309 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

One of the things I loved about Dragon Age is there was often times the harsh and difficult choices between two morally grey points, such as killing Isolde or Connor. You ponder on these choices, you sit there and cry as you're about to pick that one importa- Wait a minute. What's with the "Go to the Mage Tower" option?

Third options are the options that present the best alternative for everybody, such as the one mentioned above or curing the werewolves. I could mention a few others from Mass Effect as well but I won't bother. I'm curious how the community feels about this, in Dragon Age 2 do you want more of these third options or would you prefer them removed completely? What is your reasoning?

Myself I'd remove them, I love to have these tough decisions that people would argue for days on the forums about what one is the right and wrong choice. You wouldn't be able to walk away into the sunset with a smile on your face.

Thoughts?

[pizoxuat]

I would remove them. I think making a difficult choice is much more interesting.  I'm one of those people who chose to go to the Mage's Tower because I thought it would result in a tragedy and was disappointed to get a Good End.

Modifié par pizoxuat, 07 octobre 2010 - 12:05 .

[thegreateski]

Third option - Hawke lives as a penniless peasant for his whole life and eventually dies of sickness. Nobody remembers him.



Hows that for a third option?

[Withidread]

In general, I'd say keep them.

Without the third option in the Connor/Isolde example, it would feel too much like my companions (who are supposedly following me) are dictating our course of action rather than me.

[Enshaid]

I'd much prefer more dilemmas that don't have a happy fairytale solution. The "go to the mage tower" thing just felt stupid to me and ruined an otherwise weighty decision.

[Sneelonz]

Instead of having THE third option, you should be able to choose from 3-4 different options that are all equally morally grey.

[In Exile]

I like the third option - I just don't think it should end well. I thought that with Connor, there should have been a difference price: the village of Redcliffe, or Arl Eamon. I think it's important to allow the character to be a greedy hero - to want to save everyone, to have everyone live; but it shouldn't always happen.

[Dave of Canada]

In Exile wrote...

I like the third option - I just don't think it should end well. I thought that with Connor, there should have been a difference price: the village of Redcliffe, or Arl Eamon. I think it's important to allow the character to be a greedy hero - to want to save everyone, to have everyone live; but it shouldn't always happen.

I expected the demon to come back and like... kill people when I was off to the tower. Saving both Isolde and Connor but at another price. However it went to Desire Demon Beach and stayed there as I chilled at the Mage Tower.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 07 octobre 2010 - 12:08 .

[Zebron is reaL]

I don't want to have to lose in every decision I make. I'd keep a good amount in the game if not for feeling successful then at least for variety

[Anarya]

Yes and no. I want a third option in places where it makes sense. Getting Zathrian to break the curse makes sense. Leaving Connor to rampage around Redcliffe and then finding that nothing happened does not make a lot of sense to me. I don't want it to be impossible to get a good outcome in all situations but I also don't want a guarantee that there is at least one way to "win", every time.

[kalivon626]

Id like to keep them, but i would like there to be consequences for the third option. Like the option to go to the mage tower should have had the consequence of more people dying in Redcliffe that way there is more choices but no perfect one.

[Apollo Starflare]

Yeah I'd mostly prefer to see every major choice having a real consequence (one that makes you question whether you made the right decision), rather than having a 'make everyone happy' option too often. As it is in the example you give I have pretended I don't know if you can make it to the mages and back in time once or twice in order to justify my character making a tougher choice. So yeah, wherever possible I'd prefer to not see them used...

[Knight Templar_]

I think that you can't have the perfect (or at least the least harmful) third option for every occurrence.

I didn't take the "go to the Mages Tower" option because I had yet to reach the tower yet had heard of its trouble. I didn't think I could go there and be back in time. The werewolves one made sense and it was what I set out to do the moment I understood what was going on.

I don't want them for everything and I'm not sure I want them to be obvious, but I feel they can be very good. Some choices would be worse off for having them and others better.

[JrayM16]

kalivon626 wrote...

Id like to keep them, but i would like there to be consequences for the third option. Like the option to go to the mage tower should have had the consequence of more people dying in Redcliffe that way there is more choices but no perfect one.

Agreed.  I would also add that the third options should take a bit more effort to access than the other two.  For instance, two options are available by default, but if you did certain things in the preceding quest then you get a third option.

[lv12medic]

They probably could have been implemented a little better, if that makes any sense.

I think the third options were kind of there for... I don't know if this is the right way to put it, but to award people for talking things out when the situation occurs. Like the Mage circle for Connor doesn't even come up in conversation unless you go through a few dialogue choices... especially if you're trying to find anything that would work besides the two initial immediate choices. Same with the Werewolves, you talk for awhile and then all of a sudden, you find you can get everyone in the same room, have an argument, and then viola, the Werewolves are cured.

Without metagaming, there were risks involved with the two "third options" but they never transpired... as DaGaider would say, no gotcha moments. I would personally like if either the third option didn't kind of just fall out of the sky, or had other consequences (edit, not necessarily bad ones or anything, but just something to change things up a bit). Bleh, getting all long winded here.

Modifié par lv12medic, 07 octobre 2010 - 12:14 .

[NugWrangler]

If it makes sense story wise I don't see a problem with it. You shouldn't always be stuck between a rock and hard place. Even though you were sometimes offered compromises in DAO you could still justify making another decision depending on how you RP your character. I agree you shouldn't always get an easy out, but I don't think there is any reason to remove the option completely.

[In Exile]

Anarya wrote...

Yes and no. I want a third option in places where it makes sense. Getting Zathrian to break the curse makes sense. Leaving Connor to rampage around Redcliffe and then finding that nothing happened does not make a lot of sense to me. I don't want it to be impossible to get a good outcome in all situations but I also don't want a guarantee that there is at least one way to "win", every time.

Not to mention that does have a cost - the loss of Zathrian, who is a powerful bloodmage who could help against the blight, a stabilizing influence for the Dalish, etc. Losing him makes your overall force weaker, so it isn't just picking the happy ending button, like the Connor choice was.

[jhawke]

I'd prefer if they did keep the third option.



If I'm playing a good-aligned character, I try to play the "mediator" role whenever possible. I'll try the diplomatic option first, before resorting to kicking a**.



That being said, I don't think there shouldn't be any tough choices or choices with consequences. There should be. But they should also include another option for those of us who want to seek a better solution.......

[silentassassin264]

I hated the third options. It was like "Dragon Age is an epic game of gray and gray morality but there is clearly a right white option amidst the gray".



Redcliffe would have been somewhat of a tough decision (jk I would always kill Isolde) if you didn't have the Circle option but as it was, it was a bad option, a bad option, and whatchaknow it is what you are supposed to pick. It would have been something if the third option was not doing a main quest that you had to do anyway but rather an actual sidequest, but you have to do the Circle tower anyway and you probably would side with the mages. At least make Connor kill people in the village or make some draw back for doing the Circle option.



Similar with Nature of the Beast. It is kind of obvious that killing the elves or killing the werewolves is the "bad" option when you can just end the curse exceptionally easily.



Taking a third option with little to no consequence cheapens the story and makes it decidedly less epic.

[Ortaya Alevli]

I'd remove them, too. These are the moments when you remember this is no fairy tale. And Alistair basically outdoing himself for a change and yelling and stuff back at the camp had much more dramatic value than the tower option. It was one of the two reasons I never picked the tower route (the other being a chance to see the Isolde **** kick the bucket). People argue. Tension rises. Nothing wrong with people taking a break from worshipping the ground you walk and questioning you for once.

I'm glad you didn't have an option to save both Ash and Kaidan in ME. There are times things don't play out the way you wish no matter how hard you try. Pretending otherwise...no, this ain't no Disney cartoon, boy'o.

[Maverick827]

I think it's best to let BioWare do their thing and let the chips fall where they may. When you start to question choices like this, where do you draw the line?

"Why wasn't I able to send a messenger to the Circle while I stayed behind and kept Connor in check?!"

"Why couldn't I force someone else to sacrifice his or her life instead of Isolde?"

"Why couldn't I enter the fade, pretend to make a deal with the demon, but then search for a more permanent solution after I ended the Blight and had some free time on my hands?"

[JrayM16]

Maverick827 wrote...

I think it's best to let BioWare do their thing and let the chips fall where they may. When you start to question choices like this, where do you draw the line?
"Why wasn't I able to send a messenger to the Circle while I stayed behind and kept Connor in check?!"
"Why couldn't I force someone else to sacrifice his or her life instead of Isolde?"
"Why couldn't I enter the fade, pretend to make a deal with the demon, but then search for a more permanent solution after I ended the Blight and had some free time on my hands?"

Agree with all but the last one you mentioned.  It onvolves quite a bit of inference and assumption.

[Reaverwind]

Freek on a Leesh wrote...

I'd much prefer more dilemmas that don't have a happy fairytale solution. The "go to the mage tower" thing just felt stupid to me and ruined an otherwise weighty decision.

Agreed. Going to the Circle Tower felt like a cheap cop-out. I prefer all options to have consequences.

Modifié par Reaverwind, 07 octobre 2010 - 12:26 .

[Champion1]

I think the third option should be harder, but still there. Like with the "go to Magi Tower" thing, if the tower wasn't already cleared then the option should disappear, or you can clear the tower right then, but get back to Redcliffe to find everyone dead and have to kill Connor anyways.



To simplify, there should be a third option, but it should have another factor that, if you completed it before hand, results in a good ending, but if you try it and HAVEN'T completed it, makes everything go horribly wrong. Or the third option should just be a LOT harder then the other two, then get the good ending if you don't screw up.

[shnizzler93]

I say keep it, mainly because I'm a p*ssy when it comes to playing games and can NEVER do anything evil.