203 réponses à ce sujet

[TheodoricFriede]

 

That was very well put.

[Aulis Vaara]

But that doesn't change the fact that the game isn't written by the guy who actually created the world, it's fanfiction, fantastic fanfiction but fanfiction all the same.

So? What does that matter? Everything is based on something, if nothing else then at least reality. Nevertheless Dragon Age was clearly inspired by among other things The Wheel Of Time, but that doesn't make it any less impressive. The Witcher may be based on the books, but last I checked books aren't interactive or choice based, so they must've had plenty to do.

[ShadowLordXII]

I enjoyed every Bioware game I played, but I think I don't really play them for the story. It's more the way the story is executed that makes Bioware game so entertaining. The likeable characters make me care for the normally very stereotypical save-the-world story. 

 

The exception is DA2 which has a story I really liked. For me it's not a typical escapism fantasy, where you play a hero and save the day, it's an example how political extremism and dichotomic world views can spirale out of controle and cause a lot of drama. The characters (Arishok, Meredith, Anders etc.) become more and more extreme in their opinions to the point of becoming caricatures. But that is realistic. Thinks like that happen in reality and they end badly.

Hawke is just as potent as the warden, but their enemies are very different. The warden can slay the demons and the world is safe.

Hawk's enemies are part of society and can't simply be killed. At first they all try to coexist, but it becomes clear that this won't be a possibility forever, because no group is able to accept  different ways of living. When society falls apart Hawke is free to fight the Arishok or Meredith openly, but at this point the damage is already done.

DA2 reminds me of many real world conflicts and I think it's one of the most mature games ever. It's not about violence or sex, but about the way the people behave in a situation like this. DA2 dares to make the player feel powerless and confronts him/her with tiring, political questions.

 

I don't think every story should be like DA2, but it was something new and it was nice to be challenged a little. 

If I had to compare DA:O and DA2 to films I would say DA:O is Lord of the rings and DA2 is Lord of the flies.

 

We will see how DA:I plays out. 

 

Well put, I did like this aspect of DA2.

 

The problem is that why Hawke was "powerless" really just came down to "the plot says so." Which made several scenes that should've been dramatic just seem contrived, forced and un-engaging.

 

1) Did Hawke really stand there and do nothing while Carver/Bethany was bashed around like a ragdoll by that ogre in the prologue? Add in that we never really knew that character dying and this scene just comes across as a forced attempt at drama.

 

2) How come Carver/Bethany gets sick from the taint in the Deep Roads yet no one else ever does despite bathing in darkspawn blood after cutting them into pieces? (Anders makes senses as he's a warden, but what about everyone else?)

 

3) Hawke can fight a whole platoon of templars to save a group of runaway mages, but does nothing while Bethany is taken by less than half a dozen templars?

 

4) Instead of telling someone in her clan what she's doing, Marathari walks up to the sealed the demon and lets it possess her rather than trust Merrill and her demon slaying friend/lover and company to take care of it? Even though said company has killed many demons by this point in time?

 

5) After everything that he's conquered and beaten (dragons, demons, magisters, templars, abominations, mages, and etc), Hawke should not feel intimidated into picking sides between Crazy Meredith and crazy Orsino.

 

6) The red lyrium idol was a cop-out.

 

7) If both sides in Kirkwall are so insane and dangerous then why should I care about who wins? If one doesn't care about a situation then the player/audience won't be as invested as a story wants them to be. (oppressive templars vs blood mages, hurray!)

 

8) Anders' plan and it's outcome made no sense. (His bomb was small enough to hide on his person, but strong enough to destroy the Chantry and cause massive damage to the surrounding area...how?)

 

Solve the above issues and other core problems and DAII would've been a successful take on the "realism" angle of fantasy story telling. I admire it for trying, but the execution was so flawed that some of it's intended output is lost in a sea of disappointment and confusion. Confronting players with a sense of powerless needs to be crafted well so that the experience is good enough to make for the loss of what players are usually accustomed to.

 

Also, a little more autonomy could've helped edge in the "Realism" tone a little more instead of just forcing the "drama" down our throats.

[TTTX]

Well put, I did like this aspect of DA2.

 

The problem is that why Hawke was "powerless" really just came down to "the plot says so." Which made several scenes that should've been dramatic just seem contrived, forced and un-engaging.

 

1) Did Hawke really stand there and do nothing while Carver/Bethany was bashed around like a ragdoll by that ogre in the prologue? Add in that we never really knew that character dying and this scene just comes across as a forced attempt at drama.

 

2) How come Carver/Bethany gets sick from the taint in the Deep Roads yet no one else ever does despite bathing in darkspawn blood after cutting them into pieces? (Anders makes senses as he's a warden, but what about everyone else?)

 

3) Hawke can fight a whole platoon of templars to save a group of runaway mages, but does nothing while Bethany is taken by less than half a dozen templars?

 

4) Instead of telling someone in her clan what she's doing, Marathari walks up to the sealed the demon and lets it possess her rather than trust Merrill and her demon slaying friend/lover and company to take care of it? Even though said company has killed many demons by this point in time?

 

5) After everything that he's conquered and beaten (dragons, demons, magisters, templars, abominations, mages, and etc), Hawke should not feel intimidated into picking sides between Crazy Meredith and crazy Orsino.

 

6) The red lyrium idol was a cop-out.

 

7) If both sides in Kirkwall are so insane and dangerous then why should I care about who wins? If one doesn't care about a situation then the player/audience won't be as invested as a story wants them to be. (oppressive templars vs blood mages, hurray!)

 

8) Anders' plan and it's outcome made no sense. (His bomb was small enough to hide on his person, but strong enough to destroy the Chantry and cause massive damage to the surrounding area...how?)

 

Solve the above issues and other core problems and DAII would've been a successful take on the "realism" angle of fantasy story telling. I admire it for trying, but the execution was so flawed that some of it's intended output is lost in a sea of disappointment and confusion. Confronting players with a sense of powerless needs to be crafted well so that the experience is good enough to make for the loss of what players are usually accustomed to.

 

Also, a little more autonomy could've helped edge in the "Realism" tone a little more instead of just forcing the "drama" down our throats.

You forgot that Hawke could also have saved Thrask, but didn't.

[txgoldrush]

If darkspawn were present in every subquest of the main story, it would be illogical and inconsistent. If all your potential allies had already to deal with the Blight, then you wouldn't need to recruit them, would you? In fact, the Blight was shown to gradually spread (darkening of the map and stronger darkspawn ambushes after each subplot of the main story is completed). The only way to make this more explicit would be by introducing time-dependent quests, which Lothering kinda was.

 

You misunderstand me. By deus ex machina I meant the introduction of the Crucible device. Hey, we have these incomplete plans for something that might fight the Reapers. We don't know what it does or how to build it, but let's pool together all our resources for it.... Seriously?! Not to mention that, given the fact that it survived through numerous cycles (and we know that Reapers are the main things that survive cycles), I expected almost until the end for it to be some kind of Reaper trap. Aside from being full of inconsitencies, the main story failed at its primary task - deconstructing the Lovecraftian race of monsters, because that is what you need to do in order to defeat an enemy which you cannot overwhelm by simple brute force (you need to find and exploit its weak points). That, or use a deus ex machina...

 

My contention is that the whole main story was a failure of writing, not just the ending, which was just the top of the iceberg. And no, the EC did not fix it. The EC and Leviathan (paid DLC!) were tacked on additions, trying to make sense of inherently incongruous storyline.

 

You are right, I do not like the ending. I do not like the whole ME3 story, either. Or the fact that my Shepard did not feel like my Shepard at all (thanks, auto-dialogue). I believe that is because there was a failure of writing.

 

Anyways, we could go on about this for days on end, and I don't think either of us will change their minds.

 

 

So, to get back on topic - whether DAI story is cliche or exceptional depends on the execution. And I like what Bioware accomplishes when they execute cliched stories. Most of the time... But so far, this particular instance looks promising.

 

Wrong. You could have had your potential allies already fighting the Blight, but have something that keeps them from being allies with you that you have to resolve. Well, ME3 did just this. Your potential allies were already fighting the Reapers and Cerberus. Do not make up excuses for DAO's lack of focus. Simply put, the writers were unable to tie the story together. The middle of the game felt like mandatory side quests, not a main quest. DA2 actually did a better job at tying the side story threads together.

 

And the Crucible is far from a deus ex machina device. You are not getting what that term means.

 

1) The entire Mass Effect universe is a Prothean McGuffin world....which means its logical and nowhere near out of nowhere, to find an artifact that helps defeat the Reapers. Nevermind the cyclical nature of the Mass Effect universe.

 

2) And the Crucible is a "McGuffin", not a "deus ex machina". Yes, people at first do not know what it does. But why is that? Lets take a look. On Mars, Shepard and Liara do not get all the data. Cerberus snagged a key component on finding Vendetta and the Catalyst, denying Shepard the use of that info. That's why Cerberus ambushes Shepard on Thessia. So this leads the Alliance to try to build it on blind faith while Shepard has to find how to use it.

 

3) It was softly foreshadowed. What do I mean by this? It may have not been directly foreshadowed, but at the end of Lair of the Shadow Broker, Liara says that from the Broker's resources there was Prothean data that was not used and that she will commit herself to find a way to defeat the Reapers. In ME3, she has accomplished this. Therefore the Crucible cannot be deus ex machina. Liara was already searching for something like it.

 

And no, the Lovecraftian monsters were deconstructed, nevermind the fact that there own technology was used against them in defeating them. EDI brings up this thought late in the game.

 

It looks like you failed to pay attention to the storyline, which leads to misinformed criticism.

[txgoldrush]

You're right it wasn't a deus ex machina. It was a diabolus ex machina.

Wrong.

 

There is foreshadowing in places that make the term inaccurate for the ending. Javik even foreshadows this in his goodbye speech.

[TTTX]

Wrong.

 

There is foreshadowing in places that make the term inaccurate for the ending. Javik even foreshadows this in his goodbye speech.

no offence but most of that foreshadowing happens in Paid DLC and not the main game.

[txgoldrush]

no offence but most of that foreshadowing happens in Paid DLC and not the main game.

Only the example I have mentioned. There are many others throughout the game that's not part of paid DLC.

 

One HUGE example is on Thessia, Vendetta says the Reapers are servants of the pattern, but not its master. Shepard then asks "Who is the master?". Its foreshadowed. And Reaper motive was foreshadowed on Rannoch by the dying Reaper.

[TTTX]

Only the example I have mentioned. There are many others throughout the game that's not part of paid DLC.

 

One HUGE example is on Thessia, Vendetta says the Reapers are servants of the pattern, but not its master. Shepard then asks "Who is the master?". Its foreshadowed. And Reaper motive was foreshadowed on Rannoch by the dying Reaper.

Yeah in ME3 but before that there was no foreshadowing what so ever expect for the Shadow Broker DLC, but that's only about the Crucible.

[txgoldrush]

Yeah in ME3 but before that there was no foreshadowing what so ever expect for the Shadow Broker DLC, but that's only about the Crucible.

And here you move the goalposts.

 

Does it matter when it was foreshadowed? What rule states that the ending has to be foreshadowed in the first two works of the trilogy?

 

The fact of the matter is that people what to claim things like "out of nowhere", "deus ex machina". "diabolus ex machina", and "contrived" when simply put, evidence shows that this isn't the case. I have the impression that people did not even pay attention to the little details in ME3, those little details to disprove their criticisms. I am led to believe that maybe perhaps, ME3's ending and its themes were too advanced for most of the community here (and maybe even for Bioware who failed to get it right the first time). How does this happen? Because Bioware routinely has put out clichéd power fantasy stories and the community got too used to them, so when Bioware makes a change, it confused the community.

[Beerfish]

For threads like this I personally need the person to tell me a non cliche scenario for a game such as this before I can judge the validity of their argument.  Just like the fact that most songs and music have been done before in some fashion most game scenarios have been as well.  The differences and hopefully highlights in games are the journey to the big bad ending.

[cjones91]

Ugh....why are you bringing in ME3 and those endings OP?I spent the better half of last year forgetting about that train wreck.

 

There's plenty of that stuff in ME3's forum,don't pollute this one with more ending garbage.

[txgoldrush]

Ugh....why are you bringing in ME3 and those endings OP?I spent the better half of last year forgetting about that train wreck.

 

There's plenty of that stuff in ME3's forum,don't pollute this one with more ending garbage.

But the ending is part of my point, get over it.

[Beerfish]

And here you move the goalposts.

 

Does it matter when it was foreshadowed? What rule states that the ending has to be foreshadowed in the first two works of the trilogy?

 

The fact of the matter is that people what to claim things like "out of nowhere", "deus ex machina". "diabolus ex machina", and "contrived" when simply put, evidence shows that this isn't the case. I have the impression that people did not even pay attention to the little details in ME3, those little details to disprove their criticisms. I am led to believe that maybe perhaps, ME3's ending and its themes were too advanced for most of the community here (and maybe even for Bioware who failed to get it right the first time). How does this happen? Because Bioware routinely has put out clichéd power fantasy stories and the community got too used to them, so when Bioware makes a change, it confused the community.

No the ending was not too advanced it was just poor for a number of reasons.  And in the end it is not your job as a game maker to make something so unique that no one gets it.  It's your job to entertain and evoke some emotion good or bad.

[AresKeith]

But the ending is part of my point, get over it.

 

The real problem is that it has nothing to do with Dragon Age Inquisition 

[cjones91]

But the ending is part of my point, get over it.

 

 

You're comparing the objectively bad ending from another series to the type of story telling that DA uses.What point are you trying to prove exactly?

[txgoldrush]

The real problem is that it has nothing to do with Dragon Age Inquisition 

But it does....because it seems DAI is a reaction to DA2 and even ME3.

[TTTX]

And here you move the goalposts.

 

Does it matter when it was foreshadowed? What rule states that the ending has to be foreshadowed in the first two works of the trilogy?

 

The fact of the matter is that people what to claim things like "out of nowhere", "deus ex machina". "diabolus ex machina", and "contrived" when simply put, evidence shows that this isn't the case. I have the impression that people did not even pay attention to the little details in ME3, those little details to disprove their criticisms. I am led to believe that maybe perhaps, ME3's ending and its themes were too advanced for most of the community here (and maybe even for Bioware who failed to get it right the first time). How does this happen? Because Bioware routinely has put out clichéd power fantasy stories and the community got too used to them, so when Bioware makes a change, it confused the community.

Let's end the discussion, here since if off topic

[txgoldrush]

You're comparing the objectively bad ending from another series to the type of story telling that DA uses.What point are you trying to prove exactly?

And how is the EC ending objectively bad?

 

Face facts here, you just do not like it.

[AresKeith]

But it does....because it seems DAI is a reaction to DA2 and even ME3.

 

If you mean story-wise, it isn't

[cjones91]

And how is the EC ending objectively bad?

 

Face facts here, you just do not like it.

Lol,who said anything about the EC endings?

 

And you're right,I didn't like the original endings....because they were pure garbage.

 

But again take it to the ME3 forum since this has nothing to do with Dragon Age.

[TTTX]

But it does....because it seems DAI is a reaction to DA2 and even ME3.

DA2 and ME3 have one thing in common poor execution in the story and some lore areas.

[Beerfish]

But it does....because it seems DAI is a reaction to DA2 and even ME3.

Impossible to tell until we play the game then a judgement of that type can be made.  I'd say for sure parts of DAI are in reaction to DA2.  As for ME the big criticism was the ending.  A very big distinction between these game is that one was a trilogy about one specific character and the other is an ongoing story with a different series of protagonist.  With the Dragon Age style you just have to semi wrap up one characters story arc, with ME3 you were wrapping up a long term beloved characters story arc.  Different things need to be considered.

[Beerfish]

And how is the EC ending objectively bad?

 

Face facts here, you just do not like it.

Well to be honest if you are talking facts they are on the other posters side as the uproar over the ending was pretty universal.  It was not just some hiccup from jade or non loyal BioWare fans.  A lot of the most loyal fans did not like it.