310 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

I liked DA2 just as much as I like DAO. I think about them differently and play them in a different way. Although I can understand the (official) reasoning for the name change, it just makes me kind of sad to think that part of the thought process might have been, "Let's just pretend that DA2 never happened."



To the OP who said " 'Inquisition' is just too long to type," you can just use "DAI," as I'm sure most will be doing. I had been using "DA3" until now, but will be switching.

[addiction21]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...


How about using my entire quote to put it into proper context?

Jerrybnsn wrote...
 Just look at your own forum here way back before DA2 was announced.  Find me one post that explains that the Warden would not be imported to DA2, or that there was not going to be an overarching story. 

How about the official website for DA2?

http://dragonage.bioware.com/da2/home/

Show me anything about the warden being a import or anything else.

The discussion is about how stupid could people be thinking that DA2 would have imported characters or an overarching story, when it was said from the very beginning when Origins was in production that each game would be stand alone with an all new protagonist.

This is in relation to the original post commenting on Bioware dropping the "3" from Dragon Age because they did not want people to think that it would be a direct sequel to 1 or 2.  Which, is being suggested as a major reason as to why DA2 wasn't received very well by the Dragon Age fans.

My position is that I would like/want the next Dragon Age game to be a direct sequel to Origins and not do with what they did in DA2 last time.  And yes, when pressed, I would love to have my Warden imported and playable in future dragon age games.  Am I expecting it?  No.  I'm not even expecting Dragon Age to allow race selection again in its future games, but I would love it if they went back to that too.

You asked for a post about the warden being a import. I provided you the official website for the game that makes it clear the PC from the first game would not be imported or playable.

You are wrong, deal with it and get over it. But you have spent enough time to already know all this and your just looking for a reason to complain and I feel sorry for you that you need to continue to delude yourself and put so much effort into being unhappy about a video game.

All anyone needs to do is pull up your profile and they will see you have been far more active and aware about these things then you let on. My advice is if you want to lie then at the least put your profile to private.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I still call it Dragon Age III.

[Ianamus]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Silfren wrote...



No, you're whining about why YOU think DA SHOULD have a single protagonist.  

Saying that I would love to have my Warden imported and playable in future Dragon Age games is "whining"?]

Considering this is about the tenth time I've seen you going on about this while casually browsing through the forum I'm going to say yes. 

[Jerrybnsn]

[quote]EJ107 wrote...

[quote]Jerrybnsn wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...



No, you're whining about why YOU think DA SHOULD have a single protagonist.  [/quote]

Saying that I would love to have my Warden imported and playable in future Dragon Age games is "whining"?[/quote]

Considering this is about the tenth time I've seen you going on about this while casually browsing through the forum I'm going to say yes. [/quote]

My original post had nothing to do with my disappointment that the Warden isn't coming back to DAIII.  It was about my disappointment that DAIII is not going to be a direct sequel to Origins, to which up til I read the article I posted, I was expectiong.  Not that I was surprised my Warden was not going to be the main protagonist for the third game.  I knew that when they announced DAIII last year when they said "no Warden, no Hawke".  Read my OP again if you don't believe me. 

I've only responded to those who accuse me of wanting a future game with my Warden again.  Guilty. 
[/quote]

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 24 juin 2013 - 01:59 .

[FireAndBlood]

[quote]Jerrybnsn wrote...

[quote]EJ107 wrote...

[quote]Jerrybnsn wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...



No, you're whining about why YOU think DA SHOULD have a single protagonist.  [/quote]

Saying that I would love to have my Warden imported and playable in future Dragon Age games is "whining"?[/quote]

Considering this is about the tenth time I've seen you going on about this while casually browsing through the forum I'm going to say yes. [/quote]

My original post had nothing to do with my disappointment that the Warden isn't coming back to DAIII.  It was about my disappointment that DAIII is not going to be a direct sequel to Origins, to which up til I read the article I posted, I was expectiong.  Not that I was surprised my Warden was not going to be the main protagonist for the third game.  I knew that when they announced DAIII last year when they said "no Warden, no Hawke".  Read my OP again if you don't believe me. 

I've only responded to those who accuse me of wanting a future game with my Warden again.  Guilty. 
[/quote]
[/quote]

When you say direct sequel to Origins what do you mean exactly? Do you want a game set in Ferelden, a game where you are a warden fighting against another blight, what does a direct sequel mean to you?

[Jerrybnsn]

FireAndBlood wrote...

When you say direct sequel to Origins what do you mean exactly? Do you want a game set in Ferelden, a game where you are a warden fighting against another blight, what does a direct sequel mean to you?

A game that would continue the story that was laid down from Origins mostly picking up dangling plot threads.  Using more of the older characters that I've built up realtionships from Origins.  Something that would expand on learning and searching for  the nature of the Darkspawn and the Archdemons (there's two left).  What is going on with Flemeth, Morrigan, Sandal and those strange ancient mages?

What I'm afraid of is that DAI will be a spin-off, set in the same universe but with unrelated plots and characters, as to what DA2 was to Origins.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 24 juin 2013 - 03:31 .

[Salaya]

If the reason behind the absence of 3 in the title is that in this way is easily marketable for new players... sigh.

Again trying to please as much people as possible Bioware? Sure, I understand that reaching more people out there is a priority, but trying to reach everyone is surely a mistake.

[Jerrybnsn]

How about quit referring to Dragon Age games as part of a "Saga" as it says right on DA2's box?

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 24 juin 2013 - 03:59 .

[Plaintiff]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

How about quit referring to Dragon Age games as part of a "Saga" as it says right on DA2's box?

How about recognizing that your extremely narrow personal definitions of words aren't always correct?

"Saga" simply means an 'epic work of fiction'. A continuing series of videogames detailing the history of a fictional world more than qualifies.

[Jerrybnsn]

Plaintiff wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

How about quit referring to Dragon Age games as part of a "Saga" as it says right on DA2's box?

How about recognizing that your extremely narrow personal definitions of words aren't always correct?

"Saga" simply means an 'epic work of fiction'. A continuing series of videogames detailing the history of a fictional world more than qualifies.

Simply, saga means story.
And yet it is a big deal to drop "III" but not "Saga"?BA-BAM!

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 24 juin 2013 - 05:08 .

[LPPrince]

For example, TES franchise is a saga.

Elder Scrolls games all take place on Nirn, specifically on Tamriel.

Each game has its own plot, new characters(though the occasional one returns in one way or another), and while is connected to past games through lore and the occasional plot thread, is largely separated.

DA is the same. Only difference is the amount of time that takes place between the settings of the DA games- Elder Scrolls games are faaar apart now, while DA games all take place within 12 or so years.

Just like The Elder Scrolls games tell the stories of the characters on Tamriel, the Dragon Age games tell the stories of the characters on Thedas.

Dragon Age is and has always been closer to Elder Scrolls as far as plot connection between games goes than it is to a Mass Effect, which follows a single character's path towards a single goal.

Elder Scrolls games do have a numbered title system-

TESIII-Morrowind
TESIV-Oblivion
TESV-Skyrim

And people don't bother complaining that they don't get to play the same character over and over again in a single continuing story. Likely because the stories in TES are wrapped up within a single game, while DA has plots left over to be touched on later.

But thats fine. Those plots CAN be dealt with by other characters. And should be, given how much DA has changed over the course of two main titles, soon to be three.

I'd just accept that DA isn't what you want it to be.

[Jerrybnsn]

Plaintiff wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

How about quit referring to Dragon Age games as part of a "Saga" as it says right on DA2's box?

How about recognizing that your extremely narrow personal definitions of words aren't always correct?

"Saga" simply means an 'epic work of fiction'. A continuing series of videogames detailing the history of a fictional world more than qualifies.

Saga is old germanic and norse for 'to speak of' and is used as for the word story.  It can be fiction or it can be actual history.  Did you ever hear of the Icelandic Sagas which are a collection of stories relating to the early history of the Icelandic colonization?.....You call me out saying that I'm using an "extremely narrow personal definition" of the word saga, and yet you say it "simply means an 'epic work of fiction'?

[Plaintiff]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

How about quit referring to Dragon Age games as part of a "Saga" as it says right on DA2's box?

How about recognizing that your extremely narrow personal definitions of words aren't always correct?

"Saga" simply means an 'epic work of fiction'. A continuing series of videogames detailing the history of a fictional world more than qualifies.

Simply, saga means story.
And yet it is a big deal to drop "III" but not "Saga"?BA-BAM!

Did you know that stories are allowed to jump around in time and deal with a series of unconnected events?

Apparently not.

[Airdeen]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

FireAndBlood wrote...

When you say direct sequel to Origins what do you mean exactly? Do you want a game set in Ferelden, a game where you are a warden fighting against another blight, what does a direct sequel mean to you?

A game that would continue the story that was laid down from Origins mostly picking up dangling plot threads.  Using more of the older characters that I've built up realtionships from Origins.  Something that would expand on learning and searching for  the nature of the Darkspawn and the Archdemons (there's two left).  What is going on with Flemeth, Morrigan, Sandal and those strange ancient mages?

What I'm afraid of is that DAI will be a spin-off, set in the same universe but with unrelated plots and characters, as to what DA2 was to Origins.

Those plots are most likely not being abandoned. We did get plenty of hints in Origins about there being trouble brewing between mages and templars with many mages wanting to break free. This was followed up in DA2.

Whatever is going on with Sandal was developed further in DA2 with him going from just enchantments to possibly giving out prophecies and talking about some old lady (who may or may not be Flemeth).

When we meet Flemeth in the beginning, I seem to recall her mentioning her daughter (might be mistaken there).

There are several other smaller plotlines that are expanded upon in DA2. I am pretty certain that we're going to find out more about the Flemeth/Morrigan thing at some point and maybe more about the Darkspawn. Finding out what the Darkspawn really are and how they seem to connect to the older gods might be a big enough thing to be a whole game in of itself.

I wouldn't necessarily expect another Blight though, since that has been done and they don't tend to come about all that often.

So I think you just need to be patient, because I think they'll cover a lot of the things you miss if they get to continue making more DA games

[Plaintiff]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
Saga is old germanic and norse for 'to speak of' and is used as for the word story.

I'm well aware.

It can be fiction or it can be actual history.

This is also not news

Did you ever hear of the Icelandic Sagas which are a collection of stories relating to the early history of the Icelandic colonization?

Yes.

.....You call me out saying that I'm using an "extremely narrow personal definition" of the word saga,

Yes, if you feel the need to disqualify Dragon Age from calling itself a saga, then your definition is very narrow indeed.

and yet you say it "simply means an 'epic work of fiction'?

That is the definition of the term as it is used in modern context. Non-fiction history these days is just called "History".

My definition is very broad, and allows for subjectivity, as opposed to yours, where a videgame series is arbitrarily not allowed to call itself a 'saga' just because you personally dislike its direction.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 24 juin 2013 - 05:23 .

[Airdeen]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

How about quit referring to Dragon Age games as part of a "Saga" as it says right on DA2's box?

How about recognizing that your extremely narrow personal definitions of words aren't always correct?

"Saga" simply means an 'epic work of fiction'. A continuing series of videogames detailing the history of a fictional world more than qualifies.

Saga is old germanic and norse for 'to speak of' and is used as for the word story.  It can be fiction or it can be actual history.  Did you ever hear of the Icelandic Sagas which are a collection of stories relating to the early history of the Icelandic colonization?.....You call me out saying that I'm using an "extremely narrow personal definition" of the word saga, and yet you say it "simply means an 'epic work of fiction'?

In modern (fantasy) literature and for people who haven't had specifically about sagas in school his definition works fine. My fiance is British and he's never had about the Icelandic sagas in school. I have learned about them because they're an important part of my country's history (I'm Norwegian) and many of the King sagas are about the ancient Norwegian kings.

So you can't really expect most people to have heard about the old sagas, and so they use the definition that is most common for them (and the same word can have multiple definitions, definitions also tend to change over time and in different places depending on common usage).

[keightdee]

Plaintiff wrote...
My definition is very broad, and allows for subjectivity, as opposed to yours, where a videgame series is arbitrarily not allowed to call itself a 'saga' just because you personally dislike its direction.

For real.

Jerrybnsn, you're cracking me up. I can just imagine you walking up to George RR Martin and complaining about the direction he's taking ASOIAF and revoking his "saga right". I mean, he'd probably laugh you to death.

Content creators aren't obliged to bend to your whims, even if you feel like they owe you because of your time and money investment. They're just not. That's fiction, man. If you don't like the fiction someone makes available to you, make your own. Go write a 300,000 word piece of fanfiction that takes the story in the direction you want it to go and come back and tell us how easy it was.

Modifié par keightdee, 24 juin 2013 - 05:41 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Hey. I always just looked a saga as another word for story. If you want to say that the Dragon Age series is a bunch of different stories and not one overall arching story, than drop using "in the Dragon Age Saga" and use something similiar to "Dragon Age Sagas", if you feel you must use the word saga.

Maybe that will help avoid fan disappointment because they were thinking that there would be some cohesiveness to the Dragon Age series. Sure, if its important to drop the "III" then do it, but also look hard at how you are marketing it as a "Saga" and what people would expect out of using that word.

And to keightdee up above, isn't George RR. Martin series actually sequels in the literal sense, using the same main characters, revisiting the same areas throughout the series? Something that Bioware is saying they don't want people to think that of the Dragon Age series.

[Jerrybnsn]

Speaking of "Saga", this whole exchange becomes more pertinent as to my belief that the Dragon Age series was going to be a "Saga".

Silfren wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Silfren wrote...

What's so hard about this?  We are exploring the world of Thedas during the hundred-year time period known as the Dragon Age.

But what makes it the age of the dragon?  No over-arching story?

It's called the Dragon Age because the Divine said so.  In the 99th year of each Age, the Divine looks for omens and gives the upcoming Age its name based on what she sees.

There does not have to BE an overarching story.  Clearly a single overarching story is NOT the kind of story that Bioware wants to tell.  There's nothing at all wrong with this, and it is their prerogative.  A better question is why does it upset you so much, especially since you CANNOT claim that Bioware didn't tell us all this right from the beginning.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 24 juin 2013 - 06:42 .

[Sutekh]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

And to keightdee up above, isn't George RR. Martin series actually sequels in the literal sense[/b], using the same main characters, revisiting the same areas throughout the series? Something that Bioware is saying they don't want people to think that of the Dragon Age series.

No. They're a saga in several tomes (not sequels), during which new places are explored, new plotlines are opened and new characters are introduced - including PoV ones - constantly. There is no more continuity between Bran's adventures beyond the wall, Dany's Mereen tribulations and Jamie's journey than there are between the Warden, Hawke and (probably) the Inquisitor. If anything, DA plot is more focused and installments more linked to each others. They both qualify as saga in the modern, most common use of the term.

And there is cohesiveness in the DA series. For instance, the Mage / Templar conflict was rampant in DAO, rising in DA2 and full-fledge in DA:I. The Awakened Darkspawn plotline was there in Awakening, mentioned in Legacy and nothing say it won't be there in DA:I. Orlais political problems were mentioned in DA:O, important in MotA and, again, could be there in DA:I. Just because the main plotline and character weren't the same doesn't mean the plots are totally separated from each others, or that questions raised in DA:O or DA2 won't ever be answered, either in DA:I or later. 

As for an overarching story, it seems to me you're confusing "story" and "plotline". The overarching story is Thedas during the Dragon Age, with events that are linked, and others that aren't, just like real world history. The plotlines are Blight, Kirkwall and whatever DA:I will be.

By your very narrow definition of "saga", works such as Dune, the Arthurian err... Saga, ASoIaF or Star Wars wouldn't qualify, since the main characters and plotlines aren't the same.

[Airdeen]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Hey. I always just looked a saga as another word for story. If you want to say that the Dragon Age series is a bunch of different stories and not one overall arching story, than drop using "in the Dragon Age Saga" and use something similiar to "Dragon Age Sagas", if you feel you must use the word saga.

Maybe that will help avoid fan disappointment because they were thinking that there would be some cohesiveness to the Dragon Age series. Sure, if its important to drop the "III" then do it, but also look hard at how you are marketing it as a "Saga" and what people would expect out of using that word.

And to keightdee up above, isn't George RR. Martin series actually sequels in the literal sense, using the same main characters, revisiting the same areas throughout the series? Something that Bioware is saying they don't want people to think that of the Dragon Age series.

Sagas is the plural form of saga, so it's the same word, with the same meaning, although it would be more correct to use the plural form since each game has its own main story. You would still use the singular word for each game, however. So DA:O would be the Dragon Age saga about the Warden and DA2 is the Dragon Age saga about Hawke. Together they are two Dragon Age sagas.

And the vast majority of people most likely associate saga with some form of epic story (that can be purely fictional or loosely based on historical events).

In epic fantasy works like Martin and other writers you do find different subplots told from the perspective of different people. Some of those subplots tie together with the mainplot and some don't. I think DA might be better compared to the books about the Malazan empire (Malazan Book of the Fallen or something?). In that series you go to different places and have different main characters in each book (some characters do show up across different books I think). There is a macrolevel storyline going on in the background, which is more similar to DA. I might remember some of this wrong, though, it must be 7-8 years since I read any of the Malazan books (I read 3 or 4 of them).

[Twisted Path]

I wish they had kept the name Dragon Age: Exodus for DA2. While I'm at it I also wish they had given Dragon Age: Exodus a longer development cycle so it didn't turn out to be a complete pile of garbage. Lots of bad decisions surrounding that game and I'm glad they at least seem to be trying to rectify them with the next game (which has a better name and a longer development cycle.)

[LinksOcarina]

All I know is I can't wait until the next age comes in.

[bEVEsthda]

[quote]Silfren wrote...

[quote]bEVEsthda wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...

On the contrary, DA2 WAS a sequel to DA:O.  It astounds me that people don't think it was.  <SNIP>  It is the second story put out by Bioware for its Dragon Age franchise.  That alone makes it a sequel.  But to drive the point home further, here:

Per Wikipedia: A sequel (also called a follow-on or follow-up) is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre, or music that continues the story of, or expands upon, some earlier work. In the common context of a narrative work of fiction, a sequel portrays events set in the same fictional universe as an earlier work, usually chronologically following the events of that work.

Given that DA2 actually begins in the earliest stages of the previous story and follows the life of a Blight refugee--all the while referencing events from the previous story--it qualifies well enough.
[/quote]

So, John Boorman's Excalibur is a sequel to Disney's The Sword in the Stone ?[/quote]

No, I'm not wrong.  You can't seriously be using that as your attempt to discredit my point?  Obviously Excalibur is not a sequel to Sword in the Stone.  Those two works occupy two different fictional universes, and I KNOW you're aware of this.  DA2 is set within the same universe as Origins and takes place immediately following the story of Origins, hence it is a sequel.

You personally thinking that the quality of DA2 is radically different from Origins has no bearing on this whatsoever.  Your dislike of DA2 does not stand as evidence that it is not set within the same universe or setting.
[/quote]
[/quote]


- Ah, - but it does stand as evidence that DA2 failed to live up to expectations which people typically have on sequels!

No, I have to say that DA2 sucks horse manure through straw as a "sequel" to DA:O. And I maintain that "sequel" is really stretching it. In the end, leaning on someones semantic efforts to make a definition, weighs less than the underlying form and content. 

If it hadn't been for the "2", I would not have believed Bioware were serious. I would have thought it was a gimmick, a quick, "fun" game for kids who had seen the comics or movie. An interlude while we wait on the real game.
(And hopefully that's exactly what it will amount to, in the end)