|
Post by Mister Buch on Apr 20, 2012 14:36:36 GMT 1
I liked the Templar/Mage thing a lot.... when it was a brief part of Fereleden's complex makeup. I felt like we'd already explored it enough in DA:O, so I got bored of it pretty quickly in the sequel. Agreed, there. It's cool when there are compelling little events like this going on within a story that's a bit broader. But it's like they took a magnifying glass to one specific part of the world and blew it out of proportion. Still, Mage/Templar civil war is pretty dang compelling, but it just wasn't pulled off very well in the game. They got off on the right foot by painting both sides as neither good nor evil, so it made the little decisions more tough. But, I mean, you spare a bunch of blood mages to give them a second chance, and they end up coming back to kill you, anyway. That happened every single time, more or less. And even the whole thing about choosing sides was silly to begin with. It negates everything you did beforehand. I actually helped the mages primarily and ended up culling them at the endgame. It was weird. At least BioWare stepped it up to three options in time for ME3. =D I don't think that's fair. Choosing a side wasn't pointless to begin with - it's good to have fantasy RPG about a war where neither side is good or evil. And it would have been great if your chosen side *became* good under your leadership or by your example. You make the choice based on political preference, and then it's validated. Like my parking. Either choice is rewaded in different ways. Where the game went wrong was at the end, not the beginning. -- And Mass Effect 3 was different. That was an unrelated kind of bad ending. 'Two choices' is not a bad thing. KotOR has two choices and they are both excellent. Three choices isn't bad either. But three bad choices followed by a series of disappointing, confusing events -- that's bad. Also like my parking. Both games make it so that both endings are very similar, and that's the big problem.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Apr 20, 2012 14:46:03 GMT 1
Let's not even mention that Jade Empire has more detailed endings than this.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Apr 20, 2012 14:55:42 GMT 1
No comparison, Jade Empire had CLOSURE. It was also standalone and I think an experiment on Bioware's part on action gaming and story integration. Wasn't really good at any one element but the whole package was worth exactly one full playthrough from me.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Apr 20, 2012 14:56:55 GMT 1
i never did play Jade Empire....was it good? Are there any European characters in it or is it all asian?
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Apr 20, 2012 15:00:40 GMT 1
There was one Englishman and it was John Cleese. Everyone else was mock Chinese.
Jade Empire's two endings had closure and made sense, but they were *entirely* text. That's pretty lazy.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Apr 20, 2012 15:02:31 GMT 1
Still a better ending(s) than ME3. And that's not even a jab at the tillar game either.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Apr 20, 2012 15:08:33 GMT 1
John Cleese as a squad/party member? In a kung-fu game? Dude.....that would be so awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on Apr 20, 2012 15:10:03 GMT 1
Nah, John Cleese only plays as passing NPC in a certain side quest. But it's still memorable.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Apr 20, 2012 15:13:40 GMT 1
There was one Englishman and it was John Cleese. Everyone else was mock Chinese. Jade Empire's three endings had closure and made sense, but they were partially text. That's pretty lazy. Fixed it for you Buch Proof below, spoiler tags for the initiated.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Apr 20, 2012 15:18:38 GMT 1
Damn it. I believe I have been schooled.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Apr 20, 2012 15:20:25 GMT 1
I probably first played it a bit more recently being the PC elitist prick that I am.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on Apr 20, 2012 22:55:21 GMT 1
I don't think that's fair. Choosing a side wasn't pointless to begin with - it's good to have fantasy RPG about a war where neither side is good or evil. And it would have been great if your chosen side *became* good under your leadership or by your example. You make the choice based on political preference, and then it's validated. Like my parking. Either choice is rewaded in different ways. Where the game went wrong was at the end, not the beginning. -- And Mass Effect 3 was different. That was an unrelated kind of bad ending. 'Two choices' is not a bad thing. KotOR has two choices and they are both excellent. Three choices isn't bad either. But three bad choices followed by a series of disappointing, confusing events -- that's bad. Also like my parking. Both games make it so that both endings are very similar, and that's the big problem. I think we're in the same boat here. (I think! Sorry if I misinterpreted here.) I should've said that I don't like the choosing sides bit at the very end of DA2. The execution beforehand was pretty good; the various instances of having to make the choice, on the spot, whether the mages or templars were in the wrong that time. That was neat. It could been handled better, I thought, but that's what I found compelling. But I just didn't like that I could side with the mages throughout the whole game, and still side with the templars at the end. It literally negates all the choices you made beforehand, and the game doesn't necessarily care. I think if you've been going out of your way to help the mages primarily, siding with the templars at the end should be off the table. And vice versa. And I thought KotOR was different, in that, yes, it technically had two doors for you to walk through (Light or Dark), but you could approach each in different ways. You could side with Bastila and not kill off your entire party, for instance. You could also kill them yourself, or have Zalbaar kill Mission for you (I did the latter; I still feel horrible). And it was all based off your alignment, if I remember correctly. DA2 didn't allow for the same approach. You pretty much chose your consequences. My memories on that are fuzzy, so I might be wrong there. I was distracted by Zalbaar killing Mission. =(
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Apr 20, 2012 23:08:16 GMT 1
Both Witcher games handled this very well in my opinion.Sure you could spend a bit of time riding the fence but sooner or later you forced to make a choice well before the end game. And That locked you out of the other side altogether. In the Witcher you had to choose between the Scoiteal and the Order of the Flaming Rose in Chapter 3. Choosing one locked you away from the other. Later you had to choose between neutrality and your original choice. This was pretty well done.
It was a significantly nastier end in the sequel. In the first third of the game you had to decide which of the other 2 thirds to play. I am both in favor and against this as it really locked you out of a lot of content. But it also got you a good chance to get to know your chosen "wingman."
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Apr 20, 2012 23:09:45 GMT 1
Knight - yeah, actually I think I misunderstood you. And you're right about KotOR.
I'll be, uh, over here. if you need me.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on May 10, 2012 12:06:58 GMT 1
Speculatively speaking DA III is getting it's team cannibalized to try to shovel more content into ToR. I'd say this is rather crappy news, but then again BiowEAr has less chance to further ruin Dragon Age right now, so IDK.
|
|