203 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowLordXII]

And how is the EC ending objectively bad?

 

Face facts here, you just do not like it.

 

You really insist? Fine, I'm going to compare and contrast the endings of Origins and ME3 in comparison to everything that came before to show exactly why ME3's ending was objectively bad and your insistence that Origins is bad is just plain wrong.

 

We'll start with Origins and it's twist. After spending the entire game building up your army and resolving a Civil War, it's finally time for the final confrontation with the darkspawn when the archdemon finally shows itself. Before you go to confront it, a senior warden pulls you and your fellow warden companion (Alistair or Loghain) aside to tell them and the player a twist. The twist being that destroying the Archdemon will require the sacrifice of a Grey Warden who will then suffer a fate worst than death (the game explicitly states that their soul is destroyed when the Archdemon's essence enters the Warden that kills them) This brought an extra dilemna to the situation because now the Warden may have to sacrifice their life or the life of a friend (Alistair or Loghain).

 

This is a dramatic twist because we're told in the beginning of the game that killing the Archdemon is the only way to stop the advance of the otherwise endless horde of darkspawn. But if that's it then why are wardens needed other than to act as a glorified scout? This twist answers the aforementioned question and adds further insight into the necessary costs that a Grey Warden must take to stop the Blight (The Central Conflict of the game.) It's also the fundamental reason why Grey Wardens take the taint into themselves to fight darkspawn and so that they can permanently kill an Archdemon.

 

Then right after this information is known, Morrigan reveals a method with which this fate can be avoided, but it also means giving her access to a power that she may use for ill-intentions. This is apparently also why Morrigan tagged along from the start, but why? What will she do with the Old god baby that you give her? She doesn't say anything definite which makes this option seem more iffy. How viable the Dark Ritual is depends on how much the player trusts Morrigan. Some players may trust Morrigan or may simply not want to die or they can decide to bite the bullet and sacrifice their Warden or a trusted friend to save Ferelden. Either option is viable because they build from things that were set up ahead of time by the writers.

 

ME3's plot was decent and most people liked 95% of it even if it wasn't perfect. But then everything sucked as soon as Harbinger's beam didn't evaporate Shepard like it should and this was finalized with the appearance of the Star-Child. A walking plot hole who undoes and rewrites the entire genre, central conflict and main themes of the entire trilogy in less within 15 minutes. It also introduces two major plotholes that can't be explained without writer fiat or unproven assumptions on the part of the player:

 

1) If the Star-Child built the Citadel, lives on the Citadel and is apart of the Citadel then why couldn't it open the Hidden Mass Relay itself after the Protheans sabotaged the connection between the reapers and the Keepers? ME1 explicitly stated that the scientists disrupted the reapers control of the keepers so that they'd only respond to the Citadel. So how exactly does that leave the Star-Child out of the equation? Wouldn't it still be able to control the keepers? If you try to say that the sabotage also effected the Star-Child then that's nonsense. As I'll elaborate in my next point, the protheans couldn't have possibly sabotaged something that they didn't know existed.

 

2) So many thousands of species worked through billions of years to build a device that would effect something that they didn't know existed? Star-Child flat-out states that Shepard is the first organic to meet him since the cycles began which means that no one else ever found him. Which means that whoever first designed the Crucible had to have known about this Star-Child or else the entire central plot of ME3, trying to build the Crucible as a last-ditch chance to save the galaxy, is on thin water.

 

That's why people did not like ME3's ending. Not because we're immature brats who want nothing, but sugar-coated happy endings. But because the ending was a mess in too many ways for the EC to ever hope to fix. The EC did a decent job fixing what it could fix, but this ending required a ground-up rewrite to be fixed, not a polishing job on surface problems.

 

Even the "non-clique" DA2 had a better ending because at least it's events had been built up and established beforehand. That includes the dumb lyrium idol which did play a large role in a few quests before it's appearance in Meredith's hands (groan).

 

As I said in an earlier post, classic or clique doesn't automatically mean bad. Origins was a classic story with elements of dark fantasy and realism mixed in to make for an interesting experience. It knew what it was and did it very well. DAII is more of a byronic tale where the realism elements are heavier and more central to the story. It had flawed execution, but if these were ironed out then DAII would've been just as great as Origins rather than just being passably good.

 

The same can't be said of ME3's ending. It tried to take the concepts of deus ex and clumsily cram them into the end of a 3-game series where they just didn't belong.

 

Whether more classic or more "realistic" as long as Inquisition doesn't make ME3's mistake again then I'm open-minded to whatever tone that it wants to take as long as it does it well.

[wcholcombe]

In my experience the best stories tend to be cliched and formulaic so bring it on.

 

Sure the out of the box stuff can be fun for just the surprise value, but it really isn't enjoyable once you know how it goes.

[Gwydden]

In my experience the best stories tend to be cliched and formulaic so bring it on.

 

Sure the out of the box stuff can be fun for just the surprise value, but it really isn't enjoyable once you know how it goes.

"Cliche" is just a derogatory term for archetype. There's nothing new under the sun, and if most stories follow a number of tried out schemes, is because they work.

 

To anyone who thinks a story can really be original, I recommend taking a walk around TVTropes.

[Master Warder Z_]

There was nothing new under the sun when the Latins came up with the phrase

[HTTP 404]

everything has been done in stories.  I am looking forward to the execution of the story.  I loved the overall story of DA:O and a lot of the side quest stories in DA2.  I hope all of it is good in DA:I.  Either way, I am ready for an adventure.

[Yggdrasil]

The observation that there is nothing new under the sun comes from the Book of Ecclesiastes and was written over 3,000 years ago.  You can boil down any plot into tropes, but that doesn't make everything a cliché.

 

Also, some people need to learn the definition of "objective" vs. "subjective."  It doesn't matter how many people you think agree with you or how egregiously bad you find something to be...it's still only your opinion, not some kind truth handed down from on high.  I found aspects of DA2 disappointing but loved it overall.  I loved ME3 from start to finish.  I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for disliking something, so please don't do me the discourtesy of telling me that I'm wrong for enjoying something.

[ObserverStatus]

Because by the looks of it, it looks like both. It looks like another rally everyone to stop a great evil threat plot which Bioware has already done in the past. It really does look like Mass Effect 3 in Thedas, which ME3 in turn was a mix between DAO (but better told and woven than DAO) and ME1 (however trilogies often times go full circle, with the third being like the first). Just replace Reapers with Demons, replace Shepard with the Inquisition, and replace the various races of the ME3 universe with various factions of Thedas. Oh and it looks like picking up people to join the Inquisition just like picking up war assets in ME3. Why not just call it ME3 in Thedas?

 

>implying that not all art is derivative

[cjones91]

The observation that there is nothing new under the sun comes from the Book of Ecclesiastes and was written over 3,000 years ago.  You can boil down any plot into tropes, but that doesn't make everything a cliché.

 

Also, some people need to learn the definition of "objective" vs. "subjective."  It doesn't matter how many people you think agree with you or how egregiously bad you find something to be...it's still only your opinion, not some kind truth handed down from on high.  I found aspects of DA2 disappointing but loved it overall.  I loved ME3 from start to finish.  I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for disliking something, so please don't do me the discourtesy of telling me that I'm wrong for enjoying something.

There is such a thing as opinions being right.For example if someone said the sky was blue or that water is wet then objectively their opinions are correct.

 

Nobody is telling you you're wrong for liking ME3 and it's endings,but that does'nt mean the endings pre EC are good either.

[Gwydden]

There is such a thing as opinions being right.

When that is the case, we call them facts. Which opinions are not, by definition.

[cjones91]

When that is the case, we call them facts. Which opinions are not, by definition.

Opinion and fact are intertwined.You can't have facts without someone forming a opinion about them.

[Hydwn]

I actually disagree heavily on your argument here, although to be fair I am also somewhat confused as I thought you were earlier arguing for the necessity of the monomyth in these kind of stories, so I might not be completely understanding your point correctly. Also, I am already in advance sorry if I come across as too combatitive in my arguments. Not my intention, it's more due to my style of raising counter-arguments.

 

First of all, I don't think that Dragon Age Origins any kind of reconstruction. The racial histories in the game were tweaked, some more than others, and there were elements of the history that had great new takes on things, but the story itself was as classical hero's journey as it gets. And there is nothing wrong with that, it was what it was and was told from that perspective, but it didn't call in to question any of those story elements or, to use your terms, deconstruct them, instead it just went ahead with that setup. Arguing it to be a great example of reconstruction is thus really misleading to me, and again, this is not to bash the game itself or claim one shouldn't like it.

 

Second, I am somewhat baffled by your argument concerning DA2. In it, Bioware managed to create on awesome antagonist in the Arishok and one antagonist with great deal potential in Meredith by framing themselves as the heroes of their own stories. What exactly is the reconstruction you are arguing for in these cases? That Arishok was actually a fraud and didn't really believe in the Qun, but rather used as a passage way to power? That Meredith actually desired the power of the mages so that she could be as powerful as them instead of desiring to protect people from that power? Those changes would have fitted the reconstruction theme, but it also would have robbed those figures and the story of almost all the impact and drive just to give the player a simply evil character to battle.

 

Third, the argument that people are getting tired of deconstruction always puzzles me. If I were to now walk to the local book store and randomly grab a fantasy book, it would pretty certainly be about the Hero's journey, which would be your Monomyth. Most descriptions of fantasy television shows are somehow about the Hero's journey. Despite the increase in deconstructing the Hero's Journey in games, still majority of games out there are the very simple Hero's journey, with some tweaking it by having it possibly be the Villain's journey instead, but even that is just the Hero's journey with evil choices. I would fault no one wanting to feel like a hero at the end of the story and they should continue to advocate for games they enjoy, but somehow the argument that deconstructing is everywhere and has become so tired opposed to the Hero's journey, which apparently is somehow completely unavailable to anyone, just makes me scratch my head in puzzlement.

 

I was actually arguing for the monomyth and the reconstruction.  When you reconstruct a trope you wind up with...that trope.  If you've done the reconstruction well, you've rebuilt the trope in a smarter way that's more in tune with the times.  You've taken something stale, and breathed fresh air.

 

Contrast that with deconstruction, which takes apart the trope.  For a long time, it was fashionable to stop at that stage, to leave it shattered.  This is what Modernists called "burning down the house of art" and what Post-Modernists think of as deconstruction (used slightly differently outside of academia).  Reconstruction says "Yes, the criticisms are valid, but we can still have the old story with a few changes."

 

Deconstruction in its Modern and Post-Modern forms is about a century old.  It produced a lot of unreadable "great works of fiction" (Finnegan's Wake), unwatchable movies (Un Chien d'Andalou), and terrible experimental music.  The key was that originality was itself good, and originality was characterized as a rejection of tropes.  

As the concept of Post-Modern deconstruction moved into the mainstream and 1980s and 1990s, it became increasingly dark and cynical (The Watchmen is a deconstruction of superhero comics) or moved into blandly recursive parody.  It also became increasingly "cool" to experience all art ironically, and uncool to take genuine pleasure in anything sincere (this would be hipsterism).  Naturally, the heros' journey was right out of picture, in spite of the occasional big-budget Hollywood attempt to capitalize on special effects.

 

You are right that the fantasy genre has resisted it more than any other, because most fantasy authors and creators understand that their audience is looking for the monomyth.  That's what "fantasy" is a code for in our culture, not that everything conforms to it.  But it's become a refuge for the monomyth which has been largely driven out of the other genres.

 

Lately, though, sincerity is coming back.  Tropes are coming back.  Sophisticated people are quietly giving themselves permission to enjoy them un-ironically, and writers are bringing them back in new, reconstructed forms.

 

Dragon Age did that it in its own small niche with video games.  You get a troupe of heroes, right out of the fairy tales, but psychologically real:

 

• The pure-hearted knight in shining armour - he's goofy, raised in a monastery, naive, and plays with toys, because he's a psychologically real pure-hearted knight.  In the end, he'll still slay the dragon, and die for either the world or his lady love, so he's still the trope.
• The holy fool or Joan of Arc - except she may be lying to herself, or insane.  And she's not so innocent, or pure, having been a spy and assassin.  But she'll still hold true to her vision, and it still comes true in the end.
• The evil witch - except she's not evil because she consorts with demons and satan, but because she's selfish and petty, and believes merchants should cheat the poor and desperate, and uses people toward her own ends.  In the end she'll betray you if she can't use you.  She can also play the role of an older trope - the pagan goddess who lies with the hero to produce a god.  Even this is ambiguous.
• The wise old women.  Except she's too perfect to be human.  She might not even be human anymore.  She might be a mouthpiece for an embodied idea.  Her advice is usually still sound, though, and it will get you through.
• The miles gloriosus.  Your drunken fool of a boastful warrior.  Except his drunkenness is to the point of dangerous alcoholism, and if you get close to him you'll hear all his self-doubts.  He will still bring the comic relief.
• The wise, observing foreigner.  Except his views and morals are so foreign as to be inexplicable - they're bizarre and alien.  He will still make you think, though, and question your own views.
• The faithful hound - except he'll mark his territory like a real-life animal

And all of them will come and slay a dragon with you.  A very modern dragon that doesn't represent Satan, but rather spreads war and environmental devastation wherever it goes.  A dragon that really represents evil (as moderns interpret it) and must be slayed.  The hero that will probably do the slaying wasn't picked by a god, but was most likely recruited at the scene of a crime to save them from the noose.  He or she will still play the part of the traditional hero.

 

So yeah, pure reconstruction all around.  Interestingly, the game gives you the option of stepping back to deconstruction by making Alistair and Leliana cynical, or killing Wynne and Leliana.  They give you the option of deconstructing the reconstruction, which is fascinating.

 

As for DA2, it wasn't a reconstruction.  That was kind of my point.  It was a well-done deconstruction, and your point about the Arishok and Meredith were kind of things I said in that post, in my clumsy way.  They believe they're heroes of the story, but DA2's deconstructed world isn't about heroes

[txgoldrush]

You really insist? Fine, I'm going to compare and contrast the endings of Origins and ME3 in comparison to everything that came before to show exactly why ME3's ending was objectively bad and your insistence that Origins is bad is just plain wrong.

 

We'll start with Origins and it's twist. After spending the entire game building up your army and resolving a Civil War, it's finally time for the final confrontation with the darkspawn when the archdemon finally shows itself. Before you go to confront it, a senior warden pulls you and your fellow warden companion (Alistair or Loghain) aside to tell them and the player a twist. The twist being that destroying the Archdemon will require the sacrifice of a Grey Warden who will then suffer a fate worst than death (the game explicitly states that their soul is destroyed when the Archdemon's essence enters the Warden that kills them) This brought an extra dilemna to the situation because now the Warden may have to sacrifice their life or the life of a friend (Alistair or Loghain).

 

This is a dramatic twist because we're told in the beginning of the game that killing the Archdemon is the only way to stop the advance of the otherwise endless horde of darkspawn. But if that's it then why are wardens needed other than to act as a glorified scout? This twist answers the aforementioned question and adds further insight into the necessary costs that a Grey Warden must take to stop the Blight (The Central Conflict of the game.) It's also the fundamental reason why Grey Wardens take the taint into themselves to fight darkspawn and so that they can permanently kill an Archdemon.

 

Then right after this information is known, Morrigan reveals a method with which this fate can be avoided, but it also means giving her access to a power that she may use for ill-intentions. This is apparently also why Morrigan tagged along from the start, but why? What will she do with the Old god baby that you give her? She doesn't say anything definite which makes this option seem more iffy. How viable the Dark Ritual is depends on how much the player trusts Morrigan. Some players may trust Morrigan or may simply not want to die or they can decide to bite the bullet and sacrifice their Warden or a trusted friend to save Ferelden. Either option is viable because they build from things that were set up ahead of time by the writers.

 

ME3's plot was decent and most people liked 95% of it even if it wasn't perfect. But then everything sucked as soon as Harbinger's beam didn't evaporate Shepard like it should and this was finalized with the appearance of the Star-Child. A walking plot hole who undoes and rewrites the entire genre, central conflict and main themes of the entire trilogy in less within 15 minutes. It also introduces two major plotholes that can't be explained without writer fiat or unproven assumptions on the part of the player:

 

1) If the Star-Child built the Citadel, lives on the Citadel and is apart of the Citadel then why couldn't it open the Hidden Mass Relay itself after the Protheans sabotaged the connection between the reapers and the Keepers? ME1 explicitly stated that the scientists disrupted the reapers control of the keepers so that they'd only respond to the Citadel. So how exactly does that leave the Star-Child out of the equation? Wouldn't it still be able to control the keepers? If you try to say that the sabotage also effected the Star-Child then that's nonsense. As I'll elaborate in my next point, the protheans couldn't have possibly sabotaged something that they didn't know existed.

 

2) So many thousands of species worked through billions of years to build a device that would effect something that they didn't know existed? Star-Child flat-out states that Shepard is the first organic to meet him since the cycles began which means that no one else ever found him. Which means that whoever first designed the Crucible had to have known about this Star-Child or else the entire central plot of ME3, trying to build the Crucible as a last-ditch chance to save the galaxy, is on thin water.

 

That's why people did not like ME3's ending. Not because we're immature brats who want nothing, but sugar-coated happy endings. But because the ending was a mess in too many ways for the EC to ever hope to fix. The EC did a decent job fixing what it could fix, but this ending required a ground-up rewrite to be fixed, not a polishing job on surface problems.

 

Even the "non-clique" DA2 had a better ending because at least it's events had been built up and established beforehand. That includes the dumb lyrium idol which did play a large role in a few quests before it's appearance in Meredith's hands (groan).

 

As I said in an earlier post, classic or clique doesn't automatically mean bad. Origins was a classic story with elements of dark fantasy and realism mixed in to make for an interesting experience. It knew what it was and did it very well. DAII is more of a byronic tale where the realism elements are heavier and more central to the story. It had flawed execution, but if these were ironed out then DAII would've been just as great as Origins rather than just being passably good.

 

The same can't be said of ME3's ending. It tried to take the concepts of deus ex and clumsily cram them into the end of a 3-game series where they just didn't belong.

 

Whether more classic or more "realistic" as long as Inquisition doesn't make ME3's mistake again then I'm open-minded to whatever tone that it wants to take as long as it does it well.

Once again, you are wrong in many areas. Lets see.

 

If you want to talk about deus ex machina, than look no further than Morrigan's Dark Ritual, which right after this revelation, conveniently helps solve the problem of anyone dying at the end. There is no foreshadowing. It comes out conveniently after learning about the dark revelation.

 

However, that's not what I am criticizing DAO for. I am criticizing it because it lacks focus. It doesn't tie its plotlines together well, and it does not tie together thematically well at all. I am talking about the four major mid game quests, only tying together with a plot coupon. This is in contrast with ME3 where the side stories, such as the Genophage Cure or the Geth/Quarian battle, went hand in hand with fighting the Reapers, as well as the biggest thematic conflict of all which I will say in a bit. Nevermind I have more criticisms against DAO. One big one is outside Alistair and Loghain (and because of DEM above, Morrigan), none of the characters matter in the story. They are just there and they are used mostly as talking codex entries. Contrast this with ME3, in which characters actually play a role in the plot and they actually grow from not only character interaction, but plot events. cannot say the same for DAO outside of Alistair.

 

Now lets talk about ME3.

 

"But then everything sucked as soon as Harbinger's beam didn't evaporate Shepard like it should and this was finalized with the appearance of the Star-Child. A walking plot hole who undoes and rewrites the entire genre, central conflict and main themes of the entire trilogy in less within 15 minutes. It also introduces two major plotholes that can't be explained without writer fiat or unproven assumptions on the part of the player:"

 

Absolutely utterly wrong. First let me tell you the main theme of the entire trilogy. the theme is how people control the destiny of others for various reasons, how this creates conflict and have dire consequences, but in the end, how its unavoidable and part of nature (which leads to Shepard's final choice). This not only addresses the two major sub plots, but many of the characters backstories, as well as the Reaper conflict itself. So what is the conflict with the Reapers? Is it solely about organics vs synthetics? Or is the conflict really about the Catalyst's methods, which involves the gross violation of the free will of sentient spacefaring life? Its the latter, because Shepard does not even argue or even care about his motives. all Shepard cares about is his methods. The problem with your criticism is that you are too narrowly focused, the central conflict is in fact, ends up being much more broad than Shepard and the Reapers. The conflict between those who control the destiny of others and those whose destinies are being controlled is actually the true central conflict of the series. The Reapers fit alongside this, especially after their backstory is revealed.

 

1) Here is where your argument gets derailed. You are using Vigil as hard lore. You cannot do this, as characters can be wrong and they are allowed to be contradicted. Second, ME1 never explained HOW the Protheans sabotaged the Keepers, only that they did. So there is not a provable plot hole here, only speculation. This is actually a fault in ME1, not ME3. Plot holes have to be proven contradictions. They cannot be speculated. Also take into account that the geth were supposed to replace the Keepers if the Reapers won.

 

2) How can you be so sure that the people who build the Crucible the first time knows that the Citadel has an AI? In fact, evidence more supports the fact that the organics did NOT know of the AI in the Citadel. Why? Because Vendetta clearly thought that the Citadel itself was the Catalyst, and that its the Catalyst for being a giant dark energy amplifier. Therefore while you speculate a plot hole in that the races did know of an AI, I can easily speculate and have a much more realistic speculation in that the organics discovered the Citadel as the amplifier for dark energy and its transport and they incorporated the weapon to use this. Vendetta was WRONG, which leads me to 1) above. Characters can be contradicted and they can be wrong. They do not have to be 100% accurate when it comes to lore. Vendetta clearly thought that the Citadel itself was the Catalyst, he does not know of the AI. And while he does speculate a master, he does not know what it is.

 

When you call out something for being a plot hole, you have to have hard proof. You cannot just assume one.

[ShadowLordXII]

Once again, you are wrong in many areas. Lets see.

 

If you want to talk about deus ex machina, than look no further than Morrigan's Dark Ritual, which right after this revelation, conveniently helps solve the problem of anyone dying at the end. There is no foreshadowing. It comes out conveniently after learning about the dark revelation.

 

However, that's not what I am criticizing DAO for. I am criticizing it because it lacks focus. It doesn't tie its plotlines together well, and it does not tie together thematically well at all. I am talking about the four major mid game quests, only tying together with a plot coupon. This is in contrast with ME3 where the side stories, such as the Genophage Cure or the Geth/Quarian battle, went hand in hand with fighting the Reapers, as well as the biggest thematic conflict of all which I will say in a bit. Nevermind I have more criticisms against DAO. One big one is outside Alistair and Loghain (and because of DEM above, Morrigan), none of the characters matter in the story. They are just there and they are used mostly as talking codex entries. Contrast this with ME3, in which characters actually play a role in the plot and they actually grow from not only character interaction, but plot events. cannot say the same for DAO outside of Alistair.

 

Now lets talk about ME3.

 

"But then everything sucked as soon as Harbinger's beam didn't evaporate Shepard like it should and this was finalized with the appearance of the Star-Child. A walking plot hole who undoes and rewrites the entire genre, central conflict and main themes of the entire trilogy in less within 15 minutes. It also introduces two major plotholes that can't be explained without writer fiat or unproven assumptions on the part of the player:"

 

Absolutely utterly wrong. First let me tell you the main theme of the entire trilogy. the theme is how people control the destiny of others for various reasons, how this creates conflict and have dire consequences, but in the end, how its unavoidable and part of nature (which leads to Shepard's final choice). This not only addresses the two major sub plots, but many of the characters backstories, as well as the Reaper conflict itself. So what is the conflict with the Reapers? Is it solely about organics vs synthetics? Or is the conflict really about the Catalyst's methods, which involves the gross violation of the free will of sentient spacefaring life? Its the latter, because Shepard does not even argue or even care about his motives. all Shepard cares about is his methods. The problem with your criticism is that you are too narrowly focused, the central conflict is in fact, ends up being much more broad than Shepard and the Reapers. The conflict between those who control the destiny of others and those whose destinies are being controlled is actually the true central conflict of the series. The Reapers fit alongside this, especially after their backstory is revealed.

 

1) Here is where your argument gets derailed. You are using Vigil as hard lore. You cannot do this, as characters can be wrong and they are allowed to be contradicted. Second, ME1 never explained HOW the Protheans sabotaged the Keepers, only that they did. So there is not a provable plot hole here, only speculation. This is actually a fault in ME1, not ME3. Plot holes have to be proven contradictions. They cannot be speculated.

 

2) How can you be so sure that the people who build the Crucible the first time knows that the Citadel has an AI? In fact, evidence more supports the fact that the organics did NOT know of the AI in the Citadel. Why? Because Vendetta clearly thought that the Citadel itself was the Catalyst, and that its the Catalyst for being a giant dark energy amplifier. Therefore while you speculate a plot hole in that the races did know of an AI, I can easily speculate and have a much more realistic speculation in that the organics discovered the Citadel as the amplifier for dark energy and its transport and they incorporated the weapon to use this. Vendetta was WRONG, which leads me to 1) above. Characters can be contradicted and they can be wrong. They do not have to be 100% accurate when it comes to lore. Vendetta clearly thought that the Citadel itself was the Catalyst, he does not know of the AI. And while he does speculate a master, he does not know what it is.

 

When you call out something for being a plot hole, you have to have hard proof. You cannot just assume one.

 

For the sake of not derailing the forum, I'm about to PM you.

[txgoldrush]

"Cliche" is just a derogatory term for archetype. There's nothing new under the sun, and if most stories follow a number of tried out schemes, is because they work.

 

To anyone who thinks a story can really be original, I recommend taking a walk around TVTropes.

However, Bioware is guilty of recycling the same tropes over and over for their games, and even recycling formulas, character archetypes and plots.

 

Its not about being original, the problem with Bioware is that they recycle a lot from their past works. That's where my criticism is. Hence why should I not call DAI, ME3 in Thedas?

[Killdren88]

Everything is a cliche at this point. It's all in how you tell the story that catches your eye.

[Willowhugger]

I agree with the OP. I to enjoyed the fresh take of DA2 and how it was more of a personal game that told the story of a person, his family and his friends. No he was not some almighty Warden who saved the lands from a blight. He was not some figure who saved the galaxy from a sure doom. No he was just a special person who was in the middle of some important events. This is also why I ejoyed KOTOR 2 over the original. The Exile wasnt a huge figure like Revan. No she was just a Jedi who had a special connection to the force. Her story was about the true nature of the force and the role it plays in the galaxy. It was more of a philisophical story than a heroic story.

However that was not enough. Fans wanted to feel big and godlike. They wanted to be like the Warden and Shepard, not Hawke and the Exile. So now that is what Bioware is doing with DAI. Making you the sole figure who is going to save the world from destruction.

It is actuall US, the consumers to blame for Hollywood and the videogame industry for not taking risk and trying to create a new formula or a way of telling stories.

Sad...

 

I was quite capable of liking both.

[Ieldra]

I agree with the OP. I to enjoyed the fresh take of DA2 and how it was more of a personal game that told the story of a person, his family and his friends. No he was not some almighty Warden who saved the lands from a blight. He was not some figure who saved the galaxy from a sure doom. No he was just a special person who was in the middle of some important events. This is also why I ejoyed KOTOR 2 over the original. The Exile wasnt a huge figure like Revan. No she was just a Jedi who had a special connection to the force. Her story was about the true nature of the force and the role it plays in the galaxy. It was more of a philisophical story than a heroic story.

However that was not enough. Fans wanted to feel big and godlike. They wanted to be like the Warden and Shepard, not Hawke and the Exile. So now that is what Bioware is doing with DAI. Making you the sole figure who is going to save the world from destruction.

It is actuall US, the consumers to blame for Hollywood and the videogame industry for not taking risk and trying to create a new formula or a way of telling stories.

I didn't play KotOR2, but from what I've heard what people complained about most was the unfinished story rather than the fact the protagonist wasn't special enough. And as for DA2, the most common complaints are about gameplay aspects rather than story. In fact, Act I and II are mostly regarded as good story-wise, and the fact that Hawke brought the lyrium idol which triggered the disaster in Act 3, thus working as a catalyst for the city's downfall, is rarely criticized, rather than the turn to nonsensical extremism in the presentation the mage/templar conflict in Act 3, which came across as "being articifially antagonistic because the outcome we want demands it".

As I see, many people are prepared to be pulled out of their comfort zones by a story if the story does it well, but fail to follow if it's not convincing enough or doesn't appear to make sense. Sure, some people complain about every centimeter, but those are a minority.

I think in general there are two problems:

(1) The question of which clichés are needed for the story to be accepted by the public and the fans, and where there is leeway to do something interesting.
(2) The question of which choices to give the players. DAO gave players a choice about which cliché to enact - the heroic sacrifice or a classic happy ending (among a few less easily categorizable options), and that's largely why it worked in spite of having clichés heavily disliked by some.

In general, it's problematic a story in a video-rpg to force certain themes on the protagonist's person. The writers can be creative in anything else, but players should be free to avoid association with certain tropes they don't like.

[Tamyn]

There was nothing new under the sun when the Latins came up with the phrase

 

 

Hebrews, actually.

 

 ^" What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun."

 

    

[txgoldrush]

 

Its not the formulaic games that change the genre, its the ones that break norms and tell types of stories rarely told. Ultima IV for instance never had a villain, it all about the player obtaining enlightenment and becoming the Avatar. And the RPG genre was influenced so greatly by this game that morality in RPGs became the norm, nevermind had the first realized party characters.

 

And speaking of Ultima, come on Bioware...EA has the rights to this franchise......do a reboot.

[Halldori]

And speaking of Ultima, come on Bioware...EA has the rights to this franchise......do a reboot.

 Wow how I would love to see a remade Ultima 6 and 7 in the DA:I engine

[Joseph Warrick]

Very. But if the story is narrated well, it will be fun to play through regardless.

[Iakus]

There's nothing wrong with old stories, any more than there is with new stories.

 

What's important is how well it's told.

[Iakus]

 

Hebrews, actually.

 

 ^" What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun."

 

    

 

Dang, and here I thought it was the Cylons

[HellaciousHutch]

I'm not sure what you expect from BioWare at this point, because, to be honest, they've been doing the same formula for their games since Baldur's Gate. There's nothing wrong with that mind you, because it works for them (seemingly), and they, in my opinion, should simply refine their formula and make it better and more polished (so they can try to avoid...responses similar to what they got for Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2, as well as STAR WARS: The Old Republic).

 

The formula BioWare uses for their games (i.e. the character personality types, the story structure and progression), what you call cliched and formulaic (the formulaic part being true), is what made BioWare the company that they are today (or, if you're one of those people who hold that opinion, what they were before the release of Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2). And, lets be honest here for one a second, almost ALL game companys follow a formula when designing and developing their games anyway, not just BioWare.

[TK514]

This is a BioWare game.  You'll be able to play bingo with the plot points.