227 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

DA2 did have an odd obsession with putting combat in every quest. I mean, I think every RPG has too much violence from a story point of view and probably from a gameplay point of view too, but most of them toss a few missions to break it up. But DA2, I really don't think there were any - apart from maybe buying new Picks for the mine? And a few quests that just existed to tell you to go talk to your companions.

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...

DA2 did have an odd obsession with putting combat in every quest. I mean, I think every RPG has too much violence from a story point of view and probably from a gameplay point of view too, but most of them toss a few missions to break it up. But DA2, I really don't think there were any - apart from maybe buying new Picks for the mine? And a few quests that just existed to tell you to go talk to your companions.

It did. DA:O had some rare quests - like Dagna - were you did something other than kill. And the after-the-delay board quests tended to be less heavy on the murder side.

But the end of the day what the Warden did of note was kill lots of things, and all that worked out great in the end. 

[Trolldrool]

While DA2 definitely has its flaws, it remains to me a very entertaining and sometimes (when I haven't played it in a while) addictive game.

- The playing over the course of a decade was an interesting idea. Unfortunately, if Varric hadn't told me 3 years passed between each act, I never would have noticed because absolutely nobody ages a single day in 10 years.

- The combat felt excessive and ridiculous, but in time I learned to tolerate it by just pretending that all the people exploding from dagger strikes or being cut apart by warhammers were a result of Varric's exaggerated storytelling.

The only thing that was really frustrating though was the plot and how linear it was. Of course, so was Origins. Level up. Fight bad guys. Defeat end game boss and read epilogue. What I mean is that throughout DA2, you're made to expect that choosing templars or mages will have a different outcome. Instead we get:

- Mages and templars rebel against Meredith, you kill them all. You're not given a choice in the matter here. No matter how much support you've given to the mages' plight, they assume you're working for her.

- Only when you meet Ser Thrask are you given the chance to explain this, but joke's on you. He's killed by a blood mage because her boyfriend died.

- And no matter who we side with in the end, the end is the same. Orsino goes mad, you kill him and then you kill Meredith and the templars let you go.


It's only as a sequel to Origins that it feels lackluster and it's only when I start comparing it to Orgins that I'm able to quit the game. It is, on its own, that entertaining.

Modifié par Trolldrool, 22 septembre 2013 - 07:35 .

[Angrywolves]

nah.
I think it's more than just in comparison to DAO.
Hawke cannot win no matter what and Gaider is responsible as lead writer for that.

[Iakus]

 The scope of DA2 wasn't so bad.  Smaller more personal stories are perfectly fine.

Where it failed was, I believe, the lack of a sense of personal control.  For all Hawke's so-called rise to power, and for all the choices the player could make, it simply didn't feel like there was much control in his/her life.  Choices didn't resonate.  Kirkwall didn't significanly change in the seven years the game covered.  And in the end, Hawke couldn't even protect his/her own mother.

The game felt constricted, but I don't think it was because the story and setting was limited to one city

[Cainhurst Crow]

I disagree, I found the lack of control in DA2 to be more of a bonus, than a negative. It allowed more genuine situations to come about. How do you deal with tragedy? What happens when things don't work out in your favor? How do you handle interacting with someone in grief who you know you should comfort, but don't know how? Very good elements that I enjoyed in the game.

DA2 didn't do a good job portraying a small setting, in my opinion. Like it was said, things didn't change in kirkwall. Your appearance doesn't change. Neither do your companions or other npc's. Time just doesn't seem to actually pass in ways that would let one know, time has passed. The city feels empty and lacking in depth or detail, and when you have a limited setting, that equates to really bad and really boring settings.

[Bleachrude]

Gwydden wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...
That doesn't have international ramifications, though. The Landsmeet did.

Now that I think of it, the closest thing to the Landsmeet in DA2 was the confontation with the Arishok at the end of Act 2. However, whethere you ended up killing only the Arishok or the entire Qunari garrison wasn't nearly as determined by preparation and dialogue as the Landsmeet outcome was.

This I disagree with...

Unlike the situation with Loghain, you CAN simply talk the Arshiok down...now if you disagree with giving him Isabela, you have a fiht..but it was possible to not ight EITHER the arshiok _OR_ the quanari guarding the compound either a la Cauthrien.

[Gwydden]

Bleachrude wrote...

Gwydden wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...
That doesn't have international ramifications, though. The Landsmeet did.

Now that I think of it, the closest thing to the Landsmeet in DA2 was the confontation with the Arishok at the end of Act 2. However, whethere you ended up killing only the Arishok or the entire Qunari garrison wasn't nearly as determined by preparation and dialogue as the Landsmeet outcome was.

This I disagree with...

Unlike the situation with Loghain, you CAN simply talk the Arshiok down...now if you disagree with giving him Isabela, you have a fiht..but it was possible to not ight EITHER the arshiok _OR_ the quanari guarding the compound either a la Cauthrien.

What I meant was that to talk down the qunari Isabella had to be there and for that you needed a minimun of friendship/rivalry with her, which, in a first playthrough, is rarely dependent on the player's preparation.

[Cainhurst Crow]

MasterScribe wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I disagree, I found the lack of control in DA2 to be more of a bonus, than a negative. It allowed more genuine situations to come about. How do you deal with tragedy? What happens when things don't work out in your favor? How do you handle interacting with someone in grief who you know you should comfort, but don't know how? Very good elements that I enjoyed in the game.

I became desensitized to most of the "tragic" moments in DA2 BECAUSE I couldn't do anything.

There were diminishing returns on the emotional impact with each playthrough.

Now, if I had to choose between two equally bad outcomes (like in DAA or in DAI's pax demo), then I might be more emotionally invested.

As it stands, I don't care about Hawke's plight.

Really? That's honestly interesting to me. Are you like that with real world tradgedies as well? Not trying to pick a fight just asking.

[Cainhurst Crow]

So on the first playthrough all the tragedies repeated themselves? I felt they were pretty different when it came to circumstance. At least in my opinion they were different.

The next playthrough is the next playthrough, none of the choices are going to be as interesting because you know how the majority of the story plays out. That's just a fact of re-playing, re-watching, or re-reading something you've already completed.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 22 septembre 2013 - 08:28 .

[Bleachrude]

I actually think the "single-race" aspect of DA2 was one of the STRONGER aspects of the game.

Thedas is different than the typical D&D world where race and class doesn't matter and I liked the fact that the game subtlely acknowledged this...sure it has its problems - Blood mage Hawke anyone? But it makes more sense than what we have coming up.

(Really, the inquisitor can be any race and this is seen as a good thing? This BLOWS TO HELL any attempt at world building IMO - it was bad enough in DA:O but I think DA2 did a much better job than either DA:O or even DA:I will do)

[Gwydden]

Bleachrude wrote...

I actually think the "single-race" aspect of DA2 was one of the STRONGER aspects of the game.

Thedas is different than the typical D&D world where race and class doesn't matter and I liked the fact that the game subtlely acknowledged this...sure it has its problems - Blood mage Hawke anyone? But it makes more sense than what we have coming up.

(Really, the inquisitor can be any race and this is seen as a good thing? This BLOWS TO HELL any attempt at world building IMO - it was bad enough in DA:O but I think DA2 did a much better job than either DA:O or even DA:I will do)

The single race thing in DA2  was a result of tha lack of time and resources, not an attempt at "world building". Time and resources needed so elves and dwarves actually get slightly different content than humans, among other things.

[Reaverwind]

MasterScribe wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I disagree, I found the lack of control in DA2 to be more of a bonus, than a negative. It allowed more genuine situations to come about. How do you deal with tragedy? What happens when things don't work out in your favor? How do you handle interacting with someone in grief who you know you should comfort, but don't know how? Very good elements that I enjoyed in the game.

I became desensitized to most of the "tragic" moments in DA2 BECAUSE I couldn't do anything.

There were diminishing returns on the emotional impact with each playthrough.

Now, if I had to choose between two equally bad outcomes (like in DAA or in DAI's pax demo), then I might be more emotionally invested.

As it stands, I don't care about Hawke's plight.

Tragedy? I'd call it dark comedy. First, familiy member #1 kicks the bucket, before any kind of rapport can be established. Then, family member #2 buys it. Retrying the Deep Roads segment revealed that this family member is gone, no matter what. I was not surprised when mom was next on the chopping block. I had ceased to care, and it didn't help that the "touching" cutscene was so badly done that I found it humorous.

[Vicious]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I only partly disagree. I do think DA2 did some very interesting things with narrative structure - some of which I'd been asking BioWare to do for some time.

But, I think DA2's overall quality (or lack thereof) had quite a lot to do with how it was received - it wasn't disliked just because it was different.

So, while DA2 did some very interesting and valuable things with its design, that design was not well executed.

If DAI is better received, the lesson I think BioWare should take from that is that each game needs to be given sufficient development time to do it well, regardless of its scope. But I also think BioWare has already learned that lesson.

This 100%. 

[Lord Raijin]

MasterScribe wrote...

I became desensitized to most of the "tragic" moments in DA2 BECAUSE I couldn't do anything.

There were diminishing returns on the emotional impact with each playthrough.

Now, if I had to choose between two equally bad outcomes (like in DAA or in DAI's pax demo), then I might be more emotionally invested.

As it stands, I don't care about Hawke's plight.

I can understand the desensitization of the “tragic” events in DA2 because theirs really no closure. The perfect example is the lack of investigation on whom wrote the mysterious O letter, and was providing materials to the demented blood mage who was practicing the art of necromancy against your  mother. You weren't able to notified the Knight-Captain or take the law into your own hands. It was all “boo hoo my mother is dead and I can't do anything about it” rather than “I'm going to get this piece of <poop> if its the last thing I will do”.

[Iakus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I disagree, I found the lack of control in DA2 to be more of a bonus, than a negative. It allowed more genuine situations to come about. How do you deal with tragedy? What happens when things don't work out in your favor? How do you handle interacting with someone in grief who you know you should comfort, but don't know how? Very good elements that I enjoyed in the game.

Except tragedy kept hitting over and over and OVER again.  It was well on the way to becoming a farce.  How do you deal with tragedy?  By Act 3 it was shrug and say "Must be Tuesday"

There were a couple of good examples of choices:  Taking the sibling into teh Deep Roads (and whether you took Anders with or not) was one.  How you deal with the Arishok (and Isabela) is another.  But Petrice?  The Magistrate?  Anders?  

Hawke had almost no control over his/her life.  Not as a mercenary (which is kinda understandable) not as an Amell scion, and not as Champion.  That's where DA2 went wrong. In the end, I headcanon Hawke's disappearance as he and Merrill running off into the moutnains somewhere to live in a cabin away from civilizatio.  Because dude, you just can't win.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I just feel not having control of ones life is a much more realistic experience than having everything work out for you through the sheer power of being the player character.

At least 9/10 times, I had control of the situations unfolding and resolved them how I wanted, and I was able to deliver immediate and visceral vengeance against those who caused so much grief to befall hawke in his life.

That's a much happier version of the story than how it is in the real world at least. Where it's more like "someone wronged you, you will never get resolution. Now go back and keep paying your bills and taxes till you die."

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 22 septembre 2013 - 11:22 .

[Bleachrude]

Gwydden wrote...


The single race thing in DA2  was a result of tha lack of time and resources, not an attempt at "world building". Time and resources needed so elves and dwarves actually get slightly different content than humans, among other things.

And this is where I disagree....you think that slightly different content is all that's needed but I believe that it fundamentally changes the game world itself and is in effect a bigger kick to the curb with lore than any exaggerated combat animation.

A female elven mage champion who openly practises blood magic means does more damage to the setting IMO than seeing THAT CAVE every time.

[Metalspoon60]

I'm okay with it being a smaller contained story, just not a smaller game. SO if they decide to set it in a city like Kirkwall, the city should be gigantic and fleshed out like Los Santos in GTA,Chicago in Watch Dogs,etc.. The character and companion customization should be multifaceted and heavily featured. The combat improved upon. There should be new game mechanics( Things like parkour or stuff). And if they feel that they MUST limit race choices(Which I see no scenario in which this would be a necessity) , the protagonist should have customizable and playable origins. Finally now that they've implemented keeps, to maintain any type of developer integrity they should replace the system with something if not as large in scope, at least more featured. ( Something like a political,underground crime boss system or something- I have no idea how they'd top keeps but luckily I'm not a developer).

After all of that I'd honestly prefer a game with larger scope storyline with smaller personal storylines ingrained into it, like DA:O and hopefully DA:I

[In Exile]

simfamSP wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Gileadan wrote...
Hawke was a murder machine because the game utterly failed to offer any other quest resolution than wave combat. Hawke couldn't be a diplomat because there was no opportunity to talk. Hawke could not use stealth and finesse because nothing of that was in the game. Hawke's huge kill count is just a side effect of the combat / game mechanics that sent wave after wave of mooks at him/her.

It has nothing to do with the wave combat. Like the Warden, Hawke solved every single quest through murder with the very rare dialogue at the end. 

Paragon of her kind? Widespread murder in Orzammar, including most of the carta, and hundreds of darkspawn in the deep roads.
Broken Circle? Murder abominations, blood mages and, potentially, some circle mages too.
Arl Eamon? Murder a lot of cultists, (potentially) a child, at least one demon, and (potentially) some weird fade guardian. 
Nature of the beast? Murder a lot of werewolves, murder some trees, (potentially) murder the Dalish. 
Landsmeet? Murder Tevinters, murder guardsmen, murder Arl Howe, (potentially) murder your way out of Fort Drakon, (potentailly) murder some elves to become more powerful... 

... and culminate everything with (potentially) murdering Loghain after single combat at the lands meet and killing the archdemon.

Every single thing the Warden does is about killing and death. Sometimes, the Warden can persuade a few people not to fight as an alternative to their death after killing all of their troops without exception. 

It seems to me you're placing the blame on the protagonist. It's hard to be a peace-maker when everything with a dick is out to kill/eat/**** on you.

Apologies for the quote pyramid. I'm responding from my phone. I'm not blaming the protagonist in either game. I'm just saying that as a matter of design Bioware typically has you kill everything. The actual plot triggers - the success for your killing, so to speak - are just scripted events. 

It could easily have been the case that the archdemon in DAO just didn't show up in Denerim like it didn't show up at Ostagar. Suddenly, all of ferelden is done for.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I disagree, I found the lack of control in DA2 to be more of a bonus, than a negative. It allowed more genuine situations to come about. How do you deal with tragedy? What happens when things don't work out in your favor? How do you handle interacting with someone in grief who you know you should comfort, but don't know how? Very good elements that I enjoyed in the game.

I have nothing invested in these people.  Why would I care about them at all?  I didn't even feel close to Hawke, beause I didn't understand him as a person.  Therefore, when he experienced tragedy, I didn't care.  When people close to him died, not only did I not care, but I didn't have any reason to believe that he did, either.

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Really? That's honestly interesting to me. Are you like that with real world tradgedies as well? Not trying to pick a fight just asking.

People I don't know die every day.  I can't imagine getting too upset about it.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 23 septembre 2013 - 02:23 .