309 réponses à ce sujet

[durasteel]

I don't play games for no-win situations. I get plenty of that in real life, and I play games to get away from that. When I play a hero, I definitely want to know that there is a way to win. I might take another option, for example letting Isolde make the sacrifice because frankly, everything was her fault and her redemption through sacrificing her life was satisfying. Still, I need to know that the option to be the ultimate hero and win completely is there. It makes me feel better, it is the reason why RPGs make such good escapist entertainment.

[theamplifiedsoul]

I'm fine with the 3rd option. Like previously stated they usually don't come up with out exploring the conversations in depth. For the people who dislike it they can just not choose it. It is an option after all. No one is forcing you to take the third option. I've chose the other options as well as third on different play throughs. Reasons varied between seeing different outcomes to not wanting to take the time running back and fourth. It's funny to me how people want less options in a game. I would like it if there were 4 or 5 options. All different outcomes. I do believe there should have been some negative outcome of going to the dircle option though. Like Teagan getting killed or something. That would have made sense.

[GodWood]

There should be no "I win" option.

Things don't always go right.

[mopotter]

I want the 3rd option. I like to choose the option that fits what I want to do. I don't play straight good or evil and sometimes that 3rd option works the best for the way I play.

[silentassassin264]

theamplifiedsoul wrote...

I'm fine with the 3rd option. Like previously stated they usually don't come up with out exploring the conversations in depth. For the people who dislike it they can just not choose it. It is an option after all. No one is forcing you to take the third option. I've chose the other options as well as third on different play throughs. Reasons varied between seeing different outcomes to not wanting to take the time running back and fourth. It's funny to me how people want less options in a game. I would like it if there were 4 or 5 options. All different outcomes. I do believe there should have been some negative outcome of going to the dircle option though. Like Teagan getting killed or something. That would have made sense.

Yeah they are forcing you to take the third option.  Alistair gets all angry at you if Isolde or Connor die because the game knows there was a better option and treats it as if you were just being lazy.  Same with you Wynne and Leliana getting angry if you choose to massacre anyone in Nature of the Beast because there is clearly a right option and you are not taking it.  

[mopotter]

durasteel wrote...

I don't play games for no-win situations. I get plenty of that in real life, and I play games to get away from that. When I play a hero, I definitely want to know that there is a way to win. I might take another option, for example letting Isolde make the sacrifice because frankly, everything was her fault and her redemption through sacrificing her life was satisfying. Still, I need to know that the option to be the ultimate hero and win completely is there. It makes me feel better, it is the reason why RPGs make such good escapist entertainment.

i agree.  I don't play games that are going to depress me, I play games to have fun, to save the world and to be heroic.  I may not always play the hero, ok I usually do, but I don't mind if there are other endings, I just need at least one ending that is super wonderful and filled with fireworks.  :happy:

[ErichHartmann]

Keep them. I didn't feel forced to always find the "happiest" solution and the more options to completing a quest the better.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I would vote (if voting mattered) to keep the third option and as many possible other options as possible, whether grey, dark or light. Either that or take the term "RPG" off the game packaging and change the title to Final Fantasy. Do you really want Grey Wardens riding Chocobos instead of fabled gryphons?

[Daerog]

Sometimes one can't have the third option. But, sometimes it just looks bad when it is not there. They could have said that there would be no time to see the Mages for the Isolde/Connor thing, or allow it but have things get worse because you left. However, many people pointed out how the choices were so limited when it came to the Collector Base in ME2, and how a third option to hand it to the Council or Alliance would make some sense to some people.

Forcing tragedy on the character when the player can easily think of a better option to at least try seems dull. If the choices were "Kill Isolde" or "Kill Connor," and the player thinks"... wait why can't we just use lyrium? It's not like the Circle is on the other side of Fereldan," then the two "dramatic" seem foolish when an alternative can be constructed. If BioWare wanted to force pain/misery/drama and hard choices on the player, then maybe they could allow the third option but add consequences to it. Such as Teagan dying when the possessed Connor attacked again while you were gone for at least a day making your way to the Circle and back. Or, on the return, be forced to kill Connor anyway because of some circumstances and having the "Kill Isolde" option removed after picking the third option. Or have both end up dying for not being fast enough. Just saying that a third option, or fourth, should be there. Maybe a consequence is that you get no reward because you picked the harder path. Perhaps they could just leave it as a no consequence, good ending because the hero thought things out and didn't hastily choose a decision laid in front of him/her.

[Reaverwind]

silentassassin264 wrote...

theamplifiedsoul wrote...

I'm fine with the 3rd option. Like previously stated they usually don't come up with out exploring the conversations in depth. For the people who dislike it they can just not choose it. It is an option after all. No one is forcing you to take the third option. I've chose the other options as well as third on different play throughs. Reasons varied between seeing different outcomes to not wanting to take the time running back and fourth. It's funny to me how people want less options in a game. I would like it if there were 4 or 5 options. All different outcomes. I do believe there should have been some negative outcome of going to the dircle option though. Like Teagan getting killed or something. That would have made sense.

Yeah they are forcing you to take the third option.  Alistair gets all angry at you if Isolde or Connor die because the game knows there was a better option and treats it as if you were just being lazy.  Same with you Wynne and Leliana getting angry if you choose to massacre anyone in Nature of the Beast because there is clearly a right option and you are not taking it.  

Having Alistair the Templar call my character out on putting down an Abomination came as a bit of shock, especially since I didn't regard that as an "evil" choice, but "serving the greater good" choice. My character let him have it as best as the dialog choices would allow.

Modifié par Reaverwind, 07 octobre 2010 - 12:46 .

[silentassassin264]

mopotter wrote...

durasteel wrote...

I don't play games for no-win situations. I get plenty of that in real life, and I play games to get away from that. When I play a hero, I definitely want to know that there is a way to win. I might take another option, for example letting Isolde make the sacrifice because frankly, everything was her fault and her redemption through sacrificing her life was satisfying. Still, I need to know that the option to be the ultimate hero and win completely is there. It makes me feel better, it is the reason why RPGs make such good escapist entertainment.

i agree.  I don't play games that are going to depress me, I play games to have fun, to save the world and to be heroic.  I may not always play the hero, ok I usually do, but I don't mind if there are other endings, I just need at least one ending that is super wonderful and filled with fireworks.  :happy:

But Dragon Age was advertised as a "Dark" fantasy.  If you always be the hero and only have to make difficult decisions if you want to, it isn't really dark.  It is just a nice happily-ever-after fairy tale fantasy in that case.  

[Reaverwind]

silentassassin264 wrote...

mopotter wrote...

durasteel wrote...

I don't play games for no-win situations. I get plenty of that in real life, and I play games to get away from that. When I play a hero, I definitely want to know that there is a way to win. I might take another option, for example letting Isolde make the sacrifice because frankly, everything was her fault and her redemption through sacrificing her life was satisfying. Still, I need to know that the option to be the ultimate hero and win completely is there. It makes me feel better, it is the reason why RPGs make such good escapist entertainment.

i agree.  I don't play games that are going to depress me, I play games to have fun, to save the world and to be heroic.  I may not always play the hero, ok I usually do, but I don't mind if there are other endings, I just need at least one ending that is super wonderful and filled with fireworks.  :happy:

But Dragon Age was advertised as a "Dark" fantasy.  If you always be the hero and only have to make difficult decisions if you want to, it isn't really dark.  It is just a nice happily-ever-after fairy tale fantasy in that case.  

My thoughts exactly.

[Amagoi]

I'd remove them. Maybe not all, but most. My first playthrough, I turned down the mage option because I believed Connor would kill everyone while I was gone. My Warden being forced to kill Conner was the best part of the game to me. I don't mean that in a sadistic sense, it made me feel and think more than any video game had to that point, I still haven't felt that way again.

Then I found the mage option was viable and was the 'best' option. I used that every playthrough after that, and emotionally I've never had a playthrough better than my first playthrough.

So I definatly want more decisions like that. Every now and then a 'best' option is nice, but a choice between two evils would fit Dragon Age a lot better. 

[bsbcaer]

I like the third option, but in the example you give (Connor) I think that there absolutely should be some sort of "punishment" or consequence for choosing to waltz over to the Tower of Magi to try and get help. A severely weakened Redcliff armed forces when you return (due to desire demon) or something along those lines

[GodWood]

I think some posters are interpreting the term 'third option' literally, meaning they want more than two options.

[Ortaya Alevli]

GodWood wrote...

I think some posters are interpreting the term 'third option' literally, meaning they want more than two options.

I get the feeling, too.

There's no arguing against the wish for having multiple options for solving a quest, but it's different when one of the options has a certain advantage over others with little to no "catch", turning the whole thing into a fairy tale. Especially in a dark fantasy.

Modifié par Ortaya Alevli, 07 octobre 2010 - 12:58 .

[Dave of Canada]

GodWood wrote...

I think some posters are interpreting the term 'third option' literally, meaning they want more than two options.

I think so too. They aren't reading the trope page.

[Daerog]

I guess this brings in the metagaming vs. roleplaying debate. Even if the Mage option is the best option, one doesn't have to roleplay that way and can make the choice to kill Connor for reasons that Amagoi brought up. If one just wishes to metagame and get the best ending they can, then why hold them back from wanting the best ending possible? Should there be punishment for the "third option"? I say no, but there *can* be punishments for the third option. There can be options that bring the best outcome, just as there can be options that are the worst possible scenario (leaving Redcliffe to be destroyed, why? Roleplay of course!). Removing them just because "there should be no happiness in dark fantasy" certainly limits the roleplaying and possible options in an rpg.

[silentassassin264]

I was going by the tvtropes third option.

[errant_knight]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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?

I don't like being forced into options that my character wouldn't take. Removing the option to go to the tower would have done that in the same way that an end game choice in Awakening did. It left a bad taste in my mouth. There are perfectly valid in game reasons not to take the choice, so there's no reason not to leave it there for those whose characters would. I hope they keep that, and don't go the Awakening route, which pretty much ruined it for me.

[Daerog]

I actually liked the "Save Amaranthine and innocent people" or "Save Vigil and your army" choice. Although, the third option is having Vigil being completely upgraded and saving Amaranthine since the Vigil doesn't really need saving with all the upgrades.

Or do you mean the Architect choice? I did think that the Architect just throwing himself into a corner like that was dumb. Killed him with my main and others, always made me feel bad for killing an interesting character from The Calling.

[DMC12]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

I actually liked the "Save Amaranthine and innocent people" or "Save Vigil and your army" choice. Although, the third option is having Vigil being completely upgraded and saving Amaranthine since the Vigil doesn't really need saving with all the upgrades.

That "third option" was glitched for me. Got the achievement for fully upgrading the Keep and still couldn't save both. So naturally I let Amaranthine burn instead of let interesting/semi-interesting main characters, who could possibly be cameos in DA2, die.

[Vaeliorin]

Personally, I say to keep the third option, but with some caveats. First of all, it shouldn't be easy. It should require some extra work. Since it's optional, it could have really difficult puzzles/combat in order to be successful.



Second, I think it should be able to fail without getting a game over, but instead being left with no other choice beyond one of the first two. For example, in the Connor/Isolde issue, if whoever you send into the Fade via lyrium dies, instead of it simply being game over, I think that character should be dead, and you then have to either kill Connor, or try to convince the mages to let you do the blood magic bit with Isolde (and if that fails, another dead character and you have to kill Connor.) This isn't to say that a character should always die if you fail at a third option, just that it should have the expected outcome of that failure.



Even if you manage to complete the extra work for the third choice, however, I don't think that necessarily means it should be successful. Sometimes you go out of your way to try and do something good, and even if you're successful in what you were trying to do, it won't necessarily matter because you take too long, or the situation changes.



It really would bother me to totally remove it, however. Not giving my character the choice to look for a better outcome would quite often result in a character who was just stuck for me. Since I quite often play good characters, the option to not even look (even if it turns out unsuccessful) for a palatable option leaves me with a character who can't possibly proceed because the only choices are ones that that character would never make.

[errant_knight]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

I actually liked the "Save Amaranthine and innocent people" or "Save Vigil and your army" choice. Although, the third option is having Vigil being completely upgraded and saving Amaranthine since the Vigil doesn't really need saving with all the upgrades.
Or do you mean the Architect choice? I did think that the Architect just throwing himself into a corner like that was dumb. Killed him with my main and others, always made me feel bad for killing an interesting character from The Calling.

Heh, I was trying not to include Awakening spoilers....but while I did the upgrades and saved the city, I found the ending quite pyrrhic, given the level of loss of life, something I never quite understood, since appenently the walls held. It really didn't feel like a win, which was exacerbated by the way it ended so abruptly.