42 réponses à ce sujet

[Volourn]

"Did you play KOTOR 2?



What did you think of that mission I referenced (Dxun/tomb of Freedon Nadd and Onderon/Royal Palace)? That was an extended, significant mission with 2 teams going simulataneously!

"



It was handled better than in O because it was more signiifcant and important; but ideally in a RPG you should never be playing npcs. You should be playing your character and that's it. Unless you are playing a multi headed monster type dungeon crawl ala IWD or TOEE, or POR.

[Sanguinerin]

It's not like BioWare hasn't done separate battles without your main character in the Dragon Age universe. When you went off to fight the Archdemon, you played as your other characters at the gates in Denerim. I think the idea of seeing the fighting at Vigil's Keep even if you still lose because you save Amaranthine instead is a pretty cool idea.

Edit: Also, the keep in Denerim. If you choose to wait for party members you play as them. Also, if you're not a mage you're another character in the Fade. It can be done, so it's not a farfetched idea to ask to see both the battles of Amaranthine and Vigil's Keep.

Modifié par HallowedWarden, 29 mars 2010 - 02:20 .

[Jabraham002]

If all they wanted was a choice, then they should have said, "You can go to Amaranthine with three companions, and leave the others to defend the keep, OR, You can stay at the Keep with three companions and send the others to defend Amaranthine."



The place the PC stays at wins and the other losses, or suffers greatly. That way you can still fight and win at BOTH places, but the place the PC doesn't go to has severe loses, or worse.



I think this would be best, this way you still have to make a choice (the other place "loses"), you get one more fight, and the satisfaction of knowing firsthand what happens at both places.

[Grovermancer]

Jabraham002 wrote...

If all they wanted was a choice, then they should have said, "You can go to Amaranthine with three companions, and leave the others to defend the keep, OR, You can stay at the Keep with three companions and send the others to defend Amaranthine."

The place the PC stays at wins and the other losses, or suffers greatly. That way you can still fight and win at BOTH places, but the place the PC doesn't go to has severe loses, or worse.

I think this would be best, this way you still have to make a choice (the other place "loses"), you get one more fight, and the satisfaction of knowing firsthand what happens at both places.

This would be a good way to do it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Being able to play the Seige of Vigil's Keep without the PC being there would completely and utterly destroy the purpose of the choice. THAT is why you don't fight as the NPCs. You have to make the choice wether you think the keep can hold on its own without you, or wether Amaranthine is doomed anyway and the Keep needs your help.

[Dokarqt]

This is not an issue or something obvious.



Never once did the notion that I should be have defended vigils keep on my other chars hit me because im roleplaying the PC not my companions.

[Grovermancer]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Being able to play the Seige of Vigil's Keep without the PC being there would completely and utterly destroy the purpose of the choice. THAT is why you don't fight as the NPCs. You have to make the choice wether you think the keep can hold on its own without you, or wether Amaranthine is doomed anyway and the Keep needs your help.

Dokarqt wrote...

This is not an issue or something
obvious.

Never once did the notion that I should be have defended
vigils keep on my other chars hit me because im roleplaying the PC not
my companions.

You guys are right.

I assume you only ever play solo, then?  Or if you play w/ party members, you refuse to control them in any way.

And when you go into the Fade as a Mage, or hold the Denerim gates as your party, you refused to play those sections??

[Varyen]

It would have been nice to control both parties if you choose to save the keep but that would in fact effect the epilogue on if you did their personal quest & got their aprovel up or not.



as for the week long battle, I don't know what sort of time line Bioware is using from location to location but I'm sure it's there. I'd say 2 MAYBE 3 days from the keep to the city & vice versa. Personally if that's the case, i would have saved the city & went back to the keep attacking their flanks to save both instead of rushing off to kill the BM but that's the price of choices in this game.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Grovermancer wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Being able to play the Seige of Vigil's Keep without the PC being there would completely and utterly destroy the purpose of the choice. THAT is why you don't fight as the NPCs. You have to make the choice wether you think the keep can hold on its own without you, or wether Amaranthine is doomed anyway and the Keep needs your help.

Dokarqt wrote...

This is not an issue or something
obvious.

Never once did the notion that I should be have defended
vigils keep on my other chars hit me because im roleplaying the PC not
my companions.

You guys are right.

I assume you only ever play solo, then?  Or if you play w/ party members, you refuse to control them in any way.

And when you go into the Fade as a Mage, or hold the Denerim gates as your party, you refused to play those sections??

I usually just kill Connor anyway, and there isn't much of a choice involved with teh gates of Denerim. The whole point of choosing between Amaranthine and the Vigil is about wether you can live with abandoning a city to help hold your Keep or if you think the civilian in the city is worth more to save. If by saving the City you were "rewarded" with an extra fight sequence it would be plain, simply and without a doubt: Dumb.

[Varyen]

ya know, a cut scene of the battle of the keep would have been sweet if you chose to save the city but sadly that would also take alot of time since they'd have to take the time to make cut scene based on the poeple you took with you. Seeing Ogren kill 2 orges (armored or normal) Anders killing all those darkspawn around him before dieing or passing out etc etc etc would have been effing sweet!

[EmperorSahlertz]

Varyen wrote...

ya know, a cut scene of the battle of the keep would have been sweet if you chose to save the city but sadly that would also take alot of time since they'd have to take the time to make cut scene based on the poeple you took with you. Seeing Ogren kill 2 orges (armored or normal) Anders killing all those darkspawn around him before dieing or passing out etc etc etc would have been effing sweet!

Without a doubt, but that would reward the ones who defends the city with an "effing sweet" cutscene that would last for several minutes, while us who prefers to burn the city to the ground just get a short (but still effing sweet ) cutscene.

[Grovermancer]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I usually just kill Connor anyway, and there isn't much of a choice involved with teh gates of Denerim. The whole point of choosing between Amaranthine and the Vigil is about wether you can live with abandoning a city to help hold your Keep or if you think the civilian in the city is worth more to save. If by saving the City you were "rewarded" with an extra fight sequence it would be plain, simply and without a doubt: Dumb.

It wouldn't be "dumb."  And you make no logical conclusion why it would be.  That's just your opinion.

Someone already addressed the issue of "choice" regarding which location to 'save,' yet being able to fight in both, and gave a workable example, several posts up, earlier on this page.

Jabraham002 wrote...

If all they wanted was a choice, then
they should have said, "You can go to Amaranthine with three
companions, and leave the others to defend the keep, OR, You can stay at
the Keep with three companions and send the others to defend
Amaranthine."

The place the PC stays at wins and the other
losses, or suffers greatly. That way you can still fight and win at BOTH
places, but the place the PC doesn't go to has severe loses, or worse.

I
think this would be best, this way you still have to make a choice (the
other place "loses"), you get one more fight, and the satisfaction of
knowing firsthand what happens at both places.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Grovermancer wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I usually just kill Connor anyway, and there isn't much of a choice involved with teh gates of Denerim. The whole point of choosing between Amaranthine and the Vigil is about wether you can live with abandoning a city to help hold your Keep or if you think the civilian in the city is worth more to save. If by saving the City you were "rewarded" with an extra fight sequence it would be plain, simply and without a doubt: Dumb.

It wouldn't be "dumb."  And you make no logical conclusion why it would be.  That's just your opinion.

The choice as it is right now is perfect, you either abbandon you keep in the belief that it will hold, or you abbandon the city in the belief the keep won't hold. Simple but tough decision. What you want is just poor game mechanics. Everyone would choose to save the city since they still get both battles. That is why it is dumb.

The suggestion of you either sending out 3 of your NPCs to the city or go with them. Wouldn't ahve even remotely the same emotional impact. If you actually could send some of your party to the city and self remain in the keep you wouldn't feel as bad about the ctiy's loss, since "at least you tried". As it is in the game you are basicly damned if you do, damned if you don't just the right kind of moral dilemma.

[SynGMW]

I think back to various games I've played where parties have been split. For example, way back in Final Fantasy 7, you're given the option to check in with your non-selected party during the end parts of the game. And, as has already been mentioned, Origins has the split in Denerim, during the Fade, and during the Fort Drakon portion. So clearly, BioWare has no problem making it so the player controls parts that their own character isn't a part of.



Personally, I think of the times where boss fights in various games have been designed in a way that the player is supposed to lose, and those fights are never stupid or pointless, even if you know the outcome. Regardless of how it ends, I still want to fight my hardest to see if I can somehow beat the impossible odds.



The escape with Anora in Origins also comes to mind, now. In that fight against Loghain's main knight, the player doesn't have to win, but if they manage to somehow pull it off, events are changed. I could see the end of Awakening functioning in a similar fashion. Whichever place the player chooses not to defend still has a battle to fight, but it's simply very, very difficult. Also, if the Keep is upgraded all the way, the epilogue talks of how the attack eventually fails against the Keep, meaning that the Vigil Soldiers do manage to succeed without you there. So, the heavy losses could be shown after being victorious with your NPCs, leaving the player to realize that if they had made the choice to return to the Keep, things would have gone better. That then still leaves the player with the dilemma of whether they save more lives at the Keep or saves lives in Amaranthine.

[astrallite]

HK74 wrote...

Grovermancer wrote...


Because I just finished this game, I can't believe that I wasn't able to play as my party members who were back at the Keep, defending it against the attack as my main force was liberating Amaranthine.

You were forced to make a choice between saving the keep or saving Amaranthine. Choosing is sort of the point of choices.

That makes perfect sense. That's why you get to play as the team of NPCs you left at the Denerim Gates...oh wait.

[Red Frostraven]

They could easily have fixed the problem by forcing you to bring your entire party, then having some fight at the gates while you enter the city.



They wouldn't need to have you control the party at the gates at all.

A nice feat would be to have one of the gate-defenders come into the city to fetch you, and force you to help them to take care of a boss at the gates, for then to allow you to reselect your party and continue clearing the city.



...

Is it stands, several of my partymembers, and especially Anders, are immortal, and none of them would have fallen to any darkspawn... which means they did not die unless they removed their items before the battle.

[Grovermancer]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The choice as it is right now is perfect, you either abbandon you keep in the belief that it will hold, or you abbandon the city in the belief the keep won't hold. Simple but tough decision. What you want is just poor game mechanics. Everyone would choose to save the city since they still get both battles. That is why it is dumb.

Yet again:  no one is saying that fighting at the Keep changes the overall outcomes... any more than you can change the outcomes of countless other plot-essential outcomes throughout Dragon Age.

Besides, you can already hold the Keep, with proper upgrades, soldier alotment, and (maybe?) approval and/or equipment to the remaining NPC's.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The suggestion of you either sending out 3 of your NPCs to the city or go with them. Wouldn't ahve even remotely the same emotional impact. If you actually could send some of your party to the city and self remain in the keep you wouldn't feel as bad about the ctiy's loss, since "at least you tried". As it is in the game you are basicly damned if you do, damned if you don't just the right kind of moral dilemma.

The same emotional impact as what?  What impact is there now?  Fearing the location you're not at might fall?  Still no reason why you shouldn't be able to actually partake in the 'underdog' battle.  (again, no one said it would change the ultimate outcome that would already happen as it does now)

Either choice you would make would only cause the same changes exactly as it does now.  As it is now, we get nothing.  Not even a cut-scene.  All we get is title cards during the epilogue.

Compare that to the ability to actually fight a heroic, losing battle.  (well, depending on various choices and factors; might not be completely losing afterall, with the different outcomes involved)

Modifié par Grovermancer, 30 mars 2010 - 10:52 .

[MutantSpleen]

I agree OP. I liked that part in Denerim , defending the city gates in DAO. My ego is not so fragile, I can actually take the trauma of not playing my hero for a small fraction of the game.

"lessens the emotional impact"  <_<

Please! Becasue hearing nothing about what happened until the super quick cut-to-epilogue at the end was SO emotionaly satisfying.

"...and the Waden Commander may have been seen with the red headed bard Leliana..the end"

That was another part of that emotionally charged ending.

Its obvious some people don't know what emotional impact is. In this case Bioware definitely does not.