the same reason Witcher 2 is not as popular as BioWare games. It takes some actual thinking to understand What on Earth did Shilard was doing in Foltest's camp. To see through what seems to be a badly written dialogue, and realise it has way more meaning than it seems if you stick it with the events that happened earlier. To know why Iorveth is actually fighting. To find out the real reasos you need to actually explore a little or notice patterns in the way he speaks about certain things. None of Witcher'2 writing is blunt like BioWare's games and as a result a lot of people get put off by that.

But that is the problem. To make a story personal you need these subtle hints. You need the down-to-earth approach. How do you demostrate characters in a good way then? And how do you create enough apparent story conteant so that your audience does not form another brick wall opinion? It's difficult to say the least.

[The Six Path of Pain]

I like both but they failed with the personal story in DAII big time.Plus where was Hawkes rise to power?Champion of Kirkwall seemed more like a title that didn't give you any power whatsoever To answer your question I prefer a save the world story,makes me feel accomplished at the end of the game knowing I stopped an insanely powerful opponent

[Megakoresh]

deatharmonic wrote...
No that's not right, your deliberately diminishing DAO to its overarching plot. Take the human noble for example, you have parents/family (just like hawke), close family members get killed and you have to flee your own home (just like hawke). Despite being roped into the grey wardens there's always that personal entanglement, a vendetta against arl Howe, and it makes for a nice personal story which is no less personal than Hawke's. The term 'personal story' gets thrown around for DA2 because the whole game centres around the journey of one character as opposed to DAO, where the focus is much wider than your PC. A good personal story still exists within that wider focus though. 

You know that won't change my PoV don't you? My standards for personal story are higher than this. Arl Howe is certainly a very good example, but can you name more? More importantly can you make a consistent one?

Can you argue that Origin quest is not designed to wipe out all of your personal interests? What arguments would you bring, I wonder? Human noble is actually the best Origin story in the game in this respect. It's why i got 2 characters with that background and only 1 with all others. But no matter that in certain locations you get called by name. No matter that some NPCs react differently to you based on your Origin story, the only real personal involvement or interest you actualyl have is the Arl Howe.

Awakening actually continued on that road with one of the characters. Admittedly pretty much all new characters except for Anders in Awakening were boring and dull, so I don't remeber much of those interactions, but what id o remember is that you have a mention with that guy about past events in the beginning and that is it. After that it's pretty much over.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
DA 2's biggest crime as to why it never feel personal to me is DA 2's Hawke himself/herself. He or she was designed by BioWare using 3 templates of dominant personalities known as Diplomatic Hawke, Humorous Hawke or Aggressive Hawke, none ever suit my roleplaying and my intented character creation. Although it is possible to mix and match the tones, it never satisfy my need to create unique PC. Too restrictive to break character designed by BioWare which favor heavily the three dominant personalities. 
---------
AND ALL SUCH POSTS

Hawk's personal story IS the story of DA2. And people arguing that it makes the story hard to roleplay, are completely missing the point. A personal story in the game is NOT YOUR personal story. I COMPLETELY understand why Hawk was hard to roleplay. He IS generic. That is NOT what I discuss.

Whatever you roleplay in Origins is a character of YOUR creation. And every desire, goal, agenda are made up by YOU, with the exception of the Arl Howe conflict for Human Noble. the game does NOT give that animated model you control any reason to want or hate ANYHTING.

It has it's strengths. It has it's weaknesses. But it is NOT what i talk about. Please understand. I talk about a character given by the game who HAS reasons for wanting, hating, loving, caring or killing. You can choose to ignore them but they are ultimately there. Now I agree that it could definitely and SHOULD definitely have been doen better, but the point here is these events are there.

In Origins your personal event is the one whoch gets you into the Gery Wardens. Whatever else comes from you the player and not the game. You may view it as a plus. I view it as a minus. That is why I put the [PERSONAL PREFERENCE] there. 

Hope that clears it up. I am trying to communicate ideas a bit too complex I guess.

[humes spork]

Megakoresh wrote...

I have done it 2 times.

Then you should well understand the origin stories are framing devices to provide each character's perspective and allow the player to make informed decisions as to how they want to play, while elements from those origin stories return throughout the entire game and reinforce characterization.

And since you've done the human noble origin story twice, you should well know each of the other origin stories also occur, and that Duncan's intervention is what pulls the character out from the life they live (which otherwise comes to an abrupt end) to become the Warden, regardless of the Warden's reluctance in doing so typified through in-game dialog options.

You should also know well in the context of a human noble origin, they can make their primary focus for the majority of the game avenging their family against Howe and Loghain...which continues into Awakening, with unique dialog options with Nathaniel as well as the existing options to dispatch him on the basis of his being related to Rendon Howe.

Role-playing and characterization in DA:O is a sandbox, allowing the player to put as much effort they like into characterization. That does not mean the game is "devoid" of a personal story.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Megakoresh wrote...
Hawk's personal story IS the story of DA2.

I get it. It's Hawke's personal story then. Not my personal story. Not the player's personal story. So why comparing Hawke's personal story with MY warden's personal story? You know, the difference between what is personal to you and what you think personal for other people is very huge. 

To me, personal matters has to be related to players somehow, otherwise there's nothing much to discuss. And Since I can't relate to Hawke, then his personal story has ZERO value and impact to me, nor should I care for. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 02 février 2013 - 09:29 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

The side quests in Origins became the main quests of DA2.

[BouncyFrag]

Had DA2 not been such a rushed game, its type of story would have greater merit. But it wasn't, so I'd put quality over story style at this point.

[Megakoresh]

BouncyFrag wrote...

Had DA2 not been such a rushed game, its type of story would have greater merit. But it wasn't, so I'd put quality over story style at this point.

That's the logic I follow when creating my own "leaderboard". I still like DA2 though. Just not as much as Origins.

[Sharn01]

I support the idea of a personal story if that's what they want to do, DA2's failings in regards to the story where not because of the type of story they wanted to tell but how they implemented that story. I still think it's failings in the story department where at an acceptable level until the last chapter.

[deatharmonic]

Megakoresh wrote...

deatharmonic wrote...
No that's not right, your deliberately diminishing DAO to its overarching plot. Take the human noble for example, you have parents/family (just like hawke), close family members get killed and you have to flee your own home (just like hawke). Despite being roped into the grey wardens there's always that personal entanglement, a vendetta against arl Howe, and it makes for a nice personal story which is no less personal than Hawke's. The term 'personal story' gets thrown around for DA2 because the whole game centres around the journey of one character as opposed to DAO, where the focus is much wider than your PC. A good personal story still exists within that wider focus though. 

You know that won't change my PoV don't you? My standards for personal story are higher than this. Arl Howe is certainly a very good example, but can you name more? More importantly can you make a consistent one?

Can you argue that Origin quest is not designed to wipe out all of your personal interests? What arguments would you bring, I wonder? Human noble is actually the best Origin story in the game in this respect. It's why i got 2 characters with that background and only 1 with all others. But no matter that in certain locations you get called by name. No matter that some NPCs react differently to you based on your Origin story, the only real personal involvement or interest you actualyl have is the Arl Howe.

Awakening actually continued on that road with one of the characters. Admittedly pretty much all new characters except for Anders in Awakening were boring and dull, so I don't remeber much of those interactions, but what id o remember is that you have a mention with that guy about past events in the beginning and that is it. After that it's pretty much over.

What's you point? In your argument with senophile you unfairly strip DAO down to this:

Megakoresh wrote...
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

Now, I demonstrated that wasn't the case, that there IS indeed a personal story regardless of what your standards are its there. Why does it matter how many there are? that doesn't increase the quality of story, and of course there are less, as I've said already the focus is wider.

[Sutekh]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

<snipping long quote> 

To make it simple:
First person roleplaying = You pretend yourself as the Warden. 
Third person roleplaying = You control other people such as Jo Wyatt to pretend to be Lady Hawke while you yourself watch and listen to Varric's fairy tale behind the scene. DA 2's exactly acknowldge that style of roleplaying with third person unreliable narrator. 

OK. I get it. Thanks. I was confused because what you call "3rd person roleplaying" I don't call roleplaying at all. That would be directing.

This being said, I kinda disagree about the "game design" part. You feel DA2 is 3rd person roleplaying (3RPG) because you're put off by auto-dialogue and framed narrative (among other things). I don't. Framed narrative, I don't care. It was made very clear in-game that what Varric tells (exaggerated intro and Varric storming Bartrand's place) is quite different from the truth (the rest of the game), so I never believed it was all a dream Varric's unreliable tale.

Auto-dialogue is another story. It does yank me from the roleplay right then and there, which is one reason among many why it's more difficult to get a personal feel from Hawke. It's not 3RPG, but more one minute 1RPG, the next 3RPG. A kind of constant "you're in, you're out" experience. I'm talking about real auto-dialogue here. Not paraphrase or whatever. The moments where you actually lose control of Hawke.

All this to say that you can't call "game design" something that won't be experienced by everyone (and then go on stating BioWare made DAO by mistake) because it's subjective. A design is objective. 3rd person PoV is a game design. Team combat is a game design. VA is a game design. But the way people will work with them - immersion or not, 1RPG vs 3RPG - depends very much on the individual; it's not "design" at all.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sutekh wrote...
All this to say that you can't call "game design" something that won't be experienced by everyone (and then go on stating BioWare made DAO by mistake) because it's subjective. A design is objective. 3rd person PoV is a game design. Team combat is a game design. VA is a game design. But the way people will work with them - immersion or not, 1RPG vs 3RPG - depends very much on the individual; it's not "design" at all.

DA 2 is designed to be 3rd person POV, from the narrative perspective ( It's a story being told to third person ominiscient observer and passive audience that is you ) to third person cinematic dialogue conversation camera view ( instead of over the shoulder camera view ) The game is designed for you to watch and direct, instead of,  for you to journey and live through it. If you're roleplaying as Hawke, then how on earth could the game tell you directly in the face that you're gone? It make absolute no sense from first person perspective.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 février 2013 - 12:24 .

[Dr. Doctor]

One thing I really liked about DA2 is that Hawke has an actual personality established by dialogue choices and any autodialogue that occurs takes account of that personally.

As for the story, the framed narrative approach really limits how much variation you can have in the story. The whole plot already happened so you can't really go off in a direction that doesn't lead to the defined final outcome. It was a neat idea for a mechanic but it was more "the story of how Kirkwall turned to ****" from Hawke's point of view than Hawke's personal story.

I'm not really expecting to be able to dictate everything that happens in a videogame RPG, if I wanted complete freedom of choice of character background, story progression, etc. I'd play a pen-and-paper RPG.

[Fast Jimmy]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

One thing I really liked about DA2 is that Hawke has an actual personality established by dialogue choices and any autodialogue that occurs takes account of that personally.

As for the story, the framed narrative approach really limits how much variation you can have in the story. The whole plot already happened so you can't really go off in a direction that doesn't lead to the defined final outcome. It was a neat idea for a mechanic but it was more "the story of how Kirkwall turned to ****" from Hawke's point of view than Hawke's personal story.

I'm not really expecting to be able to dictate everything that happens in a videogame RPG, if I wanted complete freedom of choice of character background, story progression, etc. I'd play a pen-and-paper RPG.

To play the Devil's Advocate, I'd say RPG video games started out trying to emulate PnP games... so maybe if someone is looking for a story broken up with action scenes, they may best be served by watching a Michael Bay movie? And let video games do what they have proven they can do well.

If I were the Devil's Advocate, of course.

[iOnlySignIn]

Personal story of course.

Thedas is not worth or capable of being saved. It needs to burn.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 03 février 2013 - 01:09 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

The side quests in Origins became the main quests of DA2.

I keep coming back to this and seeing it and just agreeing with it in my head.

Travel to the Deep Roads to discover a lost, forgotten magic? Check.

Confronting and deciding whether to duel and kill a military leader who killed the last ruler? Check.

Deciding whether to Annul a Circle suspected of Blood Magic/Possession? Check.


I mean... I realize they said they wanted to do something different with DA2, but oftentimes, it looks like there wasn't a lot of new material brought to the table.

[perfect_victime]

Darth Death wrote...

BioWare seems to specialize in the "saving the world from evil" storytelling. I think DA2 was a foreign realm for BioWare to explore, & as a result not their strength when communicating a good story. Depends how you want to look at it. IMO Origins was a "saving the world from evil" type of story, accompanied with personal storytelling elements. Your LI, race, background, & silent PC all contribute to an imaginative & personal experience. "Personal" shouldn't be only limited to biological family.

I totally agree with you. They tried a new formula. In my opinion it worked for the most part.

[Sutekh]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

DA 2 is designed to be 3rd person POV, from the narrative perspective ( It's a story being told to third person ominiscient observer and passive audience that is you ) to third person cinematic dialogue conversation camera view ( instead of over the shoulder camera view ) The game is designed for you to watch and direct, instead of,  for you to journey and live through it. If you're roleplaying as Hawke, then how on earth could the game tell you directly in the face that you're gone? It make absolute no sense from first person perspective.

By 3rd person PoV I meant the technical difference between seeing directly through the protag's eyes (as in an FPS or Skyrim) or having a 3rd person view (DAO, DA2, many RPGs etc...). The technical thing.

Narrative-wise, DA2 isn't 3rd person objective. Like DAO, it's 3rd person subjective. Over the shoulder camera is still 3rd person, and only there because the Warden is silent and mostly expressionless, so a long view of an unchanging face would become quite boring (and slightly ridiculous). There are many moments in DAO where the view shifts to "normal" 3rd person view. There are even moments bordering on auto-dialogue (only wordless), where your Warden would have such and such expression you absolutely don't control (the Joining comes to mind, but there are others).

It's also certainly not omniscient. You don't get to know and even less control each characters thoughts, feelings and motivations. You get glimpses through Hawke's eyes, and the interpretation is up to you. There's no voice over telling you "Sister Petrice wanted to kill all Qunari because she viewed them as an insult to the face of her beloved Maker" or "Meredith wanted to wipe mages because of what happened to her sister". You get those info through dialogue, and in the case of Meredith only if you follow a certain path. For all you (the player) actually knows, Petrice's actual motivations might be she was scared by a Qunari as a child. If the game was omniscient, you would know Meredith's true reasons no matter the path chosen. That's what omniscient means. You (the player) would know everything [relevant to the plot]. You - mostly - only know what Hawke knows.

DAO also has moments of omniscience - more often than DA2, actually - with the interlude cinematics. One perfect exemple would be the Warden's funeral. How can you pretend living this scene through your character's eyes when your character is dead (and their soul destroyed, so no "watching from the Fade" here)?

As for Hawke being gone, how is that different from an epilogue slide telling me my Warden is having rows with Zevran in the streets of Antiva?

So, really, the formula (game design) is roughly the same in both games. What differs is the amount of control and options, and the VA, which will be dealt with differently depending on the player. This said - and that is important - the difference is big enough for the two games to "feel" roughly on the opposite sides of the roleplaying / personal scale.

[Get Magna Carter]

It could be argued that Dragon Age Origins is about saving a large country from an invading force while Dragon Age 2 was about saving a very small country from internal conflicts.
How personal either of these are is subjective - in both cases the player is "railroaded" into following the plot and doing what other people want them to do rather than following their own agenda.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I don't really mind as long as its well written.

[Megakoresh]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

It could be argued that Dragon Age Origins is about saving a large country from an invading force while Dragon Age 2 was about saving a very small country from internal conflicts.
How personal either of these are is subjective - in both cases the player is "railroaded" into following the plot and doing what other people want them to do rather than following their own agenda.

Is it? Who or what exactly did you save in DA2? Except for yourself that is?

[Yumichika]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Megakoresh wrote...
Hawk's personal story IS the story of DA2.

I get it. It's Hawke's personal story then. Not my personal story. Not the player's personal story. So why comparing Hawke's personal story with MY warden's personal story? You know, the difference between what is personal to you and what you think personal for other people is very huge. 

To me, personal matters has to be related to players somehow, otherwise there's nothing much to discuss. And Since I can't relate to Hawke, then his personal story has ZERO value and impact to me, nor should I care for. 

What a wonderful resume. :innocent:<3

[elyu]

A combination of a personal story and an epic lets-save-the-world story would be the best alternative. Unlike many others, I really felt that Hawke's story was also the player's story and thus I found it easy to relate to. In Origins, despite having many different beginnings to choose from, it was harder for me think of the warden's story as my story. This probably has something to do with the fact that Hawke was voiced, because if there's a silent protagonist I feel like it doesn't matter what you say.