Dragon Age Inquisition vs. Elder Scroll V: Skyrim

[bored]

If you don't mind me asking? Why do you think that DA2 characters are the best ones? While they interesting at some extent, they are like a downgrade of DAO crew, I couldn't engage with anyone besides Varric and Bethany IMO.

I feel like they had stronger personal arcs and were more fun to interact with. Merrill is my favorite romance option in the whole series (though Cassandra has come close). In "Origins", it felt like everyone was "I am one thing but will be another if you give me presents", and while I love the companions in "Inquisition", their stories don't seem to impact the story the same way.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

They did not create this. It has been around since Dungeon and Dragons and choice your own adventure.

Bioware's biggest gift is their ability to write charming, fun characters. They aren't putting together Goodfellas here. Their storytelling is lax, and reeks of pouching.

And I also find the general way Bioware delivers the story to be harmful. I sit about fast forwarding through mountains of conversations to make sure I don't miss anything and this causes someone to drop dead. Not because they have extremely engaging storytelling.

They also proved with Mass Effect that decisions don't really matter. It all comes down to three prearranged color coded responses. If a character died, they simply replace them.


I bring up age as I see a lot of kids who grew up with videogames, like I did, seem to have been raised on that style of storytelling, and haven't exactly done a lot of exploring outside of the medium. I remember when Final Fantasy VII was the pinnacle of storytelling in my eyes as well. Then I got really into film and non-fantasy books. Kind of like how if you ran into a young girl or boy who grew up only knowing Twilight and they tell you how it is a masterpiece of storytelling. It is their opinion, but I'd doubt their scope.

Levine's Infinite is one of the few examples I have encountered in video games where there was legitimate story of honest complexity, mood and challenge. He did this without missing the game part. Portal is also a fantastic example of this.

Videogames are basically were television was 20 years ago. Before the Sopranos, The Wire, Mad Men, etc. Before the shift into more mature storytelling.

It may be, for you, not for me. I've learned a lot with them over years, followed every single panel by them because one day, I wish to be part of this industry and if possible, their team, and that's due to how Bioware handles their games, the writing. Lore, Adventure, Characters always were their biggest trait, one that inspired the way to write my own stories. If you think that their tales are pretty "meh", that's a shame, and I won't try to " prove" you wrong or anything like that. Each to their own.

They do have engaging storylines, that's why people buy their games. That's they marketing focus. That's why they earned thousands of awards over the years, it wasn't because of the gameplay or soundtrack, it was because of their stories. Heck, If I recall right, ME2 was the game with most awards in gaming, standing just behind Uncharted 2.

Mass Effect ending depends of the choices, you should play the game again. It isn't about the color, not anymore. There's variables with Krogans, Geth - Quarians, Rachni, Companions and a lot more, like the three final options that leads to three completely different endings, Extended Cut shows that. Your point about ME doesn't match what the game actually shows. If a character dies, a new game comes with new characters to interact, like with any other game. Difference is, you can chose who will die, and they stay dead. That's positive points in my book.

I didn't grew up playing Bioware games, the first game that I played from them was Mass Effect 3 and before that, I've never been through such an emotional and engaging experience in gaming, and believe me, I've played a looooot of games in my life since the SNES time. My XBL being an example of that, if you're interested. Since ME3, I played every single game from the company. I'm not biased.

It's not that simple as you make it to be, every single game made by Bioware has moral dilemmas and conflicts that it's up to the player's ethics to solve.

I'm not saying that you're wrong BTW, everyone has their own unique interests. And I respect yours.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

I feel like they had stronger personal arcs and were more fun to interact with. Merrill is my favorite romance option in the whole series (though Cassandra has come close). In "Origins", it felt like everyone was "I am one thing but will be another if you give me presents", and while I love the companions in "Inquisition", their stories don't seem to impact the story the same way.

Oh really? I thought that they were pretty weak and crazy At least we agree with Cass, Morrigan is my favorite character/romance of the trilogy tho.

And you could get their approval without the presents, some specific ones triggered special scenes, but that's it, they were special. You could only give them the ones that really mattered, that way, not getting such feeling that you mentioned.

 

[X Knight]

If there is one thing that Bioware knows how to craft, is a good story with most of the time, well written characters, that's something that have been happening for years now, even if DA2 was a major letdown in comparison with DAO.

And comparing their storytelling way with Skyrim's one, they have the advantage by a long shot.

I agree that Skyrim is lacking in the companion and story area.

that's why I was hoping DAI would find a happy balance between open world freedom and strong narrative/companion interaction.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It may be, for you, not for me. I've learned a lot with them over years, followed every single panel by them because one day, I wish to be part of this industry and if possible, their team, and that's due to how Bioware handles their games, the writing. Lore, Adventure, Characters always were their biggest trait, one that inspired the way to write my own stories. If you think that their tales are pretty "meh", that's a shame, and I won't try to " prove" you wrong or anything like that. Each to their own.

They do have engaging storylines, that's why people buy their games. That's they marketing focus. That's why they earned thousands of awards over the years, it wasn't because of the gameplay or soundtrack, it was because of their stories. Heck, If I recall right, ME2 was the game with most awards in gaming, standing just behind Uncharted 2.

Gaiming awards aren't exactly... well relevant. Just like how videogame journalism isn't. Unless we are talking about Egoraptor. His breakdowns of Mega Man X and Ocarina are the things those who write about games should be striving too. It is not about nostalgia and using hyperbole, it is about how games actually work.

Mass Effect ending depends of the choices, you should play the game again. It isn't about the color, not anymore. There's variables with Krogans, Geth - Quarians, Rachni, Companions and a lot more, like the three final options that leads to three completely different endings, Extended Cut shows that. Your point about ME doesn't match what the game actually shows. If a character dies, a new game comes and with new characters to interact, like with any other game. Difference is, you can chose who will die, and they stay dead. That's positive points in my book.

I have played through all 3 Mass Effects two times at least. In the case of first game, three times.

And actually I am in fact talking about what Mass Effect presents. The problem with the structure of Mass Effect is it is an illusion of choice. True choice would be not being able to get to that room at the end of if you did something wrong. True choice would be having completely different objectives and destinations based on who died beforehand. Storylines would be cutoff.

That isn't what happens with Mass Effect. If a character dies, they are indeed replaced with an equivalent to progress a similar story path. If Wrex died, he is replaced with another Krogan and you play out the same basic story. Same with anyone who doesn't have to make it to 3. Just look at Miranda or Mordin's stories.

And please no with the Extended Cut. Forget the fact that its existence shows major error on their part, it changes nothing about the structure of the game.

I didn't grew up playing Bioware games, the first game that I played from them was Mass Effect 3 and before that, I've never been through such an emotional and engaging experience in gaming, and believe me, I've played a looooot of games in my life since the SNES time. My XBL being an example of that, if you're interested. Since ME3, I played every single game from the company. I'm not biased.

It isn't about growing up with Bioware games, it is about growing up in a videogame world. It has become the dominate media for many, and suddenly we are judging storytelling on a very rudimentary scale.

It is like listening to the brilliance of the prequel Star Wars films.t:

It's not that simple as you make it to be, every single game made by Bioware has more dilemmas and conflicts that it's up to the player's ethics to solve.

That really isn't true though. Because one of the major problems with their gameplay as a whole is the "good" and "bad" meter. They present a situation that isn't based on choice, what you would actually do, as much as it is based on your meter or meeting certain requirements for story purposes.

KOTOR and Mass Effect suffer heavily from this. This even applies to Dragon Age in someways. Your gameplay is based not necessarily on honest choice, but the situation you want to come to fruition.

I'm not saying that you're wrong BTW, everyone has their own unique interests. And I respect yours.

Everyone does have their own unique interest. What I am talking about here is quality storytelling, not interest.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Gaiming awards aren't exactly... well relevant. Just like how videogame journalism isn't. Unless we are talking about Egoraptor. His breakdowns of Mega Man X and Ocarina are the things those who write about games should be striving too. It is not about nostalgia and using hyperbole, it is about how games actually work.


I have played through all 3 Mass Effects two times at least. In the case of first game, three times.

And actually I am in fact talking about what Mass Effect presents. The problem with the structure of Mass Effect is it is an illusion of choice. True choice would be not being able to get to that room at the end of if you did something wrong. True choice would be having completely different objectives and destinations based on who died beforehand. Storylines would be cutoff.

That isn't what happens with Mass Effect. If a character dies, they are indeed replaced with an equivalent to progress a similar story path. If Wrex died, he is replaced with another Krogan and you play out the same basic story. Same with anyone who doesn't have to make it to 3. Just look at Miranda or Mordin's stories.

And please no with the Extended Cut. Forget the fact that its existence shows major error on their part, it changes nothing about the structure of the game.

It isn't about growing up with Bioware games, it is about growing up in a videogame world. It has become the dominate media for many, and suddenly we are judging storytelling on a very rudimentary scale.

It is like listening to the brilliance of the prequel Star Wars films.t:


That really isn't true though. Because one of the major problems with their gameplay as a whole is the "good" and "bad" meter. They present a situation that isn't based on choice, what you would actually do, as much as it is based on your meter or meeting certain requirements for story purposes.

KOTOR and Mass Effect suffer heavily from this. This even applies to Dragon Age in someways. Your gameplay is based not necessarily on honest choice, but the situation you want to come to fruition.


Everyone does have their own unique interest. What I am talking about here is quality storytelling, not interest.

I brought the awards up because ME2 gained them for it's story, not graphics or gameplay, meaning that Bioware knows how to tell one. I'm not saying that it's the best game ever or something like that.

Well, if we count trilogy runs, I did it for 11 times.

Almost everything is an illusion choice, but there's stuff that have a LOT of impact. I thought that were talking about the endings You have a choice to not get in that room, you just have to turn the game off or keep walking around. That's not true choice, you're wanting to change the whole game LOL. Like - I don't want to get in the Normandy at the start and escape, because "True choice", see the difference? You want to control everything, and that's not possible, unless if you're making the game.

Companions dying shouldn't change the whole game, they are just persons, why do we need to get another ending if Garrus died in ME2 or during the beam run? There are other major choices that change the aftermath. Not if a X character died, there's bigger problems than that.


Wrex and Grunt are two different characters, with different personal stories. What about Miri? If she dies, her sister has to try to solve everything that Miri was meant to finish it, and she dies a lot more easier than Miri depending of Shepard's choices, she isn't a super spy, and she almost paid the price for that.

Mordin? If he dies, someone else has to assist Shepard, or do you think that he would simply forget about the genophage because of Mordin's death? That's logical. In fact, if Mordin is alive and Maelon's research was saved, the female Krogan doesn't die, there are consequences, not the HUGE ones that you're expecting.

You can't ignore the facts, the Extended Cut exists. And it gave us the ending that Bioware wanted in the first place if their budget hadn't vaporized so quickly. It adress many of the issues with the original endings, making three or four different endings with different variables. It's not about the structure of the game, it's the writing LOL . It's like saying that the ending sucks because we can chose one, because that's the structure of the game. Choices.

Erm..no, that's subjective. I don't only play games, I know how to tell things apart. And the prequels writing sucks, if that's what you wanted me to say.

That's a Mass Effect thing, renegade and paragon, Dragon Age doesn't have such morality meter. There isn't a evil or good choice like Mass Effect tends to say. The player is the one who choses what is good and evil. Dragon Age doesn't determine that.

It's your opinion about Bioware's storytelling way, and I disagree with you. Doesn't make you wrong or me right bro, like I said - each to their own.

 

[Brother Jack]

The biggest complaint I have with Bioware's writing is how wordy and expository it is. They build very interesting worlds and go such a long way formulating a complete mythology that must be admired. But the actual character dialogue gets inflated with such dense backstory that it often becomes a chore to get through for me. There's a time and place for that and it shouldn't be with virtually every interaction. That said I still very much enjoy the characters they create. I'm in the middle of Inquisition now and there are a couple I've gotten quite attached to, as I did with the Mass Effect trilogy. It's a tricky thing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I brought the awards up because ME2 gained them for it's story, not graphics or gameplay, meaning that Bioware knows how to tell one. I'm not saying that it's the best game ever or something like that.

Well, if we count trilogy runs, I did it for 11 times.

What they got the awards for is kind of irrelevant. Again videogame stories are graded on a curve, especially when it comes to games journalist who spend the vast majority of their time speaking in hyperbole, and empty group think.

In other words, they wouldn't know a good story if it bit them on the bottom. t:

Almost everything is an illusion choice, but there's stuff that have a LOT of impact. I thought that were talking about the endings You have a choice to not get in that room, you just have to turn the game off or keep walking around. That's not true choice, you're wanting to change the whole game LOL. Like - I don't want to get in the Normandy at the start and escape, because "True choice", see the difference? You want to control everything, and that's not possible, unless if you're making the game.

I am talking about the entirety of their storytelling. the impact on the game you play. You are thinking about this in a very linear manner, when the entire point of choice is the exact opposite. You brought up choice. My point is that actual choice changes a game on a more fundamental level then who is doing the talking and shooting when you just end up playing the same game anyways, just with skin swaps and different pictures at the end.

A fantastic example of this done right is the Witcher 2. A game where depending on your choices the game and story you play itself changes. Depending on what you actually chose to do, you end up encountering completely different missions, characters and overall storyline. The Witcher 2 is two games in one. More if you considering just how different you can play each of those paths.

Companions dying shouldn't change the whole game, they are just persons, why do we need to get another ending if Garrus died in ME2 or during the beam run? There are other major choices that change the aftermath. Not if a X character died, there's bigger problems than that.

It is not just about the ending of the game if someone dies. Think about how Mass Effect is structured. Now consider how important a lot of your companions become in the grand scheme of the galaxy. And yet their deaths do not actually matter.

Their deaths should change the fundamental storyline. If Wrex is dead, why are you playing the same mission as if Wrex is alive? So on and so forth. If Wrex is that important, why can he just be replaced by another character and the story still function in the same manner? You do the exact same thing whether he is alive or dead.

Which brings me back to what Bioware does well. What matters about the characters is their personalities. Whether you like them or not. It has nothing to do with the actual story, its structure or how it is told.

It makes choice superfluous and is actually bad storytelling.

Wrex and Grunt are two different characters, with different personal stories. What about Miri? If she dies, her sister has to try to solve everything that Miri was meant to finish it, and she dies a lot more easier than Miri depending of Shepard's choices, she isn't a super spy, and she almost paid the price for that.

Mordin? If he dies, someone else has to assist Shepard, or do you think that he would simply forget about the genophage because of Mordin's death? That's logical. In fact, if Mordin is alive and Maelon's research was saved, the female Krogan doesn't die, there are consequences, not the HUGE ones that you're expecting.

How does this change the game's story, the game you play, in anyway?

You can't ignore the facts, the Extended Cut exists. And it gave us the ending that Bioware wanted in the first place if their budget hadn't vaporized so quickly. It adress many of the issues with the original endings, making three or four different endings with different variables. It's not about the structure of the game, it's the writing LOL . It's like saying that the ending sucks because we can chose one, because that's the structure of the game. Choices.

It does not address any of the problems with the original ending. It is an epilogue, that does not effect the story mechanics one bit. It is literally tacking on an ending that does not address that actual flaws in the storytelling leading up to it.

If the intention of the game was to end a certain way, that is perfectly fine. Portal does that and I think it is storytelling nirvana. But Mass Effect is suppose to be about choice and how it changes the game. It doesn't.

It also doesn't help that Mass Effect 2 and 3 are poorly written, hilarious dialogue not withstanding. All the endings are bad.

Erm..no, that's subjective. I don't only play games, I know how to tell things apart. And the prequels writing sucks, if that's what you wanted me to say.

But why does it suck? I could go on for days about what is wrong with the storytelling in the prequels. I am explaining the inherent flaws I find with Bioware storytelling using examples from the games themselves and storytelling in general. In your defense, you are bringing up awards and the fact that you enjoy it so much and admire them as storytellers. Which is great, I enjoy it to. But this doesn't really tell what makes their storytelling good.

That's a Mass Effect thing, renegade and paragon, Dragon Age doesn't have such morality meter. There isn't a evil or good choice like Mass Effect tends to say. The player is the one who choses what is good and evil. Dragon Age doesn't determine that.

I never played Balder Gates or Neverwinter Nights, so I don't know if it was there. But that stuff actually goes back to KOTOR at least.

Dragon Age doesn't have the morality meter, but they still present a similar issue, though it is far less flawed.

It's your opinion about Bioware's storytelling way, and I disagree with you. Doesn't make you wrong or me right bro, like I said - each to their own.

Of course. But what is the point of debate if you aren't going to debate?

 

[Victarion]

As far as dialogue and worldbuilding go, I think it'd be interesting if there were something of a less-is-more approach. By that, I mean make the characters' dialogue a bit more like actual conversation in the real world, injected with the flavor of the game's setting. Offhand references to events, maybe you run into some old vet obsessed with war x, y, z that rails on and on incomprehensibly about it...this is something I'd like to see.

How does the Witcher series compare to Skyrim and DAI in terms of storytelling and worldbuilding? Is it any better or just as derivative?

 

[Andrew Lucas]

What they got the awards for is kind of irrelevant. Again videogame stories are graded on a curve, especially when it comes to games journalist who spend the vast majority of their time speaking in hyperbole, and empty group think.

In other words, they wouldn't know a good story if it bit them on the bottom. t:


I am talking about the entirety of their storytelling. the impact on the game you play. You are thinking about this in a very linear manner, when the entire point of choice is the exact opposite. You brought up choice. My point is that actual choice changes a game on a more fundamental level then who is doing the talking and shooting when you just end up playing the same game anyways, just with skin swaps and different pictures at the end.

A fantastic example of this done right is the Witcher 2. A game where depending on your choices the game and story you play itself changes. Depending on what you actually chose to do, you end up encountering completely different missions, characters and overall storyline. The Witcher 2 is two games in one. More if you considering just how different you can play each of those paths.


It is not just about the ending of the game if someone dies. Think about how Mass Effect is structured. Now consider how important a lot of your companions become in the grand scheme of the galaxy. And yet their deaths do not actually matter.

Their deaths should change the fundamental storyline. If Wrex is dead, why are you playing the same mission as if Wrex is alive? So on and so forth. If Wrex is that important, why can he just be replaced by another character and the story still function in the same manner? You do the exact same thing whether he is alive or dead.

Which brings me back to what Bioware does well. What matters about the characters is their personalities. Whether you like them or not. It has nothing to do with the actual story, its structure or how it is told.

It makes choice superfluous and is actually bad storytelling.


How does this change the game's story, the game you play, in anyway?


It does not address any of the problems with the original ending. It is an epilogue, that does not effect the story mechanics one bit. It is literally tacking on an ending that does not address that actual flaws in the storytelling leading up to it.

If the intention of the game was to end a certain way, that is perfectly fine. Portal does that and I think it is storytelling nirvana. But Mass Effect is suppose to be about choice and how it changes the game. It doesn't.

It also doesn't help that Mass Effect 2 and 3 are poorly written, hilarious dialogue not withstanding. All the endings are bad.


But why does it suck? I could go on for days about what is wrong with the storytelling in the prequels. I am explaining the inherent flaws I find with Bioware storytelling using examples from the games themselves and storytelling in general. In your defense, you are bringing up awards and the fact that you enjoy it so much and admire them as storytellers. Which is great, I enjoy it to. But this doesn't really tell what makes their storytelling good.


I never played Balder Gates or Neverwinter Nights, so I don't know if it was there. But that stuff actually goes back to KOTOR at least.

Dragon Age doesn't have the morality meter, but they still present a similar issue, though it is far less flawed.


Of course. But what is the point of debate if you aren't going to debate?

I don't think so, honestly, TLOU got a lot of awards, for a reason that a most people agreed with it. Why can't ME2 deserve them as well? Because you disagree with the reasons of why it earned them? You can see when things are looking weird, but in ME2 and TLOU cases, they weren't. Both games are acclaimed by critics and players. There isn't a conspirator or anything like that.

And I said that was untrue, or else people at Bioware forums wouldn't spend hours talking with each other about their different playthroughs and how they view such topics created by different choices and the outcomes.

Hm, Witcher 2 is basically "You chose this, and then you'll miss this or create this." DAI had this as well, as evidenced with the Templars and Mages choice that will heavily influence who will be the next divine, cause and consequence. No different than Witcher.

The companions aren't important in the grand scheme of the galaxy. That's why almost everyone can die in ME2 Suicide Mission. They are not relevant to the Reapers storyline alone. Thane's death should case what? A Reaper to fall? A ship to explode? It doesn't make any sense. It's not bad writing or anything like that, you have a game, and you have resources, it's your job to make things works. In this case, it did.

If Wrex is deaf, his brother takes the helm , leading the aftermath to a more dark outcome where the Krogans could still want revenge. Wreave mentions that, while Wrex wants to restore peace. In the end, that's a pretty big difference, one that could affect the whole galaxy. So Wrex being alive or not lead to new things, and it matters for the story.

It's not an epilogue, it expands the endings, it expands the talk with the Catalyst, where you get to understand the Reapers, his motives, and the Catalyst's creation. You couldn't do that before, you just got there, he shows the three options and you have to chose one without understanding what the **** had just happened, not counting the whole evac scene as well.

There are bad written scenes, I know that. Shepard death's in ME2 being one of them, but saying that ME3 is badly written? When everyone agrees that the game was a lot more tight and compact than ME2? Which is a game with some tense plot holes? Erm, no.

But they do suck, starting with the dialogue. Really man? I've written a ****ton of words and the only thing that you get is that I love them and the awards? Wtf, I tried to explain absolutely everything for you, what I think about your points, and you say this? And here I was expecting a nice talk...

I never said to not debate, I just don't appreciate when you say things like if they are facts, and not opinions. That kills the joy of debating, it's like talking with a wall.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

As far as dialogue and worldbuilding go, I think it'd be interesting if there were something of a less-is-more approach. By that, I mean make the characters' dialogue a bit more like actual conversation in the real world, injected with the flavor of the game's setting. Offhand references to events, maybe you run into some old vet obsessed with war x, y, z that rails on and on incomprehensibly about it...this is something I'd like to see.

How does the Witcher series compare to Skyrim and DAI in terms of storytelling and worldbuilding? Is it any better or just as derivative?

The Witcher is based on a book series so it does its own thing a bit more. Though one of the cooler things about the Witcher is the twist on classical myth.

The first game does feels more derivative, though the Witcher 2 really does its own thing in both storytelling and worldbuilding.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

As far as dialogue and worldbuilding go, I think it'd be interesting if there were something of a less-is-more approach. By that, I mean make the characters' dialogue a bit more like actual conversation in the real world, injected with the flavor of the game's setting. Offhand references to events, maybe you run into some old vet obsessed with war x, y, z that rails on and on incomprehensibly about it...this is something I'd like to see.

How does the Witcher series compare to Skyrim and DAI in terms of storytelling and worldbuilding? Is it any better or just as derivative?

That happens in DAI, the previous choices and current choices can change the dialogues through the game. Like, you're walking in the forest with your party and suddenly they start to talk with each other about the recent events that The Inquisitor caused and personal stuff. You get references from the previous games and choices during the whole game. Not so sure about The Witcher, it's been ages since I last touched the franchise, but I think that they do as well.

Both DAI and Witcher storylines are better than Skyrim. They both get you engaged with the story and characters. I prefer DA more for the deep roleplay factor, you get to set your character a personality that you want where in Witcher, the PC already has an established personality, not a bad thing, but I prefer Dragon Age in that aspect. Gets me more immersed with the world around my character.

Three great games, but if it's an epic story that you want, with a well written supporting cast, it's either DA or The Witcher.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I don't think so, honestly, TLOU got a lot of awards, for a reason that a most people agreed with it. Why can't ME2 deserve them as well? Because you disagree with the reasons of why it earned them? You can see when things are looking weird, but in ME2 and TLOU cases, they weren't. Both games are acclaimed by critics and players. There isn't a conspirator or anything like that.

Is your argument that their games won awards for storytelling and thus they have good storytelling? If so, I reject that argument as that literally has nothing to do with what the games actually are. Crash won the Oscar for best picture. Horribly written imo. No Country for Old Men won it, beautifully written imo.

Awards are popularity contest, rarely won on merit. And though I do love me some TLoU, just watch Zero Punctuation for the inherent flaws in logic in the story of the game.

And I said that was untrue, or else people at Bioware forums wouldn't spend hours talking with each other about their different playthroughs and how they view such topics created by different choices and the outcomes.

People spend countless hours going over Twilight. Does that make it Shakespeare?

Hm, Witcher 2 is basically "You chose this, and then you'll miss this or create this." DAI had this as well, as evidenced with the Templars and Mages choice that will heavily influence who will be the next divine, cause and consequence. No different than Witcher.

Have you played and beaten The Witcher 2? I haven't finished DAI so I cannot say you are wrong about that game, but there has not been anything like The Witcher 2 in terms of story leading up to Dragon Age 3 from Bioware.

The companions aren't important in the grand scheme of the galaxy. That's why almost everyone can die in ME2 Suicide Mission. They are not relevant to the Reapers storyline alone. Thane's death should case what? A Reaper to fall? A ship to explode? It doesn't make any sense. It's not bad writing or anything like that, you have a game, and you have resources, it's your job to make things works. In this case, it did.

It makes perfect sense. But let me break it down one more time.

You say the companions aren't important in the grand scheme of the galaxy. And yet Shepard because best friends with people who end up having insane positions of power. Wrex becomes the "unofficial" leader of the entire Korgan race. Tali becomes a leader of the Quarians. Liara is the Shadow Broker. Legion is Geth Jesus.

How would such people not have an important role in the grand scheme of things? Especially when the third game is about making alliances. It is like saying shooting JFK didn't change the course of history.

If Wrex is deaf, his brother takes the helm , leading the aftermath to a more dark outcome where the Krogans could still want revenge. Wreave mentions that, while Wrex wants to restore peace. In the end, that's a pretty big difference, one that could affect the whole galaxy. So Wrex being alive or not lead to new things, and it matters for the story.

But nothing that actually effects the game, the missions you play or the story in general. Which is my point, and why I bring up something like the Witcher 2. Where choice does effect that.

Little details, little dialogue changes are cute. But that a new story does not make.

It's not an epilogue, it expands the endings, it expands the talk with the Catalyst, where you get to understand the Reapers, his motives, and the Catalyst's creation. You couldn't do that before, you just got there, he shows the three options and you have to chose one without understanding what the **** had just happened, not counting the whole evac scene as well.

You are right, we get an extra exposition dump. That once again changes nothing.

There are bad written scenes, I know that. Shepard death's in ME2 being one of them, but saying that ME3 is badly written? When everyone agrees that the game was a lot more tight and compact than ME2? Which is a game with some tense plot holes? Erm, no.

I do in fact enjoy the story of 3 more then 2. That doesn't make it a good story. Just like how I find the first Fantastic Four film to be better then the sequel. That doesn't make either well written.

Now if we are talking about the first Mass Effect, I think the story is pretty darn good there. Not perfect, but darn good. It has a lot to do with the story being focused, and everyone's roles being a bit more simple.

But they do suck, starting with the dialogue. Really man? I've written a ****ton of words and the only thing that you get is that I love them and the awards? Wtf, I tried to explain absolutely everything for you, what I think about your points, and you say this? And here I was expecting a nice talk...

You have explained very little. The bases of your argument is how everyone likes Mass Effect and it has won awards.

I never said to not debate, I just don't appreciate when you say things like if they are facts, and not opinions. That kills the joy of debating, it's like talking with a wall.

And I find it infuriating when people bring up the awards something has won as proof of quality. Or writing something like, "well everyone agrees it is well written". I prefer when people bring their own opinion and arguments.

And you talk about not stating things as fact. I'd suggest reading your own post again before throwing such a stone.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Is your argument that their games won awards for storytelling and thus they have good storytelling? If so, I reject that argument as that literally has nothing to do with what the games actually are. Crash won the Oscar for best picture. Horribly written imo. No Country for Old Men won it, beautifully written imo.

Awards are popularity contest, rarely won on merit. And though I do love me some TLoU, just watch Zero Punctuation for the inherent flaws in logic in the story of the game.


People spend countless hours going over Twilight. Does that make it Shakespeare?


Have you played and beaten The Witcher 2? I haven't finished DAI so I cannot say you are wrong about that game, but there has not been anything like The Witcher 2 in terms of story leading up to Dragon Age 3 from Bioware.


It makes perfect sense. But let me break it down one more time.

You say the companions aren't important in the grand scheme of the galaxy. And yet Shepard because best friends with people who end up having insane positions of power. Wrex becomes the "unofficial" leader of the entire Korgan race. Tali becomes a leader of the Quarians. Liara is the Shadow Broker. Legion is Geth Jesus.

How would such people not have an important role in the grand scheme of things? Especially when the third game is about making alliances. It is like saying shooting JFK didn't change the course of history.


But nothing that actually effects the game, the missions you play or the story in general. Which is my point, and why I bring up something like the Witcher 2. Where choice does effect that.

Little details, little dialogue changes are cute. But that a new story does not make.


You are right, we get an extra exposition dump. That once again changes nothing.


I do in fact enjoy the story of 3 more then 2. That doesn't make it a good story. Just like how I find the first Fantastic Four film to be better then the sequel. That doesn't make either well written.

Now if we are talking about the first Mass Effect, I think the story is pretty darn good there. Not perfect, but darn good. It has a lot to do with the story being focused, and everyone's roles being a bit more simple.


You have explained very little. The bases of your argument is how everyone likes Mass Effect and it has won awards.


And I find it infuriating when people bring up the awards something has won as proof of quality. Or writing something like, "well everyone agrees it is well written". I prefer when people bring their own opinion and arguments.

And you talk about not stating things as fact. I'd suggest reading your own post again before throwing such a stone.

Fair enough mate.

 

[Bastila]

I can never make my mind up which one I prefer. Both are great.

 

[X Knight]

just imagine if a game came out that combined Skyrim's open world freedom and world immersion AND DAI's storytelling and companion interactions.........and it managed to do all of those well.

 

[Quasimod0]

just imagine if a game came out that combined Skyrim's open world freedom and world immersion AND DAI's storytelling and companion interactions.........and it managed to do all of those well.

AND it was set in the Lord of the Rings universe.

 

[X Knight]

AND it was set in the Lord of the Rings universe.

yes please!!! t:

 

[Soapy]

No thanks.

 

[Bastila]

just imagine if a game came out that combined Skyrim's open world freedom and world immersion AND DAI's storytelling and companion interactions.........and it managed to do all of those well.

I need that game......if it's ever made lol

 

[Quasimod0]

No thanks.

Get out.

 

[Soapy]

Get out.

I don't see Lord of the Rings anywhere in the thread title.

 

[KevanG]

I see the letters LOTR in the title.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

just imagine if a game came out that combined Skyrim's open world freedom and world immersion AND DAI's storytelling and companion interactions.........and it managed to do all of those well.

AND it was set in the Lord of the Rings universe.

yes please!!! t:

I need that game......if it's ever made

No thanks.

Get out.

I don't see Lord of the Rings anywhere in the thread title.

I see the letters LOTR in the title.

LOL

 

[Victarion]

I want a fantasy game that discusses its alien races, science and sorcery in political terms...or something like The Last of Us. Much as I love the fantasy genre, I realize there's not been a fantasy videogame that I really love. Unless you count Devil May Cry as fantasy?