217 réponses à ce sujet

[aberdash]

Captain Jazz wrote...

I played a game once where the actions I took in the previous game in the series had a direct effect on what happened in this one - the civilizations of the galaxy called it Mass Effect - so surely it is also conceivable that the choices made in Dragon Age may have repercussions in Dragon Age 2? I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of abominations rampaging around the place.

There has been no mention of our choices in DA:O affecting DA2 but as for ME1 and 2 the effects of importing a savegame were very minor.

[Randy1012]

Captain Jazz wrote...

youjik33 wrote...

They DIDN'T call Bhelen a tyrant. They said that some dwarves thought he was a tyrant... while others thought he was amazingly progressive.

He dissolves the assembly and rules Orzammar alone... with Lord Blader by his side to do his bidding! (Second part may be fabrication.)

The Assembly also abused their positions of power and forced the Common Dwarves to endure brutal lives of poverty, disease, and squalor. Maybe Bhelen was the Julius Caesar to the Assembly's Roman Senate.

[London]

Funny you mentioned Julius Caesar, I also thought Bhelen was modelled after Caesar. Especially advocating for more equality among the castes.

[DragonOfWhiteThunder]

Aberdash, what Narneth has been trying to point out is that there are story consequences for your actions, beyond the simple.



Orzammar doesn't need to be gone over again.



Connor. Yes, the Circle hands you a "get out of jail free" card if you've saved the Circle by siding with the mages and you kill the demon. In that case, however, I think the good end is justified by the effort the Warden goes through to get it. Basically it's the story rewarding you for earlier choices.



The Circle. We don't know how many abominations and/or blood mages we've let live. They're obviously going to bide their time for a bit to prevent a repeat disaster, but they will eventually act. But if you side with the Templars, you've condemned at least one innocent to death, Wynne. As far as we know, siding with the mages is "good," but our information is incomplete.



The elves. Killing the elves is evil. Killing the werewolves is evil. But Zathrian's a little more grey, by killing him, you may have just condemned the elves to die a slower death under his successor's (mis)rule, and at the very least destroyed a source of their hope. It is a better choice than the alternatives, but not necessarily "good."



And there's also a very ambiguous choice in the sidequests: the Mage's Collective. I have no doubt that most of the Collective are as they say, self-restrained magi who simply don't wish to be stared at by Templars every waking moment, (and the guy who wants Deep Mushrooms is just a druggie) but Blood Warning, Places of Power, and The Scrolls of Banastor seem very suspicious to me. But all I have are suspicions. If I act on them, I will be condemning every innocent Collective Mage, but if I don't, I might be allowing malificarum to practice freely, and even aiding them.

[Malanek]

You can reassemble the body parts of that demon and either grant it freedom or kill it. If you grant it freedom you get 30 gold from memory, which is a fair bit bit. The "good" option is obviously to destroy it and then you miss out. Same with the lyrium smuggling, that seems a bit shady and taking the good option loses a lot of money.

Admittedly these aren't game breakers, the game is ultimately heroic in nature. The entire story involves doing a "good deed" and I believe this is the way the majority of people actually want to play. I don't think Bioware should really start heavily punishing players who want to play that way.

[In Exile]

aberdash wrote...

And you shouldn't be punished for making what you thought was the good choice? Have you never heard of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

Going overboard with it would be just as bad as not having it at all. But if done right it can really set the tone for the world you are in. The Witcher did a great job at this imo.

In DA:O the choices were very clear most of the time so if you played a good character you defaulted to the good choice. Where is the roleplaying in that?

I think you should be punished for short-sighted versus it must be done because it must be neccesary.

Take the choice with Connor. I would have liked if the choice to go after the Circle of Mage would have resulted in failure. It wouldn't have been about tricking you; it would simply have been about being selfish. Sometimes you can't save everyone, and if you try, you should fail.

If you saved Redcliffe, I think there should be repricussions for the Blight. Save the individual in front of you, but suffer the consequence of the broader damage.

Alpha Protocol tried to implement this. I thought it was heavy-handed because every choice was like that, but it was good in principle ( I particularly liked the choice in Rome).

Tricking the player is just bad design.

[winter troll]

Narreneth wrote...

The Witcher is a game with really grey area morals. If you haven't played it, you should give it a whirl.

That said, I don't think Origins was quite as typical as you paint it. I also think that it's not a great idea to make the "good" choice be "evil." Unforeseen consequences are a good idea, and having morally grey choices is also awesome, but when the consequences are there just to throw you for a loop for trying to pick a certain way it feels more artificial than a game where everything is completely straightforward.

yeah witcher is something all rpgs should be aspiring to be .

In temple of elemental evil you could go around burning churches and raping women , would be a great game if it wasnt that buggy . Bioware took a safe root without ever going into really evil behaviour .

[Riona45]

filaminstrel wrote...

In Exile wrote...

If you saved Redcliffe, I think there should be repricussions for the Blight. Save the individual in front of you, but suffer the consequence of the broader damage.

What do you mean?

I could be wrong, but I assumed it meant "take time to save a village vs. let the village go in order to focus on the greater threat."

[Kalfear]

Narreneth wrote...

The Witcher is a game with really grey area morals. If you haven't played it, you should give it a whirl.

That said, I don't think Origins was quite as typical as you paint it. I also think that it's not a great idea to make the "good" choice be "evil." Unforeseen consequences are a good idea, and having morally grey choices is also awesome, but when the consequences are there just to throw you for a loop for trying to pick a certain way it feels more artificial than a game where everything is completely straightforward.

Not only that Narreneth but for those against (or for) the main hero being voiced.

Play the Witcher, its main hero is voiced and then come and tell me you feel connected and immersed to the character!

Im loving The Witcher game for the REAL mature game that it is (not ME2 and DA:O slightly over Teen "mature" games designs) but its weakest part of game is that hero has his own voice and after playing Leliannas Song and The Witcher and Mass Effect 2, im more against this move then ever before because its a immersion breaker for anyone with a immagination.

Modifié par Kalfear, 20 juillet 2010 - 05:52 .

[Massadonious1]

Kalfear wrote...
 im more against this move then ever before because its a immersion breaker for anyone with a immagination.

[Riona45]

filaminstrel wrote...

Makes sense... it also takes time going to the Circle and back. But you could kind of say that about all of the quests though. Wasting time solving the dwarves' politics, wasting time saving the mages, wasting time helping the Dalish take care of their werewolf problem, wasting time looking for mythical ashes...

Well in most of those cases, if you don't help those groups (mages, dwarves, elves, etc.) with their problems they can't help you make an army, which you need according to the game.  So in those cases it isn't really a waste of time.  Saving the village of Redcliffe on the other hand isn't necessary to gain Arl Eamon's help (whether or not it should is I guess another matter).

Just pointing that out, btw, not trying to argue with you.

[Ahisgewaya]

In Exile wrote...
Take the choice with Connor. I would have liked if the choice to go after the Circle of Mage would have resulted in failure. It wouldn't have been about tricking you; it would simply have been about being selfish. Sometimes you can't save everyone, and if you try, you should fail.

I disagree. Batman and most of his comic writers disagree with you too. I do beleive saving everyone should be damn hard, but not impossible. I personally wish the demon fight was tougher for example.

[Riona45]

filaminstrel wrote...

Hm, well I've never actually tried not saving Redcliffe, but you don't still get Redcliffe's army if you let them fend for themselves, do you?

I've never tried not saving Redcliffe, either.  However, I understand that it is optional.  Apparently, not helping the village results in it being destroyed, but all you need to gain Redcliffe's army is to save Arl Eamon.

[errant_knight]

Ahisgewaya wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Take the choice with Connor. I would have liked if the choice to go after the Circle of Mage would have resulted in failure. It wouldn't have been about tricking you; it would simply have been about being selfish. Sometimes you can't save everyone, and if you try, you should fail.

I disagree. Batman and most of his comic writers disagree with you too. I do beleive saving everyone should be damn hard, but not impossible. I personally wish the demon fight was tougher for example.

It's pretty darn hard if you let Jowan redeem himself. He's got doodly-squat for spells, and no health poitions or lyrium. And, while he has a couple of blood magic spells, I never uses those, since he's trying to redeem himself, after all.

[Wyndham711]

The Witcher series seem to not be afraid of any taboos or pay heed to any sort of political correctness. Being a small developer, with the goals they have set, CDProject can afford to drive this true dark fantasy vision forward. BioWare's aspirations are in the mainstream.

For example, the Ferelden society is very much akin to a modern society with modern values in the way genders are considered equal. Female warriors are commonplace, the Chantry is lead by women etc. To me these kinds of modern values feel out of place for anything that could be considered dark fantasy, even if they are very much appreciated by many modern gamers.

Due to their aspirations, BioWare is forced to pull some punches, and I feel at times it results in unfortunate loss of flavour in their settings.

[In Exile]

Ahisgewaya wrote...
I disagree. Batman and most of his comic writers disagree with you too. I do beleive saving everyone should be damn hard, but not impossible. I personally wish the demon fight was tougher for example.

Well, reality happens to agree. Sometimes it is not possible to have all that you want, and if you risk it you lose. It makes winning more worthwhile, when it happens.

Don't get me wrong - I don't want forced choices like in ME. I but with Conner in particular I thought it could be very reasonable that the Demon would go out of control and damage the town, or muder Isolde or Teagan, etc.

[AlanC9]

Thing is, some folks play these games to get away from unpleasant realities like that.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Thing is, some folks play these games to get away from unpleasant realities like that.

I suppose. I find it impossible to care for the significance of what you do when you know, as the player, failure in any respect is impossible.

[Chairon de Celeste]

It is not really clear if funding caravan passages to Denerim (good deed)
is without negative consequences, just like in real life.
Who can tell if Kathlyn, Bevin and Bella  ever made it to Denerim alive,
given the darlspawn raid parites swarming the roads and  eventually
the tricksterjux from the circle summoning side quest around?
And even if they managed to get there - did they catch a ship
passage in time to escape the AS's siege forces?

I really that subtile uncertainty to a blunt option
like pointing at their 3 corpses somewhere on the
road 'there - they'd been better off taking shelter inside the castle
in Redcliffe!'

I'd like to see that continue in Da2  rather than to see BW
resorting to Hammer Studios moral movie effect box of
the 1970ies, really.

Modifié par Chairon de Celeste, 20 juillet 2010 - 07:15 .

[aberdash]

Wyndham711 wrote...

The Witcher series seem to not be afraid of any taboos or pay heed to any sort of political correctness. Being a small developer, with the goals they have set, CDProject can afford to drive this true dark fantasy vision forward. BioWare's aspirations are in the mainstream.

Well The Witcher sold 1.5 million copies on the PC alone so they are certainly not an obscure developer going for a niche of the RPG market. Its quite clear the mainstream has responded very well to it and they apparently have no plans to change in The Witcher 2.

[Grommash94]

aberdash wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

I played a game once where the actions I took in the previous game in the series had a direct effect on what happened in this one - the civilizations of the galaxy called it Mass Effect - so surely it is also conceivable that the choices made in Dragon Age may have repercussions in Dragon Age 2? I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of abominations rampaging around the place.

There has been no mention of our choices in DA:O affecting DA2 but as for ME1 and 2 the effects of importing a savegame were very minor.

There has been, actually. Who you put on the throne, who killed the archdemon...those decisions will carry on.