310 réponses à ce sujet

[Savber100]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Too bad?

They made it perfectly clear from the onset that the series was never going to be about one person or group.

One of the biggest criticisms of DA2 was that it was a "disjointed" plotline.  The bad part is that the whole series is going to be disjointed.

I think you're missing the point of why people said it was disjointed. 

It wasn't because the lack of being a Warden or darkspawns. It was disjointed because they literally had different stories for each act that ultimately felt unconnected and pointless. 

[Thrillian]

Silfren wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

I just find this part funny:

“There wasn’t anything that strategic about it, to be blunt. We just wanted to draw more attention to the fact that Inquisition is an all-new chapter inside of the Dragon Age universe, as opposed to people expecting a follow-on to Dragon Age 1 and 2 in a literal, linear sense.”

Followed by:

“We’re going to have PS3 and Xbox 360 and PC versions of Dragon Age III, so there will be a very broad-based experience there, but the new platforms are giving us the opportunity to tell stories in much larger worlds with more features and more things.

Even just within the confines of this interview/article the guy speaking about how dropping the "3" from the game title ends up calling the game by the number. So is it Dragon Age 3 or not?

The bigger annoyance is that I just wish they'd make up their mind and stick to it. The non numbered naming convention Origins started was fine. I don't know why they didn't add a number and subtitle and go from there.

It's Dragon Age: Inquisition.  No need to latch on to what is clearly nothing more than a slip of the tongue.

But if we don't dissect and misinterpret every single word spoken by every single person even remotely associated with Bioware, how on earth will we whine and moan and cry "Liars!" when our own interpretation of said words are not reflected exactly by the game?

[Jerrybnsn]

Savber100 wrote...
I think you're missing the point of why people said it (DA2) was disjointed. 

It wasn't because the lack of being a Warden or darkspawns. It was disjointed because they literally had different stories for each act that ultimately felt unconnected and pointless. 

I'm not arguing about that, yet I don't see any continuity from Origins to DA2.   And DA2 by itself is pointless.  IMO, there was no significance in making that game, or importance in telling that story.  You have Flemeth's brief appearance and that's it.  An Alistair connection to Origins while he's just passing through saying "Riiiiiggght."?   I and others didn't even get the Nathaniel Howe cameo for the Awakening connection because of a glitch.  So far, we've had only two games in a series and together as a series they are disjointed.  That's why I was hoping, expecting that DA3 would go back into the context of what Origins was all about in storyline. Don't go away from it, as the article I posted suggestes that is what they want to do.  Have some meaning in our decision that we are supposedly to be importing over.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 22 juin 2013 - 09:35 .

[thebigbad1013]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Savber100 wrote...
I think you're missing the point of why people said it (DA2) was disjointed. 

It wasn't because the lack of being a Warden or darkspawns. It was disjointed because they literally had different stories for each act that ultimately felt unconnected and pointless. 

I'm not arguing about that, yet I don't see any continuity from Origins to DA2.   And DA2 by itself is pointless.  IMO, there was no significance in making that game, or importance in telling that story.  You have Flemeth's brief appearance and that's it.  An Alistair connection to Origins while he's just passing through saying "Riiiiiggght."?   I and others didn't even get the Nathaniel Howe cameo for the Awakening connection because of a glitch.  So far, we've had only two games in a series and together as a series they are disjointed.  That's why I was hoping, expecting that DA3 would go back into the context of what Origins was all about in storyline. Don't go away from it, as the article I posted suggestes that is what they want to do.  Have some meaning in our decision that we are supposedly to be importing over.

I'm sorry but if you think that nothing of significance happened in DA2 then you need to play it again and this time...pay attention.

[Jerrybnsn]

bigbad1013 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Savber100 wrote...
I think you're missing the point of why people said it (DA2) was disjointed. 

It was disjointed because they literally had different stories for each act that ultimately felt unconnected and pointless. 

I'm not arguing about that, yet I don't see any continuity from Origins to DA2.   And DA2 by itself is pointless.  IMO, there was no significance in making that game, or importance in telling that story. 

I'm sorry but if you think that nothing of significance happened in DA2 then you need to play it again and this time...pay attention.

The Grey Warden Anders ignites the Mage-Templar War in Kirkwall.   Everything else was pointless. We didn't need a whole game for that.  

[AllThatJazz]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

bigbad1013 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Savber100 wrote...
I think you're missing the point of why people said it (DA2) was disjointed. 

It was disjointed because they literally had different stories for each act that ultimately felt unconnected and pointless. 

I'm not arguing about that, yet I don't see any continuity from Origins to DA2.   And DA2 by itself is pointless.  IMO, there was no significance in making that game, or importance in telling that story. 

I'm sorry but if you think that nothing of significance happened in DA2 then you need to play it again and this time...pay attention.

The Grey Warden Anders ignites the Mage-Templar War in Kirkwall.   Everything else was pointless. We didn't need a whole game for that.  

If you're going to reduce games to their most basic element, then the same can be said of Origins. Grey Warden Alistair and his friends defeat the Archdemon and end the fifth Blight. Pretty much the same story as every other blight. Did that really deserve a game of its own?

[Nightdragon8]

AllThatJazz wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

bigbad1013 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Savber100 wrote...
I think you're missing the point of why people said it (DA2) was disjointed. 

It was disjointed because they literally had different stories for each act that ultimately felt unconnected and pointless. 

I'm not arguing about that, yet I don't see any continuity from Origins to DA2.   And DA2 by itself is pointless.  IMO, there was no significance in making that game, or importance in telling that story. 

I'm sorry but if you think that nothing of significance happened in DA2 then you need to play it again and this time...pay attention.

The Grey Warden Anders ignites the Mage-Templar War in Kirkwall.   Everything else was pointless. We didn't need a whole game for that.  

If you're going to reduce games to their most basic element, then the same can be said of Origins. Grey Warden Alistair and his friends defeat the Archdemon and end the fifth Blight. Pretty much the same story as every other blight. Did that really deserve a game of its own?

.... i think we need to cool down here....

DA2 was a story... don't like stories, then fine. Think of it this way. its the prologe to DA:I and what they really where doing was waiting till they had th technology to present the story they want to present.

Its like the Orgin story behind the war, and the goings on in DA:I

[Jerrybnsn]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

Savber100 wrote...
I think you're missing the point of why people said it (DA2) was disjointed. 

It was disjointed because they literally had different stories for each act that ultimately felt unconnected and pointless. 

.... i think we need to cool down here....

DA2 was a story... don't like stories, then fine. Think of it this way. its the prologe to DA:I and what they really where doing was waiting till they had th technology to present the story they want to present.

Its like the Orgin story behind the war, and the goings on in DA:I

It's not that i don't like stories,  I don't like disjointed stories with ambigous plotlines. It was already stated that DA2 was a disjointed game " because it had different stories for eeach act that felt unconnected and pointless".  And that "something happened" that is important (i.e., carries forward into the series) is the start of the Mage/Templar war.  That is the only thing that carries forward. Everything else isn't important as far as choice goes.  

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 22 juin 2013 - 01:24 .

[Airdeen]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

*snip*

It's not that i don't like stories,  I don't like disjointed stories with ambigous plotlines. It was already stated that DA2 was a disjointed game " because it had different stories for eeach act that felt unconnected and pointless".  And that "something happened" that is important (i.e., carries forward into the series) is the start of the Mage/Templar war.  That is the only thing that carries forward. Everything else isn't important as far as choice goes.  

There's a good reason to keep the important bits of each game as small/few as possible, and that is practicality. The more important choices the player gets to make that carries into the next game, the more complicated it becomes to create the different paths of the storyline in future games. The end result of this can easily become difficult to manage for the developer and cause more problems.

Although, personally I think it would be totally awesome if some seemingly insignificant choice we made in one of the old games suddenly turned out to be very significant in a later game.

[Jerrybnsn]

Liskat wrote...

The more important choices the player gets to make that carries into the next game, the more complicated it becomes to create the different paths of the storyline in future games. The end result of this can easily become difficult to manage for the developer and cause more problems.

The technology is right there before us.  Tony Stark was able to make Dragon Age: Origins in a cave with a box of scrap!  Don't tell me it can't be done.

[Brockololly]

Silfren wrote...

It's Dragon Age: Inquisition.  No need to latch on to what is clearly nothing more than a slip of the tongue.

But its still amusing that Frank Gibeau can't even keep the name straight after just telling the interviewer why they were specifically not using the number "3" in the title.


It just seems like they're grossly over thinking this stuff or that its being focus tested to death with no single strong voice guiding this process.. And the end result is that outwardly it looks like a mess.

Just look at the Elder Scrolls series. Technically, Skyrim is titled: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. But most people just call it Skyrim. And the Elder Scrolls games have little connection from one to the next as well. Yet, apparently Inquisition will have more connections to past DA games than your typical Elder Scrolls games, what with all old, familiar characters showing up in the trailer.

So why they wouldn't just call the game Dragon Age III: Inquisition is beyond me.

[Jerrybnsn]

Brockololly wrote...

Silfren wrote...

It's Dragon Age: Inquisition.  No need to latch on to what is clearly nothing more than a slip of the tongue.

But its still amusing that Frank Gibeau can't even keep the name straight after just telling the interviewer why they were specifically not using the number "3" in the title.

To be fair, we have been calling it and writing DA3 for a couple of years now.  It'll take some practice.  I didn't find out that it is referred to as DAI until yesterday.   I really thought that DAI was Origins new monkier, ya know, you have DA2 and then DA3, so everyone just started calling it DAI.

So why they wouldn't just call the game Dragon Age III: Inquisition is beyond me.

Which is the whole part of my post about my concern that they make an effort to exclude the III in order for us not to expect a direct sequel from either 1 or 2.  But, I've been counting on DA3 to be the sequel to Origins that we (obviously a figurative thinking since I'm the only one who thinks this as pointed out so politely on this post) have been waiting for.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 22 juin 2013 - 02:10 .

[Airdeen]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Liskat wrote...

The more important choices the player gets to make that carries into the next game, the more complicated it becomes to create the different paths of the storyline in future games. The end result of this can easily become difficult to manage for the developer and cause more problems.

The technology is right there before us.  Tony Stark was able to make Dragon Age: Origins in a cave with a box of scrap!  Don't tell me it can't be done.

I didn't say it couldn't be done, of course it can be done. But if they do, it is time consuming and there are other things they won't be able to do which could be equally important (if not more).

Also, by letting our choices be more important they tie up what they can do with the different parts, giving them less freedom with the assets they have.

I toyed with the idea of making a dating sim a while ago since I really enjoy playing Magical Diary, and with some time and help it doesn't look all that difficult. Then I thought about how the different alternatives you can make decide who you can romance of the different characters in different playthroughs. I stopped toying with the idea right there. And that was for making one tiny game for the fun of it, never mind making a sequel!

I know it's a huge step to go from a tiny little dating sim to a huge professional game like DA, but it did help me understand why they'd choose to go the easier route.

[Jerrybnsn]

Liskat wrote...

I didn't say it couldn't be done, of course it can be done. But if they do, it is time consuming and there are other things they won't be able to do which could be equally important (if not more).

Like mutiplayer?

Also, by letting our choices be more important they tie up what they can do with the different parts, giving them less freedom with the assets they have.

Isn't that why they sold themselves to EA, so that they could have more assets to make grander games?  However, since they've been part of EA their games have become smaller in vision and content.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 22 juin 2013 - 02:26 .

[Airdeen]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Like mutiplayer?

For instance, or it could mean the rest of the story is less fleshed out, which could all in all make a poorer and unimaginative story.

Also, by letting our choices be more important they tie up what they can do with the different parts, giving them less freedom with the assets they have.

  Isn't that why Bioware sold itself to EA? In order to have more assets to make grander games?  How come since they've been apart of EA their games have been reduced in scope and context such as from Origins to DA2?  Of from ME1 and 2 to ME3?

I probably chose my words poorly there. By assets I meant here the smaller parts of the story, as well as various characters, places, etc. The character Leliana is an asset in this sense.

They made a mistake in DA:O by making it possible to kill her since they later decided to bring her back in DA2 regardless of that choice. For all we know they had a very good reason to bring her back instead of having another character fill her boots (the Maker talking to her, maybe). Letting us choose to actually kill her in DA:O made the later storyline more complicated than it needed to be since people now want to know how she could possibly have survived. Maybe it will make perfect sense later, but it would be easier if they'd just limited it to knocking her unconscious or something.

[Jerrybnsn]

addiction21 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...


They (the fans) want the DA series to get back to the first not away from it. 

The same people making the same threads crying about the same things on a internet forum in no way makes "the majority"

Its not as nearly as black and white as you want to make it out but then that is the effect confirmation bias has.

P.S.
Stop invoking "the majority" to lend weight to your arguments. Speak for yourself.

here's a poll that was taken within a couple of months after DA2's release, and  70% of those wanted the return of their Warden.   That's a majority.

[Huntress]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...


They (the fans) want the DA series to get back to the first not away from it. 

The same people making the same threads crying about the same things on a internet forum in no way makes "the majority"

Its not as nearly as black and white as you want to make it out but then that is the effect confirmation bias has.

P.S.
Stop invoking "the majority" to lend weight to your arguments. Speak for yourself.

here's a poll that was taken within a couple of months after DA2's release, and  70% of those wanted the return of their Warden.   That's a majority.

Thas the mayority?
Hmmm but

^Bioware ( MEU side) refer to something similar as" the vocal minority"..

Oh and DA has become "The adventures of Humans in Thedas" if is was about the world then we could have been able to play other races.

Modifié par Huntress, 22 juin 2013 - 03:26 .

[In Exile]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
here's a poll that was taken within a couple of months after DA2's release, and  70% of those wanted the return of their Warden.   That's a majority.

It's 60 people. 

[Jerrybnsn]

Huntress wrote...

addiction21 wrote...


P.S.
Stop invoking "the majority" to lend weight to your arguments. Speak for yourself.

Thas the mayority?
Hmmm but

^Bioware ( MEU side) refer to something similar as" the vocal minority"..

Oh and DA has become "The adventures of Humans in Thedas" if is was about the world then we could have been able to play other races.

Thank you for pointing out the "vocal minority" argument that is used so consistently here.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 22 juin 2013 - 03:58 .

[Herr Uhl]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Thank you for pointing out the "vocal minority" argument this is used so consistently here.

It was a poll used by 120 people.

[Jerrybnsn]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Thank you for pointing out the "vocal minority" argument this is used so consistently here.

It was a poll used by 120 people.

Alright, here's another one from a differet fan site where there are 352 people voting and 80% wanted the return of the Warden.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 22 juin 2013 - 03:53 .

[thebigbad1013]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Thank you for pointing out the "vocal minority" argument this is used so consistently here.

It was a poll used by 120 people.

Alright, here's another one from a differet fan site where there are 352 people voting and 80% wanted the return of the Warden.

Are you still on about the Warden? Didn't you say earlier in the thread that this wasn't about the Warden? I'm starting to think that you don't even know yourself what it is you actually want.

Also, those polls really don't "prove your point" as well as you seem to think they do.

[Jerrybnsn]

bigbad1013 wrote...


Are you still on about the Warden? Didn't you say earlier in the thread that this wasn't about the Warden? I'm starting to think that you don't even know yourself what it is you actually want.

 
I didn't get a chance to answer the above question yesterday.  So I took the time today.

I still say this post is concerning the "direction" of DAI and not about the name or the return of the Warden, but if pressed I'll gladly point out that more fans would prefer DA3 to be the return of their Warden, because it is the truth, and anything less is disappointing.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 22 juin 2013 - 04:09 .