44 réponses à ce sujet

[Aisynia]

phaonica wrote...

I felt the same way about the Architect. Suddenly the Blight seemed like a way to keep the darkspawn problem under control, and didn't seem so bad in comparison to the Architect's alternative.

Yeah.. when you are dealing with the Blight, at least it's a known factor. You have a certain number of Archdemons that can rise, and after that, no more blight. Once the seventh is dead, you're free to head into the deep roads and systematically slaughter them. There's no driving force calling them, and they are unintelligent, so they won't organize. They can be hunted down.

Doing what the Architect wants ends the Blights (for now), but it creates a huge and frightening unknown factor.. you are creating an entire civilization of intelligent darkspawn, and there's just no way to tell what will eventually come from that. Smart or not, they are tainted.

It just seems really irresponsible.

[Bl1nder]

I don't know about that. The only decsion that really got to me was between the city and Vigil's keep. And even then it was only when the cutscene with the mournful music and people dying in the city played (thats the point where i thought "oh ****, I really didnt want to see this")

[Ferret A Baudoin]

When writing the stuff in Vigil's Keep and politics often I wanted to portray the joys and sorrows of ruling ("heavy is the head that wears the crown" was always in the back of my head). The part about the peasant uprising I think is historically pretty accurate. If you gave in to peasants' demands (which seems right in contemporary times) you could get raked over the coals. In my last pen and paper game there were similar themes and the players really got into it. I'm glad you guys liked it.

[phaonica]

Ferret A Baudoin wrote...

When writing the stuff in Vigil's Keep and politics often I wanted to portray the joys and sorrows of ruling ("heavy is the head that wears the crown" was always in the back of my head). The part about the peasant uprising I think is historically pretty accurate. If you gave in to peasants' demands (which seems right in contemporary times) you could get raked over the coals. In my last pen and paper game there were similar themes and the players really got into it. I'm glad you guys liked it.

Kudos. This really was the highlight of Awakening for me.

[Raiil]

Ferret A Baudoin wrote...

When writing the stuff in Vigil's Keep and politics often I wanted to portray the joys and sorrows of ruling ("heavy is the head that wears the crown" was always in the back of my head). The part about the peasant uprising I think is historically pretty accurate. If you gave in to peasants' demands (which seems right in contemporary times) you could get raked over the coals. In my last pen and paper game there were similar themes and the players really got into it. I'm glad you guys liked it.

It was interesting in a good way. I just felt bad for my poor PC, who thought she was finished being in charge of anyone.

I liked that is was basically impossible to strike the perfect balance because it is that way IRL. Having to make such difficult decisions on your feet without knowing how it will end made the decisions and games that much more immersive. 

Modifié par Valentia X, 29 avril 2010 - 07:37 .

[WhiteVeils]

sleepingbelow wrote...

I have to believe that Utha, even if she's been twisted by the Architect, would ever cooperate with the propagation of broodmothers.  I hate her for the choices she's made, but unless shown irrefutable cannon proof that she's in on it, I can't bring myself to accept it.  Same thing for Velanna's sister.  We never see the Architect's darkspawn creating broodmothers.  Only the Mother's.

If I'm wrong about that, it will seriously shake me.

There's no reason for you to trust Utha or Velanna's sister.  They may not even know about how Broodmothers are created...you never learn of it until you encounter Hespith in the deep roads, and something like that doesn't happen to every gray warden.

And even if the Architect was very well intentioned, he may consider that the sacrifice of just a few women was significantly better than than the thousands killed in a blight. 

But I don't think my warden would feel that way.

[Glottisthedriver]

Ferret A Baudoin wrote...

When writing the stuff in Vigil's Keep and politics often I wanted to portray the joys and sorrows of ruling ("heavy is the head that wears the crown" was always in the back of my head). The part about the peasant uprising I think is historically pretty accurate. If you gave in to peasants' demands (which seems right in contemporary times) you could get raked over the coals. In my last pen and paper game there were similar themes and the players really got into it. I'm glad you guys liked it.

I have to say that personally while I can see that the game was trying to hit those notes, I really feel that the expansion just wasn't long enough and didn't have enough depth to really pull it off. Frankly I would have absolutely loved it if Vigil's Keep, politics and recruiting/rebuilding the Wardens had been the real focus of the expansion instead of taking a back seat to the "ZOMG super Darkspwan o noes" plot. Everything just appeared too short and truncated to really draw me in, nothing really consisted of more that two or three fairly simple steps, and there was no real emotional payoff because of how quickly everything was resolved.

I can see what the OP means about feeling frustrated at the lack of a positive outcome, especially in terms of rebuilding the order, but I don't really see that as a strength. I understand it is an expansion, but instead of addressing the original problem presented to the character at the start of the game, rebuilding the Order in Fereldan, a problem presented in the core game yet tangential to the main plot (so I don't really see how it could significantly screw up the canon if they were successful), instead a completely new and dire threat is presented; "The Mother" and the Warden has to save the world from her, something that is nicely resolved by the end of the expansion. I feel a more mundane, limited plot, dealing with more "normal" problems would have served just as well if not better.

I guess I'll wrap up with saying I really like the vision, it's the kind of George R.R. Martin style fantasy writing that the DA developers said they were inspired by, and I want more of it, I just think it need more depth and focus, and more game time dedicated to it for it to really work.

[Caldarin V]

Ferret A Baudoin wrote...

When writing the stuff in Vigil's Keep and politics often I wanted to portray the joys and sorrows of ruling ("heavy is the head that wears the crown" was always in the back of my head). The part about the peasant uprising I think is historically pretty accurate. If you gave in to peasants' demands (which seems right in contemporary times) you could get raked over the coals. In my last pen and paper game there were similar themes and the players really got into it. I'm glad you guys liked it.

yeah, first time through I gave them what they wanted, and felt pretty good about myself
I was a tad upset (in the "oh crap... I feel terrible" kind of way) when I read that I eventually had to kill tons and tons of them; it's a realistic and reasonable outcome for that, but it was a nice smack in the face from my mostly happy epilogue

[phaonica]

Lol. It's so odd how some of us *like* that our "feel good" choices have negative outcomes. Is it because it makes the game more realistic? Or that it makes you think--that's it's a puzzle in disguise? Is it because we feel rewarded for picking a no-nonsense response? Maybe that a reward with no risk is less of a reward? Or maybe because it gives the power to choose more meaning--either the whole "with power comes responsibility" thing -- or just the power to change something meaningful in the game?



For me, it's a little bit of all of that. The theme of the game seems to be about how your actions as a person with power affect people's lives, about your responsibilty for your actions, and about your duty to those people. It's about how giving people what they want is not always best for them or for others.

[Revya]

I was able to persuade the peasents to leave with little fuss, but when the ending stated that I gave them what they wanted. I did a double take...when did I ever give them anything I just said "trust me"...politicians say the same thing all the time and I don't see them granting wishs. So I have to assume that its a bug if not than its lack of forsight.

And that is a reall problem for me, the C&C are dictated not by what I did but by the horrid bugs in the game.

Also Vigils Keep is just NWN2 Crossroad Keep lite :\\\\

I am still hoping Bioware can do better next time at least something on the level of Mask of the Betrayer expansion.

Modifié par Revya, 29 avril 2010 - 10:25 .

[Raiil]

phaonica wrote...

Lol. It's so odd how some of us *like* that our "feel good" choices have negative outcomes. Is it because it makes the game more realistic? Or that it makes you think--that's it's a puzzle in disguise? Is it because we feel rewarded for picking a no-nonsense response? Maybe that a reward with no risk is less of a reward? Or maybe because it gives the power to choose more meaning--either the whole "with power comes responsibility" thing -- or just the power to change something meaningful in the game?
 

I think it's there for an option of how you play your character. My Amell is not interested in politics, in the slightest, she just wants to keep people fed, sheltered, and out of her hair while she serves her time as the Arlessa. I rolled an Orlesian mage as well, who was much more political. Amell ended up leaving Amaranthine in decent shape- she saved the city and upgraded the Keep, etc. My Orlesian left in an amazing shape for the Wardens, ensuring that there were no more riots, getting rid of murderous nobles, etc. Her priority was keeping the Keep for the Wardens, whereas Amell was just trying to make sure people didn't starve. 

[phaonica]

Valentia X wrote...

I think it's there for an option of how you play your character.

Oh, absolutely, this too. It's definitley a cool RP factor. If I want to play an elf who hates humans, the humans in the game will actually respond to that. It's neat. You can't do everything you want to, of course, but  neither of my main characters turned out how I expected them to. That's pretty exciting

Modifié par phaonica, 29 avril 2010 - 11:21 .

[Inzhuna]

WhiteVeils wrote...


There's no reason for you to trust Utha or Velanna's sister.  They may not even know about how Broodmothers are created...you never learn of it until you encounter Hespith in the deep roads, and something like that doesn't happen to every gray warden.

Utha's been a Grey Warden for quite some time prior to joining The Architect. So she most definitely knows.

[Callo Istur]

Revya wrote...

I was able to persuade the peasents to leave with little fuss, but when the ending stated that I gave them what they wanted. I did a double take...when did I ever give them anything I just said "trust me"...politicians say the same thing all the time and I don't see them granting wishs. So I have to assume that its a bug if not than its lack of forsight.

I also was able to persuade the peasants and they just gave up and went home. It was the easiest resolution to any of the ruling problems I encountered.  There wasn't any mention of it in the epilogue at all that I recall for my ending.

The choice between Amaranthine and Vigil's Keep, however, was the most devastating for me. It really bummed me out to lose the Vigil and the lives of three of my companions. My character was left wondering if he had just paid the dwarf the extra gold he wanted for skilled laborers- would that have made a difference? Would the Vigil have held? But those runes were so damn expensive! Aaarrghh! My character wanted his Wardens to have the best equipment gold could buy, but great equipment doesn't do you any good if you're overrun by a horde of darkspawn because your commander was too cheap to make sure the walls were as stout as possible. Oh, the guilt. I imagine it's why he resigned his command and wandered off after Morrigan. Maybe, like Ohgren, he's "only good at killing things", not ruling over people.

If you ally with the Architect at the end, it does say the Deep Roads grow quieter over the next several years than anyone can remember. Surely that is due to the influence of the Architect enlightening his brethren? Even if he dies, doubtless he has disciples who will carry on his work, even if his genius would be missed. His disciples don't seem to possess his restainst and self-control, however.

Once the seventh is dead, you're free to head into the deep roads and systematically slaughter them. There's no driving force calling them, and they are unintelligent, so they won't organize. They can be hunted down.

But they are still tainted. That would be the major problem, I think. Most people die when exposed to the taint, sooner or later- mostly sooner. Trying to chase them down into their corruption-filled holes deep, deep underground would result in unsustainable casualties to the soldiers from the taint and disease, I'm thinking. I'm not sure losing their compulsions would make them any less organized. They're pretty unorganized as it is. But they would still have their hive mind. What one knows, all know. I don't think it would be possible to eradicate them. If anything, your best shot would be when they're gathered in one place, digging toward an Old God. But I think the dwarves would have attempted that a long time ago if it were possible. The taint is just too much to overcome.

[Dokarqt]

MEUTRIERE wrote...

Sounds like Machiavelli knew what he was talking about.

This.

[OldMan91]

Dokarqt wrote...

MEUTRIERE wrote...

Sounds like Machiavelli knew what he was talking about.

This.

Back in the 15/16th century you may be right about Machiavelli. Nowadays... not so much.

[bzombo]

phaonica wrote...

I felt the same way about the Architect. Suddenly the Blight seemed like a way to keep the darkspawn problem under control, and didn't seem so bad in comparison to the Architect's alternative.

i was dead set against letting the architect live. wiping out 50-60% of the population to make the darkspawn feel warm and squishy just didn't do it for me. less people have died in all blights combined compared to the architect's plan. i'm willing to take my chances with only 2 or 3 old gods left.

[Celuwen]

Ferret A Baudoin wrote...

When writing the stuff in Vigil's Keep and politics often I wanted to portray the joys and sorrows of ruling ("heavy is the head that wears the crown" was always in the back of my head). The part about the peasant uprising I think is historically pretty accurate. If you gave in to peasants' demands (which seems right in contemporary times) you could get raked over the coals. In my last pen and paper game there were similar themes and the players really got into it. I'm glad you guys liked it.

Thank you for writing it so well. I hadn't expected it from an expansion pack, so I had a horrible time of it. Everything was almost counter-intuitive. In Origins I could be noble and moral with very little hand-wringing. In fact the worst part was when Alistair gave me the Sad Panda speech when I made him (and Anora) King/Queen.

I swear when he turned up in Awakenings he was laughing his bum off! I think I owe that man a pint!

I found the sudden change in responsibilities very difficult. Being noble and moral tended towards death, pain and far too much guilt. I had to be hard and my poor newly minted Warden-Commander had no idea how to do this. As such, I failed. It was rather harsh, really. 

The politics were what made this expansion. Sure, we had some interesting new characters. My favourites being Sigrun and Nathaniel. The fighting and story were on par with Origins, but being forced to chose between good and good, with so many people depending on you, was something I've never encountered before. 

So thank you.

[asaiasai]

I really liked some concepts from Awakenings, and as some folks have said the decisions seem to be a damed if you do and damed if you don't. I thought the concept of ruling an Arling, rebuilding the Arling, placating/subdueing the nobles and peasants, really drove the difficulties home. I would hope that in DA2 or another expansion Bioware really expands on this concept.



The right of conscription was interesting, though i never understood why Varel, not a Grey Warden was intimately familiar with the joining procedure and was the go to guy for it. No biggie though it was cool enough that i can over look the inconsistincy.



I liked Awakenings bugs and all, hey it is not perfect but what game really is? It is more DAo and that is always a good thing.



Asai

[Carmen_Willow]

phaonica wrote...

Ferret A Baudoin wrote...

When writing the stuff in Vigil's Keep and politics often I wanted to portray the joys and sorrows of ruling ("heavy is the head that wears the crown" was always in the back of my head). The part about the peasant uprising I think is historically pretty accurate. If you gave in to peasants' demands (which seems right in contemporary times) you could get raked over the coals. In my last pen and paper game there were similar themes and the players really got into it. I'm glad you guys liked it.

Kudos. This really was the highlight of Awakening for me.

I agree. It was a different sort of drama from the "go kill the bad guys" thing.  I like that you have to decide which is more important; keeping the trade moving or the food growing (the city could take care of itself, IMO) at least until attacked.

The only thing that seemed wrong was that the Warden Commander would be off doing fetch quests.....perhaps sending the Arl/Commander out to enforce the payment of taxes or quell more rebellions, etc., would have been more in keeping with the main character's new station in life. I think the nobility of the feudal days spent a lot of time keeping their own vassals in line....