TorchofThanatos said:
Face palm! Okay writer lets do an exercise. Write me a short story like 4 pages long and the rewrite the opening paragraph 5 other times. Yes, it might change the mood or theme a little but it doesn't change the fact that it is the same story! When you return to your respected city no know recognizes you. There a small difference of some one yelling at you but that was it. Six openings for one game.
That's an inaccurate assessment, in my estimation. Again, going from a Human Noble, a scenario that played much more like a heroic epic, to a female elf mage I noticed a large chunk of character interaction was changed. There was a double-dose of racism thanks to being an elf and a mage. Almost all the personally-directed dialogue with Morrigan was changed for being a woman, a mage, and a few for being an elf. Dialogue with Wynne was severely overhauled for being a mage.
I truly don't know what more Bioware could have done to make each playthrough distinct.
As for your dwarf, with some reading-into of context you can perfectly see why your dwarf might not be paid attention to. A casteless was already as anonymous as can be to these people and there's no reason for them to have recognized you in the first place. An Aeducan was banished, basically, from the city and rendered casteless and all the people that count recognize him anyway.
Good review talk about other problems or points about the game that don't have to do with their options. Like "I hated the mages dream realm because it looked crapy." A good review will say "I hated the mages dream realm because the colour was most all brown and the entire level was out of focus." That is how a review should be done. Only stating option is useless.
A review essentially
is opinion where such non-technical aspects are concerned. For the mage's dream segment of the game, I wouldn't say "I hated it because it looked crappy". I'd say, "I hated it because it was monochrome and run through a blur filter". Still an opinion. Still valid criticism.
While a portion of my criticism was hingent on personal opinion, there were also several complaints - even validated in this thread - leveled at objective portions of the gameplay. Namely, the poorly executed plot, the sometimes schizophrenic friendship/rivalry system, the vague dialogue wheel, and the flat characters.
Now, were I to really critique that segment I'd say, "The level was a bunch of bullshit for being a non-optional, unchanging piece of an already non-optional level that amounted to an hour of a half-assed puzzle game that consisted of brute-forcing your way through a series of corridors filled with enemies without your party, thus throwing off any equilibrium you had in your standard combat setup - basically the worst part of the last level of KotOR2".
Of course, I specifically mentioned in this review that I didn't touch upon the technical aspects that we can all agree are to the games detriment such as the repeat use of dungeon environments, the combat encounters, the stock animations, the awkwardly directed cutscenes, and the loads of bugs that seriously interfere with enjoyment.
The Count of Monte Cristo! There is a book that proves you wrong! When the man becomes the Count he lost character dept. The key is the dept was picked up of the other aspects of the story. His Revenge plot was massive and all the dept you need. You don't need deep characters to tell a good story. Sense and Sensibility, the Lord of the Rings good books that don't have a lot of character dept. Also the characters in the first game didn't have a lot of dept either. Bad mage, good mage, evil man, funny man, Sex elf, Sten! There wasn't much there to begin with. I am fine that characters losing dept to gain direction.
Not having read Monte Cristo, I'll have to take your interpretation of it at face value. However, I could argue that a grand revenge plot is indicative of brilliant strategy and foresight, or alternately of obsession and bloody-mindedness.
Lord of the Rings is something I can address, however. It was not character-driven and was in fact written as a type of mythology. It excelled at that. The closest analogue in Dragon Age would be Origins. However, I found that game to be heavily character driven. Dragon Age II, however, was expressly made to be character driven, given that the plot is, on the surface, supposed to be out a single man's rise to power and his effects on the world. Given also that this is a Bioware RPG - or that it's an RPG at all - and it's very obvious that they intended for it to be character motivated. However, each of the characters is disturbingly flat - especially compared to the characters in the first.
Which brings me to the next point. Yes, if one looks at it superficially, each of Origins' companions breaks down to good/evil on class lines. However, each character had a significant amount of depth to them regardless, as well as large amounts of subtext. Morrigan sticks out in my mind as one who is superficially evil, but has a volume of depth.
That is a way to create a COD sequel, or one small type of sequel. The story line was the same, many character returned (some even party characters). Nothing is gain with a sequel like that but then again nothing is lost either. Nothing moves and it is boring. Also what? both characters are "special" and they both "must save the world." Last of the Jedi, last of the wardens. Bioware also did this story line with Jade Empire too. I wasn't bored of it with JE but the time DAO roles along come up with a new story already!
KotOR2 was a brilliant sequel. Again, if you don't really look into it then it is a good/evil story. However, there was a significant injection of gray. The plot breaks down both staple RPG elements (such as leveling up and gaining XP) and staple Star Wars elements (the nature of the Force, the inherent "good" of the Jedi, the "evil" of the Sith and how the Jedi/Sith philosophies correlate). There was also the complete re-examination of Revan as a character; did he fall to the Dark Side or did he
allow himself to fall to prevent a greater threat? And where did he learn the teachings of the Sith, teachings that were thought extinct in his lifetime? There was also the massive ending revelation that the one person through which all of the above is examined just happens to be the Sith Lord of Betrayal, calling into question the veracity of the entire game.
And KotOR2 had a really awesome system of developing your character by allowing you to debate your experiences as a Jedi in the Mandalorian Wars with people that already have preconceived notions about it.
COD is an interesting example. If they were to make "COD sequels" in an RPG, that would be shitty. However, Call of Duty's target demographic actually prefers it that way - all they want is new guns, new perks and new multiplayer maps without changing the core game. There are a select few players, myself included, that dislike the ever-shortening campaigns, the crackpot storylines and the stagnating game structure, as well as the effect on the overall market of First Person Shooters - but we're the periphery demographic and not in the majority.
Then you just suck as using the wheel. Play Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 you will get better at it.
Mass Effect at least had the excuse of only two basic options: Renegade and Paragon. Dragon Age II tried to keep up a certain level of ambiguity with the phrasing so as not to shoe-horn you into a good/evil type, seeing as the game goes to lengths to avoid that, but by adding the "sarcastic" option threw off the balance and made it difficult to really predict what was going to be said next.
Plus I thought the voice acting was really lackluster.
