309 réponses à ce sujet

[errant_knight]

Dave of Canada wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

But there are no real consequences to killing Connor or Isolde. Eamon still supports you without issue, and while Alistair gets very angry, it's not permanent. Why should there be a heavier price to pay for trying to save Eamon's family?

How is say... Teagan dying a heavier price? Connor and Isolde are just as close to Eamon.

What can I say? I need to eat...badly. This is what happens when my blood sugar gets too low. My brain skips out for a bit.

[Daerog]

Dave of Canada wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

But there are no real consequences to killing Connor or Isolde. Eamon still supports you without issue, and while Alistair gets very angry, it's not permanent. Why should there be a heavier price to pay for trying to save Eamon's family?

How is say... Teagan dying a heavier price? Connor and Isolde are just as close to Eamon.

people like Teagan. He is also a political figure of some importance. Connor and Isolde can just die with no real blow being given to the political structure, just Eamon's emotional state, which would happen in all three cases.
Still, it would have made for an interesting turn around. I was a little shocked when he got up after fighting the Warden and companions the first time. I thought I did end up killing him.

[Blastback]

I think that the third options should stay. However, they should have some sort of unseen consequence down the road. Keep them still possibly better than the other two alternatives, but make some sort of fallout no matter what you do.

[AndrahilAdrian]

3rd options invariably equal deus ex machina. They also force good characters (and logical characters) into picking that option, because its so obviously the best one. 3rd options are the thing I like least about Dragon Age (next to loose ends), because they totally ruin the whole "meaningful choices, gritty realism" premise.

[silentassassin264]

Lukas Kristjanson wrote...

Eh, in hindsight there are perhaps better ways to present an option like the Circle solution to the Connor plot. Maybe telegraphing it earlier in a less direct way, before you get anywhere near the choke point. “Sounds like mage work.” “Yes, but the Circle is busy with their own problems.” Then when the choice comes, only show the Circle as an option if you have already gone to the tower and gained the mages as allies. That way it’s still a reward for exploration and investigation, but is not out of the blue.
 
Because that’s what these are intended to be, rewards for the player who does the legwork, which has to balance in that weird zone between random and obvious. When you deal with the size of weave that we tend to produce, it's good and interesting when plots affect each other. Like the “rally the crowd” option in Tali’s loyalty mission in ME2. Players who got it thought it was a really cool result for consistent support of various quarian interests. Those who didn’t see it had no idea it was even possible. I’m on the fence about the visibility of it, but I would definitely rather have it present than not at all.
 
So we’re always looking to balance this sort of thing. Will we remove “third options” simply for the sake of satisfying those who think every plot should be a choice between suck and blow? Nope. But neither will we add them just for the sake of making everything rosey. And I do agree they can bring other consequences depending on what you have to do to get them.

 
By the way, “trope” is getting a little overused lately. Why don’t people trot out the “mistakes video game villains make so the plot is somewhat interesting and longer than the time it takes to cap your hero in the back of the head” lists again? Those made people feel smart too, you know.

Yeah, the "rally the crowd" option was a third option that made sense as well as the Dark Ritual itself in Dragon Age.  But having random Deus Ex Machina to make everything better with no consequences is rather lame.  I agree that if you have built up with foreshadowing that there will be a third option is you make the right choices then it is fine because it isn't coming out of nowhere and making everything all better.  You actually have to work for that (or like the Dark Ritual it was the whole point of Flemeth saving you). 

[errant_knight]

Blastback wrote...

I think that the third options should stay. However, they should have some sort of unseen consequence down the road. Keep them still possibly better than the other two alternatives, but make some sort of fallout no matter what you do.

Hmmm... I don't know. It should be possible to make good decisions without ending up with poo on your shoe each and every time.

[Sherbet Lemon]

Reaverwind wrote...

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.

But I don't really see a happy ever after situation in Redcliffe.  Connor is FOREVER changed by this as Arl Eamon alludes to at the Post-Coronation event.  Redcliffe is quite nearly decimated, and that situation is horrifically tragic.   Many people lost their loved ones.  The funeral scene where they launched boats onto Lake Calenhad...very touching at least for me.   Furthermore,  Leliana articulates this when Morrigan asks during party banter if Leliana will turn that experience into an an epic ballad.  If you're only concerned about companion reactions (namely Alistair) for that instance, then it won't seem like a tragedy. 

But as others have argued, you don't have to choose that option.  If the third option wasn't there and you had to choose between Connor and Isolde (which one to kill) then Alistair would still be angry at you.  Don't choose it.  Choose what feels natural to your character.   

Beside, choosing between Bhelen and Harrowmont is plenty grey/dark if you ask me.  Both seem to be pretty horrendous decisions.

[Blastback]

errant_knight wrote...

Blastback wrote...

I think that the third options should stay. However, they should have some sort of unseen consequence down the road. Keep them still possibly better than the other two alternatives, but make some sort of fallout no matter what you do.

Hmmm... I don't know. It should be possible to make good decisions without ending up with poo on your shoe each and every time.

I'm not saying thay you should punish a player for trying to do the right thing, but involve some risk.

[Dave of Canada]

Village Idiot wrote...

But as others have argued, you don't have to choose that option.

When I don't metagame, I never do take the Connor choice with the Mage Tower. I often go in and kill Connor (well, I let Isolde finish him off.) simply because I approach the Mage Tower as too risky. However, this bothers me on a personal level.

How many people do you suspect have ALWAYS chosen the mage tower when they found out the choice was available? Players will always pick the best and brightest choice when available, they'll never consider the other alternatives.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 07 octobre 2010 - 01:58 .

[errant_knight]

Blastback wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Blastback wrote...

I think that the third options should stay. However, they should have some sort of unseen consequence down the road. Keep them still possibly better than the other two alternatives, but make some sort of fallout no matter what you do.

Hmmm... I don't know. It should be possible to make good decisions without ending up with poo on your shoe each and every time.

I'm not saying thay you should punish a player for trying to do the right thing, but involve some risk.

Oh, I'm all for that! I wouldn't mind if when you went back to the tower there was a whole new massive obstacle to overcome before you could get help--something that would affect relationships, and be hard to overcome. I just don't want to feel like I'm getting smacked upside the head for trying to be good.

[Sable Rhapsody]

errant_knight wrote...

Blastback wrote...

I think that the third options should stay. However, they should have some sort of unseen consequence down the road. Keep them still possibly better than the other two alternatives, but make some sort of fallout no matter what you do.

Hmmm... I don't know. It should be possible to make good decisions without ending up with poo on your shoe each and every time.

Agreed.  Sometimes there really is no good "third option."  And sometimes there is, and it makes good sense.  I really liked the "either or" decisions of ME2, because they did feel like I was being put in a tight spot.  Legion's sidequest, Mordin's sidequest--these things don't have clean third option solutions.  But if I CAN take a clean third option solution, I shouldn't be idiot-balled into not taking it for the sake of making the character's life suck more.

[errant_knight]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

But as others have argued, you don't have to choose that option.

When I don't metagame, I never do take the Connor choice with the Mage Tower. I often go in and kill Connor (well, I let Isolde finish him off.) simply because I approach the Mage Tower as too risky. However, this bothers me on a personal level.

How many people do you suspect have ALWAYS chosen the mage tower when they found out the choice was available? Players will always pick the best and brightest choice when available, they'll never consider the other alternatives.

Well, I chose it the first time without knowing what would happen, and have everytime since. As I say, I just don't play characters who would consider the other options as options at all.

[AndrahilAdrian]

Village Idiot wrote...

But as others have argued, you don't have to choose that option.

You do if you want to maintain believability. Why would your character kill the child when they could...well...not? With no consequences for not killing it. Not taking the third option makes your character stupid evil.

[silentassassin264]

Blastback wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Blastback wrote...

I think that the third options should stay. However, they should have some sort of unseen consequence down the road. Keep them still possibly better than the other two alternatives, but make some sort of fallout no matter what you do.

Hmmm... I don't know. It should be possible to make good decisions without ending up with poo on your shoe each and every time.

I'm not saying thay you should punish a player for trying to do the right thing, but involve some risk.

Exactly.  The go to the Mage Tower option would not be bad if after defending the village, Teagan says that foul magic is at play and wishes the Circle of Magi were available to help or some other tip off to make you do Broken Circle before you venture into the Castle and leave Irving and the other mages with Ser Whatshisname at the gate to rush in after you have secured everything.  Then right after you confront Connor with dancing Teagan, you can go to the fade with Irving and crew and save the day with a Big Darn Heroes moment.  

But, going through all of that and then leaving an abomination that is trying to kill everyone for fun unguarded while you go off and rescue the circle and then comeback a save the day makes no sense.  It is a massive cop out and you should have had to make a hard decision or pay for it for since you left a homicidal abomination right there.

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

But as others have argued, you don't have to choose that option.

You do if you want to maintain believability. Why would your character kill the child when they could...well...not? With no consequences for not killing it. Not taking the third option makes your character stupid evil. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/devil.png[/smilie]

This times ten.  Why would you kill the elves or werewolves when you can just cure the curse or kill Connor or Isolde when you can safely go to the tower?  The game clearly gives you a right option and if you don't take it, you are being evil just for the sake of it.

Modifié par silentassassin264, 07 octobre 2010 - 02:08 .

[Reaverwind]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

But as others have argued, you don't have to choose that option.

When I don't metagame, I never do take the Connor choice with the Mage Tower. I often go in and kill Connor (well, I let Isolde finish him off.) simply because I approach the Mage Tower as too risky. However, this bothers me on a personal level.

How many people do you suspect have ALWAYS chosen the mage tower when they found out the choice was available? Players will always pick the best and brightest choice when available, they'll never consider the other alternatives.

I chose going to the Circle at first because of the not-so-subtle "you're an evil bastard for choosing otherwise" cues. After some thought, I stopped going that route because it just doesn't make sense to assume a demon wouldn't start pulling out all the stops once it realiises it has some real opposition.

[Sable Rhapsody]

errant_knight wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

But as others have argued, you don't have to choose that option.

When I don't metagame, I never do take the Connor choice with the Mage Tower. I often go in and kill Connor (well, I let Isolde finish him off.) simply because I approach the Mage Tower as too risky. However, this bothers me on a personal level.

How many people do you suspect have ALWAYS chosen the mage tower when they found out the choice was available? Players will always pick the best and brightest choice when available, they'll never consider the other alternatives.

Well, I chose it the first time without knowing what would happen, and have everytime since. As I say, I just don't play characters who would consider the other options as options at all.

I've purposely made choices that I knew were sub-optimal, because it's what the character would do.  My Warden did not handle running Amaranthine particularly well--she's just not a political person.  I'm currently trying to figure out how to kill exactly two (no more, no less) of my squadmates in ME2 without gluing the idiot ball to my own face, because I feel like my Shepard still has enough outstanding emotional and personal issues that a "perfect" ending for ME2 doesn't feel right for her.  

Lots of the problems with the "third option" can just be solved by not metagaming.  Of course, I do also feel a competing compulsion to do things "right."

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 07 octobre 2010 - 02:05 .

[DiosMios]

I approve of third options, but I would like for more gray vs. gray options in Dragon Age II.

[Vaeliorin]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
But if I CAN take a clean third option solution, I shouldn't be idiot-balled into not taking it for the sake of making the character's life suck more.

This is basically the gist of my objection to never having any third options.  Sometimes the third options just make a lot of sense (even the Connor/Isolde issue has a logical solution in having sent a messenger or leaving part of your party behind to contain Connor.)

[GodWood]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

But as others have argued, you don't have to choose that option.

When I don't metagame, I never do take the Connor choice with the Mage Tower. I often go in and kill Connor (well, I let Isolde finish him off.) simply because I approach the Mage Tower as too risky. However, this bothers me on a personal level.

Wait what!? You can do that?
I've always had to punch her out and kill her son.

[lv12medic]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

But as others have argued, you don't have to choose that option.

When I don't metagame, I never do take the Connor choice with the Mage Tower. I often go in and kill Connor (well, I let Isolde finish him off.) simply because I approach the Mage Tower as too risky. However, this bothers me on a personal level.

How many people do you suspect have ALWAYS chosen the mage tower when they found out the choice was available? Players will always pick the best and brightest choice when available, they'll never consider the other alternatives.

*raises hand*

I'm guilty of that after I found out about the mage circle.  My first playthrough I did the blood mage into the fade thing.  After that, I think I've always done the circle.  I remember one time deciding to go for the kill Connor route, but you get to him and talk to him, and he was in his normal kid mode.  I listened to him talk about how the demon decided to leave connor alone somewhat unless you try to go to the Arl's room.  So, after I made my way through a bunch of zombies, I turned around and headed for the circle.  I guess I just can't stand the killing a kid, although a possessed demon kid.

Though, when I think about the werewolf one, the other options sound ridiculous.  Zathrian tells you to kill all the werewolves without explaining why.  You can convince the werewolfs to kill all the dalish elves which just sounds ridiculous.  I think the cure option is the only option that comes out of that situation that makes any sense at all.  I guess I'm either a sucker for trying to find out as much information as possible before making a decision or what, I don't know.

[Zjarcal]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

But as others have argued, you don't have to choose that option.

When I don't metagame, I never do take the Connor choice with the Mage Tower. I often go in and kill Connor (well, I let Isolde finish him off.) simply because I approach the Mage Tower as too risky. However, this bothers me on a personal level.

How many people do you suspect have ALWAYS chosen the mage tower when they found out the choice was available? Players will always pick the best and brightest choice when available, they'll never consider the other alternatives.

I hear you. I've said it many times and I never get tired of saying how much I hate the way the mages option was handled.

[Vaeliorin]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...
But as others have argued, you don't have to choose that option.

You do if you want to maintain believability. Why would your character kill the child when they could...well...not? With no consequences for not killing it. Not taking the third option makes your character stupid evil.

Why would your character assume that they could wander off to the Circle without their being any consequences?  I've played characters that killed Connor despite me knowing I could go to the Circle without consequence, either because they were trying to destabilize the political situation, or because they didn't want to risk the demon escaping/causing more problems.

Not choosing the third option only makes your character stupid evil if you're metagaming the knowledge that you can go get the Circle sans consequences.

[Dave of Canada]

GodWood wrote...

Wait what!? You can do that?
I've always had to punch her out and kill her son.

Yeppers.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
But if I CAN take a clean third option solution, I shouldn't be idiot-balled into not taking it for the sake of making the character's life suck more.

This is basically the gist of my objection to never having any third options.  Sometimes the third options just make a lot of sense (even the Connor/Isolde issue has a logical solution in having sent a messenger or leaving part of your party behind to contain Connor.)

Yeah, I always get mad when I'm idiot-balled into doing something when I know I can do better.  The Dwarven Noble origin comes to mind--that might be metagaming, but you can't tell me that an intelligent, politically savvy dwarven noble wouldn't have smelled a rat.  I argued long and hard with my DM about a series of portals that were randomly spawning, and supposedly my only way of getting home was to just jump through a portal and pray.   I was like, "Dude, I'm a WIZARD.  Let me WORK WITH THIS."

[errant_knight]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
But if I CAN take a clean third option solution, I shouldn't be idiot-balled into not taking it for the sake of making the character's life suck more.

This is basically the gist of my objection to never having any third options.  Sometimes the third options just make a lot of sense (even the Connor/Isolde issue has a logical solution in having sent a messenger or leaving part of your party behind to contain Connor.)

This would work. Maybe you have to leave half your party, maybe you even have to leave your mage since they will be best equipped to contain him, and have to fight a very hard fight with only two people.