122 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

I don't really see how it's all that different from railroading us into losing all our family as a HN.  Or Gorion back in BG.  Or Jenkins in ME1

Though I think it would have been better if we'd just had both siblings in act 1. Then we choose who goes to the deep roads and get's wardened/killed and which stays and ends up in the circle/templars.

Modifié par Wulfram, 03 février 2013 - 02:32 .

[Sad Dragon]

Zippy72 wrote...

Two warning bells are alreay going off..

1. Human only.
2. No playable origin story.

However it would be silly to offer any judgements on the game yet, knowing so little.

There are actually a few good reasons for the human decision that i can think of.
The nature of the plot -- from what we know -- doesn't necessaraly lend itself all that well to dwarves and arguably not to the dalish as well. It also gives them a better chance of creating a more tight and polished story as they wont have to account from too broad a cultural background. This of course depends on how big the difference in background options the non-playable origins provide.

As for point 2 however i am less inclined to think of it as a good thing. Don't get me wrong i think that non-playable origins can be great if implemented right -- and by right i mean in ways that wouldn't be suited for playable origins. Here im thinking of things like multiple background events that happened during a biger timeline than its reasonable for a playable origin to handle. Truth be told, the non-playable origins did work ok in ME1 -- though much could be improved from that approach. At the very least you can view it as a step in the right direction from DA2.

Thomas Andresen wrote...

There aren't any "slippery slopes". You might argue that there's a trend, but that's a whole 'nother matter, and you have no real
reason to think that trend might continue, much less escalate. Even
more to the point, arguing whether the trend is a good thing or not is a
matter of taste, have nothing to do with "good game development
practice", and should be treated as it is.

If you dislike the phrase  -- and I do agree that it wasn't applicable to this situation as Allan seemed to grasp what i was going for -- substitute it for perhapps the more fitting phrase "seting a dangerous precidence". For arguing that taking away player agancy is ok as they won't notice it until they replay a game, is in my mind a dangerous line to walk ( though again something that I think Allan did well) especially when you make the statement without any qualifiers.  My problem with the original statement was that the same justification could be applied to any and all player agancy as all experiances are linier to us no matter how many paths the game might hold. So taking the argument to its extreme the player doesn't ever need any player agancy as they wont know they dont have it until they go through the game a second time.

Allan, as i felt it anyway, did understand my point but rightly pointed out that my underlying problems made my argument less directed at the discussion in which he made the statement (sibling death) than other areas of the game. Something I wholy agree with him on.

Sure you can argue that you dont want player agancy making this a desired change for you -- and indeed creating a whole other subjective discussion -- though I do think that that would indeed be dangerous for the gaming medium as the interactive nature of our medium makes us unique and stiving to remove that uniqueness could very well undermine the medium.

And in the end, i think you will find that most things surounding game development is subjective and not objective in nature. But the world would be a terribly boring and uncreative thing if we couldnt expess things that were objectivly proven. At least that is my subjective belief.

-TSD

[Zippy72]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Zippy72 wrote...

Two warning bells are alreay going off..

1. Human only.
2. No playable origin story.

However it would be silly to offer any judgements on the game yet, knowing so little.

There are actually a few good reasons for the human decision that i can think of.
The nature of the plot -- from what we know -- doesn't necessaraly lend itself all that well to dwarves and arguably not to the dalish as well.

This may well be true, we'll have to wait for the plot to be revealed.

[SparksMKII]

If there's another well rehearsed corporate response saying that hours are a really bad way to judge how much "stuff" is in the game then I'm running for the hills!

[ianvillan]

A warning sign for me is if Bioware doesnt trust the systems they have implemented to stand up for themselves and have to make a stupid catchphrase for it, like Awesome button, Hot Rod Samurai or think like a general fight like a spartan.

Or another warning sign is the general lack of details revealed about the game and then just saying to complainers that they dont have all information yet and should play the game to see what Bioware was going for.

[Sir George Parr]

Or if Cassandra appears in the game and has had an Ashley Williams make over so she can be the 'Sexy Girl' in the companion line up and fill in for another character,like Ashley fills in for Miranda.

[InfinitePaths]

It really really sucked if you played a rouge.If you wanted Bethany to be a gray warden you HAD to have a party of Anders,Bethany and Varric.

That is 2 rouges
And 2 mages.

[Thomas Andresen]

Sad Dragon wrote...

... substitute it for perhapps the more fitting phrase "seting a dangerous precidence".

"Dangerous precedence" isn't any more fitting to use than "slippery slope", as my point is that it's an entirely subjective matter and to talk about it as a matter of fact rather than an opinion is ...pretentious, for want of a better word. Utterly self-centred, at the very least. The way I see it, no "precedent" is set. At worst, the existing limitations have only become more apparent, but I'd argue that even that isn't true. The only trend I see is people working harder and harder at looking for faults in new and future games, and ignoring faults of previous games. Nothing good comes of it. In my opinion.

For arguing that taking away player agancy is ok as they won't notice it until they replay a game, is in my mind a dangerous line to walk ( though again something that I think Allan did well) especially when you make the statement without any qualifiers.

I'm not saying that I am a opponent to player agency in video games. I think player agency could've been handled a lot better in DAII. Of course, I could make an argument about player agency versus narrative, but I think that players should at least feel like the choices are not made for them. Most of the time.

Specifically, when it comes to the example of Hawke's siblings, I think that could have been handled better, given better circumstances, but I think that the player not being able to do anything about it was the right thing to do, because that's how life can be sometimes*. I sometimes wish I could have my mage Hawke tell Bethany that being a mage is not such a bad thing, but I then I think that if Bethany's elder sibling was a mage, she might have a different view of those things, and I'm not really sure where I was going with that. Anyway. I am more annoyed of how the game kept telling you when it was time to talk to your companions, but Laidlaw already said his piece about that("That was not ideal. Sorry about that.", or something to that effect), and they've already said they'd be looking into ways to improve how that's handled.

To talk about trends as if they're evidence that things are headed in a direction you** don't like, is something that I think is an extremely paranoid mindset, and I shouldn't have to explain why assuming that everyone will share your views is something that you shouldn't do. Objectively bad is an oxymoron. If your intent is to discuss opinions, then phrase your posts as opinions, and accept that it is nothing more than an opinion.

*Besides, if you weren't told about it, how many times would you have to go through the introduction to realise how that was determined?
**That's a general 'you', not directed at anyone in particular.

[shadowpiranha]

You know as much as I like fantasy, I like it with a hint of grit and realism. In real life you can't choose who dies and who doesn't and you can't always save those who might die, so I kind of like it that people died and Hawke couldn't do a damn thing about it. If it depended on him/her then yes, we should be given a choice, but you can't do much once a huge damn ogre picks up your sibling and breaks his/her spine by shaking him/her repeatedly. Even if you're a mage.

As for mom...Well at first I thought if I went looking for her as soon as I could it would make a difference but you know what, people feel hopeless in real life too and that hopelessness (when you reach the conclusion that you tried so hard and got so far but in the end - oh crap sorry that's a song lyric) really fit the game, I think. But then I'm a sucker for media that makes me feel things, good and bad.

So what I'm basically saying is that regarding character death in situations where it wouldn't be realistic to have the ability to do anything about it...Bring on the choice-less heartbreak.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

I feel like the topic is sort of being lost in the example that I gave. It realy doesn't matter if you think the forced sibling death depending on your class was a good move or not it is a situation where the PC was given no ability to choice anything. Which was a sign of things to come in the game as a whole.

Others have given examples that made them worry about the game as a whole before it was released and I agree that those were also some very clear signs of the game going in the wrong direction. I'm wondering for those who dismiss the examples given is there anything that you can learn about the game pre-release that would have you deeply worried about it?

[TJPags]

Commander Kurt wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Problem is, the Hawke family mage - Hawke him or her-self perhaps - wanders around Kirkwall with no problems throughout the game and makes no attempt to hide.  In fact, an apostate mage just trying to ENTER Kirkwall the way Hawke and company did should be arrested on sight, given the amount of power we are led to believe Meredith wielded and the feeling about mages in Kirkwall.

Point being, there was little reason to be in - or stay in - Kirkwall, regardless of which member of the family is a mage, or if ANY are.

Is there one game you like that doesn't have gameplay/story segregation? But, I guess we're venturing off-topic now... 

This does get off topic overall, but to keep it to DA:

The entire idea of Kirkwall as shown in DA2 is that it was essentially on lock-down, run by Templars, and very hard-line Templars at that.  The abuses of the Templars - both towards mages in the CIrcle and in overall governance of the city - is at the heart of almost everything that goes on in the City.  And yet mage Hawke can wander around with impunity, or warrior Hawke can with Bethany beside him, as early as Act 1 - well before Hawke becomes Champion and has any type of political power.

It's just so glaring a handwave in my mind that it stands out beyond any other game I've played.

[XX-Pyro]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

It really really sucked if you played a rouge.If you wanted Bethany to be a gray warden you HAD to have a party of Anders,Bethany and Varric.

That is 2 rouges
And 2 mages.

Personally I try not to use metagaming excuses when forming my parties.

[Allan Schumacher]

This is true. But in lines with the original topic, this smaller example of plot railroading from what we were presented pre-release was endemic of DEEPER examples of plot railroading later in the game.

Is this really plot railroading? Wouldn't that be "the same sibling dies regardless?"

Something different ends up happening. People are upset, though, because they want to be able to influence the choice. Would they not feel this way (if not moreso) if Bethany always died?

Couldn't the argument be made for any event in the game being "railroaded" if this is an example of railroading? Why *must* I go to Lothering? Why *must* I bring Alistair along? Why *must* I gather all the treaties?


At some point it starts to seem like it's more "You have branched the game, but it doesn't branch in a way that I consider logical (nor in a way that I want) and that makes me disappointed" as opposed to "There is no branch at this point in the game. It's the same thing every time and that makes me disappointed."

[ISpeakTheTruth]

I hate to go off topic again but in terms of DAO's 'railroaded' plot and DA2's we have two very different cases of one being logical and one making sense at all. In DAO the reason you do what you do is because a Blight is happening the world is about to be engulfed in a massive war that is going to consume the world. Fighting the Blight makes sense, gathering allies to fight the Blight makes sense, Also doing all of this might just clear your name as a king slayer.

DA2's story makes no sense at all. After Act 1 why is Hawke even there anymore? The Blight's over and Kirkwall is a mad house full of corrupt Templars and crazed Blood mages and caves and dungeons that all look strangly the same. There's no logic for Hawke to be there at all after Act 1.

Back on topic. I admit that some things have to happen for the plot to move forward but it is the way they moved forward in DAO and DA2 that is unacceptable. Remember that quest chain where you kill that blood mage leader and then you can either turn in the other to the Templars or let them escape? Remember how no matter what you chose the mages were captured and remember how no matter what you do that same mage for whatever reason blames you and captures someone and no matter what you do she will always go nuts and end up getting killed.... that quest is the soul of what was wrong with DA2.... nothing the player did mattered at all. That is the kind of thing the Sibling example gave us.

Allan if you can tell me that a quest line that isn't involved in the central plot that is as uterly unchanged by player choices as the one I just noted won't be in the next game then right there I would feel 100% better about the game. Give us some good news and say that optional quest chains will never be as linear and unchanged as the one in DA2. Throw me a bone! =)

[XX-Pyro]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

I hate to go off topic again but in terms of DAO's 'railroaded' plot and DA2's we have two very different cases of one being logical and one making sense at all. In DAO the reason you do what you do is because a Blight is happening the world is about to be engulfed in a massive war that is going to consume the world. Fighting the Blight makes sense, gathering allies to fight the Blight makes sense, Also doing all of this might just clear your name as a king slayer.

DA2's story makes no sense at all. After Act 1 why is Hawke even there anymore? The Blight's over and Kirkwall is a mad house full of corrupt Templars and crazed Blood mages and caves and dungeons that all look strangly the same. There's no logic for Hawke to be there at all after Act 1.

Back on topic. I admit that some things have to happen for the plot to move forward but it is the way they moved forward in DAO and DA2 that is unacceptable. Remember that quest chain where you kill that blood mage leader and then you can either turn in the other to the Templars or let them escape? Remember how no matter what you chose the mages were captured and remember how no matter what you do that same mage for whatever reason blames you and captures someone and no matter what you do she will always go nuts and end up getting killed.... that quest is the soul of what was wrong with DA2.... nothing the player did mattered at all. That is the kind of thing the Sibling example gave us.

Allan if you can tell me that a quest line that isn't involved in the central plot that is as uterly unchanged by player choices as the one I just noted won't be in the next game then right there I would feel 100% better about the game. Give us some good news and say that optional quest chains will never be as linear and unchanged as the one in DA2. Throw me a bone! =)

Why is Hawke still in Kirkwall? Why are any refugees who ever emigrated anywhere still in the place they immigrated to? Oh yeah- their home is destroyed, WHY would they leave again, when they have nowhere to go. You're the one making no sense at all on that point. Asking to be able to choose which sibling you save is like asking to choose to side with the archdemon over Ferelden (c'mon Bioware why don't I have that choice...) it's an argument that doesn't hold water because that's how the story is told. Plain and simple. And because the remaining sibling could be part of your motivation for all of Act 1, gaining status to avoid the templars as best possible. I'll agree that overall what Hawke did didn't change very much- shame that we can't mold the world to the PC's liking.

Modifié par XX-Pyro, 04 février 2013 - 05:39 .

[In Exile]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Couldn't the argument be made for any event in the game being "railroaded" if this is an example of railroading? Why *must* I go to Lothering? Why *must* I bring Alistair along? Why *must* I gather all the treaties?

The answer is that certain (some) fans like DA:O, and therefore ignore these parts. Whereas, they do not like DA2. 

[In Exile]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

I hate to go off topic again but in terms of DAO's 'railroaded' plot and DA2's we have two very different cases of one being logical and one making sense at all. In DAO the reason you do what you do is because a Blight is happening the world is about to be engulfed in a massive war that is going to consume the world.

And with Loghain having betrayed all of Ferelden, with the darkspawn overrunning and erupting from the wilds, the only logical choice is to get out of Ferelden and move to Orlais, to get the Wardens, while Ferelden burns and slows the horde.

Which, of course, is totally impossible because you and Alistair have to play the heroic duo.

Fighting the Blight makes sense, gathering allies to fight the Blight makes sense, Also doing all of this might just clear your name as a king slayer.

Speaking of railroaded stupid, the very notion that (a) Loghain has your face/name, ( knows you are alive, and © personally targets you is, among other things, nonsensical and insane. Logic is not a part of it.

[Wolfva2]

AlanC9 wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

How your party is structured should be your choice. If you want to be a mage ans start the game out with your mage sister you should be allowed to do that. Having the game dictate how my team should be structured is the ultimate lack of choice in an RPG. If I want the start the game with a team that is structured 'wrong' then that's my choice.

But why should the PC be able to choose who dies?

The PC did not choose who died.  The PC choose which character class he wanted to play.  BIOWARE chose who died.  

This idea that many of you have...that you should be able to make every single decision in the game...is a ludicrous one to me.  You want that?  Write a fan fic.  The reality of it is our characters are reacting to the events around them.  Unlike us, they are actually a part of that world, they don't have the hindsight that we have.  Such as, which sibling will die.  Heck, I went into DA2 blind, I didn't know that would happen.  Came as a surprise to me.  There should be choices we have no control over.  There should be events that we, as players, can't do anything about.  Our companions SHOULD have lives, opinions, goals and histories that have nothing to do with us.  

Maybe they should institute a 'Godmode' version of the games though.  Where the PC starts out at max level with every skill and spell, the best armor available, and literally makes every single decision in the game.  To me, that'd be boring.  But apparently there are people who live for such games.

Honestly, I think some of ya'll should just stick to games like Skyrim.  That's what you want after all.  A game where you make all the decisions.  Where you're not actually reacting to situations out of your control.  Like, say, a blight.

[AlanC9]

Wolfva2 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...
How your party is structured should be your choice. If you want to be a mage ans start the game out with your mage sister you should be allowed to do that. Having the game dictate how my team should be structured is the ultimate lack of choice in an RPG. If I want the start the game with a team that is structured 'wrong' then that's my choice.

But why should the PC be able to choose who dies?

The PC did not choose who died.  The PC choose which character class he wanted to play.  BIOWARE chose who died.  

This idea that many of you have...that you should be able to make every single decision in the game...is a ludicrous one to me.

Wait...  do you have a problem with Bio choosing who dies, or not?

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 février 2013 - 06:50 .

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't really see how it's all that different from railroading us into losing all our family as a HN.  Or Gorion back in BG.  Or Jenkins in ME1

Though I think it would have been better if we'd just had both siblings in act 1. Then we choose who goes to the deep roads and get's wardened/killed and which stays and ends up in the circle/templars.

I agree with your notion on how the twins should have been handled. Killing one or the other off by ogre so early in the game rendered their death pretty much meaningless, especially in the first playthrough when players don't know the characters or have any reason to care about them. The sibling death has all the impact and gravity of Trask Ulgo's self-sacrifice in KOTOR on the Endar Spire, which is to say no impact or gravity to speak of.

[Saibh]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I don't really see how it's all that different from railroading us into losing all our family as a HN.  Or Gorion back in BG.  Or Jenkins in ME1

Though I think it would have been better if we'd just had both siblings in act 1. Then we choose who goes to the deep roads and get's wardened/killed and which stays and ends up in the circle/templars.

I agree with your notion on how the twins should have been handled. Killing one or the other off by ogre so early in the game rendered their death pretty much meaningless, especially in the first playthrough when players don't know the characters or have any reason to care about them. The sibling death has all the impact and gravity of Trask Ulgo's self-sacrifice in KOTOR on the Endar Spire, which is to say no impact or gravity to speak of.

And at least Trask was some random guy. Your sibling dying should have been huge, but it was such a bizarre wooden moment.

In any case, I have no issue with the class-based death. It made perfect sense, and I'm glad the variation existed anyway. It would have been interesting to have a mage sister when you were a mage, sure, but I accept the limitations of the possible stories they could tell. 

If there's any single 'warning sign' I'm looking out for (and I'm 99% positive it's going to be there), it's the dialogue wheel. Having played DAII, I think it detracted in almost every meaningful way. 

[ianvillan]

XX-Pyro wrote...

Why is Hawke still in Kirkwall? Why are any refugees who ever emigrated anywhere still in the place they immigrated to? Oh yeah- their home is destroyed, WHY would they leave again, when they have nowhere to go. You're the one making no sense at all on that point. Asking to be able to choose which sibling you save is like asking to choose to side with the archdemon over Ferelden (c'mon Bioware why don't I have that choice...) it's an argument that doesn't hold water because that's how the story is told. Plain and simple. And because the remaining sibling could be part of your motivation for all of Act 1, gaining status to avoid the templars as best possible. I'll agree that overall what Hawke did didn't change very much- shame that we can't mold the world to the PC's liking.

Why after making a fortune in the deep roads and over a year after the end of the blight is Hawke still in Kirkwall the capital of crazy town which is known as a fanatical Templar stronghold. What justification is there for staying in Kirkwall at all.

I would even say in what right mind would anyone who is a free mage go to Kirkwall in the first place, and it cant be because you have family who are nobles because even having family who are nobles will not stop the Templars from taking you away.

[esper]

ianvillan wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Why is Hawke still in Kirkwall? Why are any refugees who ever emigrated anywhere still in the place they immigrated to? Oh yeah- their home is destroyed, WHY would they leave again, when they have nowhere to go. You're the one making no sense at all on that point. Asking to be able to choose which sibling you save is like asking to choose to side with the archdemon over Ferelden (c'mon Bioware why don't I have that choice...) it's an argument that doesn't hold water because that's how the story is told. Plain and simple. And because the remaining sibling could be part of your motivation for all of Act 1, gaining status to avoid the templars as best possible. I'll agree that overall what Hawke did didn't change very much- shame that we can't mold the world to the PC's liking.

Why after making a fortune in the deep roads and over a year after the end of the blight is Hawke still in Kirkwall the capital of crazy town which is known as a fanatical Templar stronghold. What justification is there for staying in Kirkwall at all.

I would even say in what right mind would anyone who is a free mage go to Kirkwall in the first place, and it cant be because you have family who are nobles because even having family who are nobles will not stop the Templars from taking you away.

Because they have nothing, and I mean nothing in Fereldan, while Hawke's family, status as a noble, friends or companions, contacts and the man selling the treasure from the Deep Road all is in Kirkwall.,

[ianvillan]

esper wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Why is Hawke still in Kirkwall? Why are any refugees who ever emigrated anywhere still in the place they immigrated to? Oh yeah- their home is destroyed, WHY would they leave again, when they have nowhere to go. You're the one making no sense at all on that point. Asking to be able to choose which sibling you save is like asking to choose to side with the archdemon over Ferelden (c'mon Bioware why don't I have that choice...) it's an argument that doesn't hold water because that's how the story is told. Plain and simple. And because the remaining sibling could be part of your motivation for all of Act 1, gaining status to avoid the templars as best possible. I'll agree that overall what Hawke did didn't change very much- shame that we can't mold the world to the PC's liking.

Why after making a fortune in the deep roads and over a year after the end of the blight is Hawke still in Kirkwall the capital of crazy town which is known as a fanatical Templar stronghold. What justification is there for staying in Kirkwall at all.

I would even say in what right mind would anyone who is a free mage go to Kirkwall in the first place, and it cant be because you have family who are nobles because even having family who are nobles will not stop the Templars from taking you away.

Because they have nothing, and I mean nothing in Fereldan, while Hawke's family, status as a noble, friends or companions, contacts and the man selling the treasure from the Deep Road all is in Kirkwall.,

How would being a noble protect from the templars, why would a mage willingly stay in a place where the fade is thin which makes demon possession more likely, if after making a fortune from the deep roads would you stay in a place where the tensions between the mages and templars is increasing, why would you stay in aplace where mages turn into demons in huge numbers.

You fled to Kirwall with nothing but somehow find it hard to go back somewhere safer after you had made a fortune even more then you had in fereldan to begin with.

Who says you even have to go back to fereldan in the first place, there are hundreds of better and safer places the Hawke family could go after making there fortune.