DA 2 was dark? I had never such an impression.
If something is dark, then Witcher with all it's wicked people, cruelty and mass slaughtering.
I agree. DA 2 never came off as dark for me either. Too much goofy stuff in the gameplay, and whatnot. It broke up the flow of the "darkness".
The Witcher is pretty darn dark, I agree.
What is that, exactly?(Addressing bolded) Seriously, you have no idea how pissed off I got at the ending for WC/Redeemer. I felt it was handled very, very poorly. IMO Bioware did fail at that ending.
I agree. DA 2 never came off as dark for me either. Too much goofy stuff in the gameplay, and whatnot. It broke up the flow of the "darkness".
The Witcher is pretty darn dark, I agree.
Really? I dont see much "dark" in any of them. I'd personally put them both in the "gritty" category. I dont see much dark in those stories. But again, my thoughts on dark(just like probably everyone) are different from yours or others.
What is that, exactly?
Warden Commander/Redeemer is when Alistair or Loghain take the blow instead of the Warden PC. Warden PC gets a funeral with a closure and his origin boon is recognized.
Alistair and Loghain get a throwaway line that makes their sacrifice go unnoticed.
Wynne will say "The poor boy" if Alistair dies. And Anora asks how her father died if Loghain does the deed.
Otherwise all other dialogue is exactly the same as the Dark Ritual ending where no one dies. In this instance character death got handled very poorly.
I'm fine with characters dying. I'm fine with the main character dying. I'm not fine with characters dying in dumb, inexplicable, pointless ways. Death (of major characters) in story driven games should never be arbitrary or frivolous, it should make sense; just killing characters off because "drama" is weak. Killing characters where it makes sense and adds something to the story is perfectly reasonable, however. It would be completely implausible for a group of characters to make it through a brutal war unscathed, so some casualties along the way are to be expected.
Agree on this. Such deaths are more suited for comedy:
Death also doesn't have to mean death of a main character. It can also mean the death of someone that character cares about. Which can often be more effective.
Very much this. The death of
This is true as well, which is why who dies can be even more important than how many. My point was with respect to DAI however, it would be difficult to imagine a scenario where many in the Inquisition (important or not) would not be at risk as they are putting their lives on the line to save Thedas. If you want to survive the Breach, joining the Inquisition is certainly not the way to do it. Loss is inevitable and should be expected.
For myself, if I'm focusing strictly on the emotional heft of the tragedy, the "who dies" will always be more important than "how many". On the far end of the spectrum, it's like the difference between the destruction of Alderaan and the deaths of Luke Skywalker's surrogate family. These two people had an immensely greater impact on the story than the deaths of billions of people, simply because those two people drove the main character forward, while the latter showed us that the Big Bad is really as bad as people say.
I expect inevitable losses, but I find the number to be irrelevant. Adding more gives a sense of scale, but it doesn't tug at my heartstrings any harder.
You never once had an impression solely because Kirkwall was formerly called the "City of Chains" for a reason? Not to mention the Gallows, the death of Carver/Bethany, the death of Leandra, the destruction of the Chantry, the mass slaughter and subjugation by the Qunari, the blood magic, the various moral dilemmas and sinister plots that were weaved throughout the game. DA2 was extremely dark and certainly being "dark" and "bloody" have always been synonymous with Dragon Age.
I wouldn't necessarily call The Witcher dark as it's more of a harsh, imperfect, and uncensored depiction of real world problems and social issues injected into an experience.
I'd have to disagree with you there. The only thing I felt was really dark in that game was the Leandra incident. The Carver\Bethany death happened so early I had no investment in either of them.
The blood magic bit was just a blurr of repeating events, I felt. By late chapter two I was just fed up with blood magic. The darkness in it had more or less turned to annoyance.
Having almost everyone you kill in combat in that game explode in a burst of blood, negated the blood in cutscenes and such too, I think. I dunno. It just worked a lot better in the first game. They overdid it in DA2, and it wasn't executed well.
Really? I dont see much "dark" in any of them. I'd personally put them both in the "gritty" category. I dont see much dark in those stories. But again, my thoughts on dark(just like probably everyone) are different from yours or others.
Grimdark 
Joe Abercrombie'ish.
Grimdark
I guess. I mean, I dont put any special value in "dark" or "gritty", they are just categories to me. Just for me I have to feel dread or some form of uncomfortableness to consider something dark. I never really felt that in those games. Closest thing for me was Leandra and her patchwork death(but I think most of that was because of other books and movies I've read and watched that reminded me way to much of certain events). But ya, I dont give games points simply for being dark, so I guess I dont care really how people categorize these things, I'm just surprised people felt uneasy or uncomfortable with those games, in just about any part in the game.
You never once had an impression solely because Kirkwall was formerly called the "City of Chains" for a reason? Not to mention the Gallows, the death of Carver/Bethany, the death of Leandra, the destruction of the Chantry, the mass slaughter and subjugation by the Qunari, the blood magic, the various moral dilemmas and sinister plots that were weaved throughout the game. DA2 was extremely dark and certainly being "dark" and "bloody" have always been synonymous with Dragon Age.
In my opinion, in DA 2 it's set in scene so bad, that you don't care. Duncan's last moments and death in Origins, when he recognizes Loghain's betrayal, is touching. In DA 2 even worse things, like Leandra's death doesn't draw more than a shrug.
Eh, I would prefer not to have it like Mass Effect 2. I found it far too easy. It was fun, but it wasn't challenging. The choices were pretty simple. Heck, not sending someone to escort the rescued crew only came off as a jerk move because it had no effect on the team's performance in the least.
I wouldn't mind a mutually exclusive death or something like that. Something that might make the player stop and stare at their screen for 15 minutes cursing to themselves.
I'd like a mass effect 2 style approach
I suspect that is what we are getting. Combined with an "inquisition readiness" kind of thing as a factor.
Warden Commander/Redeemer is when Alistair or Loghain take the blow instead of the Warden PC. Warden PC gets a funeral with a closure and his origin boon is recognized.
Alistair and Loghain get a throwaway line that makes their sacrifice go unnoticed.
Wynne will say "The poor boy" if Alistair dies. And Anora asks how her father died if Loghain does the deed.
Otherwise all other dialogue is exactly the same as the Dark Ritual ending where no one dies. In this instance character death got handled very poorly.
That was likely more so due to the absurd amount of possible endings and BioWare lacking the time and resources to truly flesh out every single scenario. I can assure you they would have approached this in a much more professional manner if they didn't have to account for so many choices and alternate scenarios and endings (not to mention VO is expensive). You have to understand BioWare games, when it comes to choices, are an absolute programming nightmare. There are so many bridging paths and exceptions that I often find it incredible how BioWare is able to pull off the juggling act with minor issues.
For myself, if I'm focusing strictly on the emotional heft of the tragedy, the "who dies" will always be more important than "how many". On the far end of the spectrum, it's like the difference between the destruction of Alderaan and the deaths of Luke Skywalker's surrogate family. These two people had an immensely greater impact on the story than the deaths of billions of people, simply because those two people drove the main character forward, while the latter showed us that the Big Bad is really as bad as people say.
I can't really agree with your analogy for the simple fact that we never really got to know Uncle Owen or Aunt Beru. To some extent you can say it was unfortunate, but I was no more emotionally moved by their deaths versus the millions who died on Alderaan. I understand the point you are trying to make, but again in times of war, casualties are likely to be high and nondiscriminatory.
I guess. I mean, I dont put any special value in "dark" or "gritty", they are just categories to me. Just for me I have to feel dread or some form of uncomfortableness to consider something dark. I never really felt that in those games. Closest thing for me was Leandra and her patchwork death(but I think most of that was because of other books and movies I've read and watched that reminded me way to much of certain events). But ya, I dont give games points simply for being dark, so I guess I dont care really how people categorize these things, I'm just surprised people felt uneasy or uncomfortable with those games, in just about any part in the game.
I think (in my opinion) that if a game is dark, it will need more than a few dark scenes to be categorized as dark. It has to be more of an, almost, constant feeling through the story. Dragon Age, to me, feels more like classic fantasy. Nothing wrong with that, though.
I think (in my opinion) that if a game is dark, it will need more than a few dark scenes to be categorized as dark. It has to be more of an, almost, constant feeling through the story. Dragon Age, to me, feels more like classic fantasy. Nothing wrong with that, though.
Oh ya, I completely agree with you. I was jsut trying to be more...willing to bend in the discussion for those who think a few dark scenes make a game dark. Dark has a pretty high bar to hit, for me, to consider it dark. That isnt to say dark is anything special, but in order for me to FEEL it being dark it has to be pretty constant.
Oh ya, I completely agree with you. I was jsut trying to be more...willing to bend in the discussion for those who think a few dark scenes make a game dark. Dark has a pretty high bar to hit, for me, to consider it dark. That isnt to say dark is anything special, but in order for me to FEEL it being dark it has to be pretty constant.
Exactly. If it is just a scene or two, most stories can be classified as dark. I'd say Dragon Age is mostly on par with The Lord of the Rings, when it comes to tone.
Exactly. If it is just a scene or two, most stories can be classified as dark. I'd say Dragon Age is mostly on par with The Lord of the Rings, when it comes to tone.
Ya, I pretty much agree. Lord of the Rings meets the Forgotten Realms, is how I've always looked at it. Probably why I enjoy the setting so much.
That was likely more so due to the absurd amount of possible endings and BioWare lacking the time and resources to truly flesh out every single scenario. I can assure you they would have approached this in a much more professional manner if they didn't have to account for so many choices and alternate scenarios and endings (not to mention VO is expensive). You have to understand BioWare games, when it comes to choices, are an absolute programming nightmare. There are so many bridging paths and exceptions that I often find it incredible how BioWare is able to pull off the juggling act with minor issues.
I get why it was done that way, but the very lack of resources you quote as a reasoning behind this limitation is why I prefer death in these games to be limited to something more reasonable. Just to include death to 'make a story dark or give it more conflict/meaning etc' doesn't necessarily make it 'better' or more interesting. Sometimes it just makes it stupid, and it loses it's meaning (as in the above sample).
*Edit* there are 4 ways that scene could play out. Having one 'catch all' ending--in which no one dies--to encompass the other two aside from 2 small lines wasn't doing the ending, or the sacrifice, justice. The funeral was nice. The party in the Post Coronation when one of the dead wardens could have potentially been the PC's love was just...ugh epic fail 
I'd say Dragon Age is mostly on par with The Lord of the Rings, when it comes to tone.
Because DA:O is LotR 1-3. You and your companions have to collect an army to defeat the evil forces (darkspawn = orcs, trolls in LotR) of the Archdemon (Sauron).
Because DA:O is LotR 1-3. You and your companions, have to collect an army to defeat the evil forces (darkspawn = orcs, trolls in LotR) of the Archdemon (Sauron).
At face value sure, but the motivations and lore behind what you are doing makes it a lot different to me. The structure a story is told is never near as important to me, then the lore and setting of the world it is being told in. I've read so many books in fantasy at this point, that it would be unfair for me to expect them to have a unique fantasy storyline structure. I'm not saying you were saying that as a dig, was just explaining why I agree with you to a point.
Edit: Also, there is a reason the greats are the greats, their structure is amazingly solid.
Because DA:O is LotR 1-3. You and your companions, have to collect an army to defeat the evil forces (darkspawn = orcs, trolls in LotR) of the Archdemon (Sauron).
More like Game of Thrones, I think. The Wall\Ostagar is being attacked by a suernatural force that hasn't been seen in ages. King dies early, and there is a dispute over the throne. The wardens vs The Night's Watch (even their oaths are almost the same). Blood magic. The Therin family has "dragon blood" Same as the Targaryans claim to have. Dragons starts to show up again. Game of Thrones with a LOTR quest, really.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but again in times of war, casualties are likely to be high and nondiscriminatory.
I fully expect high casualties, but death will never be truly nondiscriminatory in these games, nor should they be, in my opinion. For it to be truly nondiscriminatory, the dreaded permadeath would have to make a comeback.
In any case, my basic point is that having the number of main character deaths be fixed at a higher percentage does not automatically make the story better; it only makes it bleaker. I have no problem with being able to choose this, or even lose everything (which we can), but as it is, the idea doesn't strike me as engaging or enjoyable.
Retour en haut