309 réponses à ce sujet

[silentassassin264]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The absurdity of that whole situation is you can't call Alistair out for being so stupidly selfish about the whole thing. He wanted everyone to live just as much to pay back a father-figure he idolizes as he did to actually save everyone, and he can't even appreciate that his choice could very well mean 50 more people die instead of 1.

You can. But it  takes a few extra points in Cunning.

But then he still gets mad at you and has like -20 approval in a stupid crybaby fit.

[Ortaya Alevli]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The absurdity of that whole situation is you can't call Alistair out for being so stupidly selfish about the whole thing. He wanted everyone to live just as much to pay back a father-figure he idolizes as he did to actually save everyone, and he can't even appreciate that his choice could very well mean 50 more people die instead of 1.

You can. But it  takes a few extra points in Cunning.

But then he still gets mad at you and has like -20 approval in a stupid crybaby fit.

It's worth it.

[In Exile]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
You can. But it  takes a few extra points in Cunning.

Ah, dear old dump stat...

This is why I liked intelligence. It meant my casters actualy had dialogue choices! Now if I have a caster I have to choose between gimp and suave....

[phaonica]

Brockololly wrote...

If you have too many dire this or that situations it gets tiresome as its taking away choice from the character which most RPGs are lacking in compared to older ones anyway.

...

Really I think you limit those sorts of Plot Hammer moments to only a couple times in the gam, otherwise, especially in an RPG where its supposed to be about player choice, it further rips away agency.

I don't know if it really takes agency away from the player. If you're in Redcliffe dealing with the abomination choice and someone suggests the Circle Tower, if they told you over and over that it was dangerous and that more people would be killed and that you were risking the abomination killing more people by leaving and trying to get the Circle's help, and you decided to take that risk anyway, then that didn't take agency away. Given that, if you go to the Circle and come back with help and by some miracle nothing bad has happened and the risk paid off, does that still make it a cop-out choice? 

[Zjarcal]

In Exile wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
LOL!

And for what it's worth, wanting to avoid Alistair's yelling is a noble cause, as it is annoying as hell.

Alistair: "You killed Connor!"

W: "Didn't you suggest that while we were in the Caslte?"

Alistair: "Bla, bla, bla, you're a horrible person!"

W: Talk to the hand.

The absurdity of that whole situation is you can't call Alistair out for being so stupidly selfish about the whole thing. He wanted everyone to live just as much to pay back a father-figure he idolizes as he did to actually save everyone, and he can't even appreciate that his choice could very well mean 50 more people die instead of 1.

That is one thing that frustrated me in DA to no end. Your companions will stand up for their beliefs, but you don't always have the chance to defend yours. Particularly with Morrigan or Alistair (there is a brilliant moment with Sten at Haven, though).

Sten's little episode in Haven is one of my favorite moments in the whole game. That is how you handle a situation where a companion stands up against you.

[Brockololly]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Well, the Bhelen / Harrowmont choice isn't really a "GOTCHA!" moment. You knew that Harrowmont was a traditionalist and was an extremely kind man to everybody, of course he'd be pushed around and enforce dwarven traditionilism.

Oh, I'd agree the Behlen/Harrowmont choice isn't exactly a GOTCHA! moment as once you see the outcome in the epilogue you can piece it together and make sense of why it happened the way it did. But still you could come up with scenarios based on evidence in the game where maybe Harrowmont doesn't suck quite as much or scenarios where maybe Behlen isn't as good of a king. Honestly, my impression from Behlen was that he was always a big megalomaniacal, but I guess thats a good thing for Orzammar? *shrugs*

In Exile wrote...
Springingthe dark ritual on you does that anyway. And it's not the fact that  there is a ritual - but the fact that you are essentially a worthless  chess piece that gets played around with that's the shot. It's a very  hard scene to do right, and in a game that venerates the hero so  strongly (which is how Bioware approaches RPGs), to have such a powerful moment of manipulation where any revenge or payoff for the hero is very daring, and IMO, fell flat.

I completely agree that the DR scene is pure Plot Hammer and quite frankly I'd say its easily the absolute worst scene in Origins and practically breaks the game. Its the biggest "choice" moment in the game and yet Morrigan gives you absolutely nothing to make your decision off of beyond very very vague abstractions. And role playing wise, the scene is absolutely cookie cutter and pretty much plays out the same whether you ditched Morrigan at Lothering or romanced her all the way through. And even if you did the DR, you never see any consequence from it- so the whole Old God Baby could still become a GOTCHA! moment down the road, depending on how its handled.

Hell, the whole Morrigan plot line could be one big GOTCHA! moment considering how we really know zilch about her and her plans.

phaonica wrote..
I
don't know if it really takes agency away from the player. If you're in
Redcliffe dealing with the abomination choice and someone suggests the
Circle Tower, if they told you over and over that it was dangerous and
that more people would be killed and that you were risking the
abomination killing more people by leaving and trying to get the
Circle's help, and you decided to take that risk anyway, then that
didn't take agency away. Given that, if you go to the Circle and come
back with help and by some miracle nothing bad has happened and the risk
paid off, does that still make it a cop-out choice? 

Sure, if you really get it hammered home that something bad might happen then yeah, if something bad happened I wouldn't be surprised. On the flip side though, Connor runs away and locks himself upstairs, so there is the chance that maybe he doesn't do anything if you haul ass to the Mage Tower and back.

Basically, I just like having the choice- if my Warden wants to take that chance I'd like to have the option. Thats basically the big home run type choice, you're taking a huge risk and its all or nothing. But I don't think those sorts of choices should always necessarily end badly just as they should always pay off. Like I mentioned earlier, it would be like having your crew die in ME2 regardless of what you did- the consequences should be rooted in the PC's  actions if at all possible. So maybe something bad does happen, but if its some foregone conclusion,  meh.

Modifié par Brockololly, 07 octobre 2010 - 03:59 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Zjarcal wrote...

Sten's little episode in Haven is one of my favorite moments in the whole game. That is how you handle a situation where a companion stands up against you.

Yep. "Talk to the blade, ****."

Not that I normally get this. Haven has always been my last stop, which means Sten always called my warden "Kadan" at that point. I tried it only once, deliberately, to see how it plays out.

I felt bad.

[Urazz]

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 mage tower option would've been fine if we could only use it if we did the mage tower before redcliffe.  Either that or have it give some sort of consequence regardless like have Conner go out and start causing more havoc again and lose some more troops and townspeople as a result of it.  Either way, it really should've had some consequence, sacrifice, or extra work required to achieve said happy ending.

[phaonica]

Brockololly wrote...

phaonica wrote...

I think there should be some times where doing the "good" thing leads to bad consequences, or doing the "bad" thing leads to the best outcome. Not all the time, obviously, but that kind of choice is what a 'moral dilemma' is, after all. If a choice is too clear-cut from a moral standpoint, then it's not part of a conflict.

Isn't that basically Behlen and Harrowmont? I get what you're saying, but the problem is those sorts of things turn in to GOTCHA! moments if you;re not careful. The thing with stuff like that is that the player needs to be given a decent amount of information before trying to make a decision. Just pulling the rug out from underneath the player for some shock moment is cheap and again, its just the writers wielding the Plot Hammer.

Complicated choices are good, but you should always be given enough information to at least be able to intuit a possible bad or good outcome, even if that outcome isn't clear from the start.

I like a balance of these things. As a player, I don't mind if my character is having to make a huge decision with not enough information, sometimes, because that's part of a conflict of choice. I don't mind unintended and unforseen consequences, in moderation. I don't mind when it is implied that doing something 'bad' will get me a good outcome, or when it is implied that the 'good' choice will cause things to go wrong. For the most part, I agree that you should be able to have a lot of control over the consequences of *most* of your choices, but I think that a few curve balls can make things more interesting.  

[Reaverwind]

phaonica wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

If you have too many dire this or that situations it gets tiresome as its taking away choice from the character which most RPGs are lacking in compared to older ones anyway.

...

Really I think you limit those sorts of Plot Hammer moments to only a couple times in the gam, otherwise, especially in an RPG where its supposed to be about player choice, it further rips away agency.

I don't know if it really takes agency away from the player. If you're in Redcliffe dealing with the abomination choice and someone suggests the Circle Tower, if they told you over and over that it was dangerous and that more people would be killed and that you were risking the abomination killing more people by leaving and trying to get the Circle's help, and you decided to take that risk anyway, then that didn't take agency away. Given that, if you go to the Circle and come back with help and by some miracle nothing bad has happened and the risk paid off, does that still make it a cop-out choice? 

However, other than Teagan mentioning that the demon might not remain passive, there is NO mention of risk. In fact, the "good" characters will state it's the "best option", and Teagan, if pressed, indicates going to the Tower is the preferred option. Sten and Morrigan's only objections are that going to the Circle isn't expedient.

[phaonica]

phaonica wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

I don't know if it really takes agency away from the player. If you're in Redcliffe dealing with the abomination choice and someone suggests the Circle Tower, if they told you over and over that it was dangerous and that more people would be killed and that you were risking the abomination killing more people by leaving and trying to get the Circle's help, and you decided to take that risk anyway, then that didn't take agency away. Given that, if you go to the Circle and come back with help and by some miracle nothing bad has happened and the risk paid off, does that still make it a cop-out choice? 

However, other than Teagan mentioning that the demon might not remain passive, there is NO mention of risk. In fact, the "good" characters will state it's the "best option", and Teagan, if pressed, indicates going to the Tower is the preferred option. Sten and Morrigan's only objections are that going to the Circle isn't expedient.

Right. Because combination of the choice being presented to you as not having much risk, and that it does seem to result in the 'best; outcome, I think, is what makes it seem like a cop out choice, to me. I think that sometimes when your character takes a huge risk like that, that sometimes it *should* pay off, but if it does do so, it should *really* play up how high the risk is. But other times I think the risk shouldn't have as high a payoff. Because a risk is a risk.

Modifié par phaonica, 07 octobre 2010 - 04:06 .

[durasteel]

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.

Really?  Because after he knocked me out and dressed up a zombie in my stuff, he was pretty much gonna die in my game.  I was looking forward to killing him.  I actually assumed in the encounter that it was possible to agree to let him live, get his help with the mother roach, then change my mind and kill him... I just didn't want to wait.  Imagine how furious I would have been if I had tried that and that annoying freak had gotten away!

In the Amaranthine vs. Vigil scenario, the design was horribly flawed.  You should have chosen a party member to lead the defense of Vigil and had the senechal round out that group.  After you defend Amaranthine your second team defends the Vigil under player control.  You see the dude die and all that.  It would have been a million times better.  After all of the keep upgrades, the "choice" was really just kind of dumb.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Hawke loses his left arm, you can't dual-wield anymore or hold two-handed weapons. Make this just for the people who never want good ending. Please.

[Ortaya Alevli]

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...

Hawke loses his left arm, you can't dual-wield anymore or hold two-handed weapons. Make this just for the people who never want good ending. Please.

Kreia much?

[mesmerizedish]

I absolutely want the "third option." I just think it should be a lot harder to accomplish, and should play to the strengths of those of us that suck at the combat

[Merced256]

To touch on the point of roleplaying...



Roleplaying isn't what it used to be? Well, sort of. The more i read these boards the more i'm convinced that roleplaying to a large portion of the crowd is playing to a black & white moral system despite the fact that it doesn't exist in origins. Most i see are full on good, or full bad and any "roleplaying" is based entirely off of that. Seems the only way that gets curbed is... morally grey decisions. But theres never enough, or theres always the cop out option. I felt my brains dripping out of my ears reading those threads on the DAO forums of "what was your cannon playthrough."

[Sylvius the Mad]

I love that the third option was there. There often wasn't a good in-character reason to choose it, so I could only ever "win" by metagaming my way through the choice, and that's not likely.

Honestly, the one time I had a character who chose to leave Connor possessed and go check out the Mage Tower (even characters who'd previously been to the tower thought it was too far away) did so only to come back and kill Connor out of spite.

[Onyx Jaguar]

I would remove them for 3/4s of the game but then allow for the later decisions to have potential branching paths depending on what you choose in the first 3/4



Based on relationships/allies/positioning etc

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The absurdity of that whole situation is you can't call Alistair out for being so stupidly selfish about the whole thing. He wanted everyone to live just as much to pay back a father-figure he idolizes as he did to actually save everyone, and he can't even appreciate that his choice could very well mean 50 more people die instead of 1.

So what's the problem?  People are dumb.  Alistair's no exception.

That is one thing that frustrated me in DA to no end. Your companions will stand up for their beliefs, but you don't always have the chance to defend yours. Particularly with Morrigan or Alistair (there is a brilliant moment with Sten at Haven, though).

Of course not.  The game doesn't know what they are.  The only way that could ever work is if the game decides what your beliefs are.

And that would make the game unplayable without a hundred-page treatise on the PC's background.

[durasteel]

Without the possibility of saving everyone, there is no guilt associated with letting someone die. For the wicked, there is no spiteful glee in it, either. The third option doesn't need to be obvious or easy, and in fact most of the time it should present a challenge. Still, it needs to be there.

[Reaverwind]

durasteel wrote...

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.

Really?  Because after he knocked me out and dressed up a zombie in my stuff, he was pretty much gonna die in my game.  I was looking forward to killing him.  I actually assumed in the encounter that it was possible to agree to let him live, get his help with the mother roach, then change my mind and kill him... I just didn't want to wait.  Imagine how furious I would have been if I had tried that and that annoying freak had gotten away!

In the Amaranthine vs. Vigil scenario, the design was horribly flawed.  You should have chosen a party member to lead the defense of Vigil and had the senechal round out that group.  After you defend Amaranthine your second team defends the Vigil under player control.  You see the dude die and all that.  It would have been a million times better.  After all of the keep upgrades, the "choice" was really just kind of dumb.

Agreed. Just doing what any competent leader would do - recruiting, training, supplying and outfitting - presenting the endgame as a choice between Amarathine and the Vigil was nothing short of farsical.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Well, I fit the keep head to toe and still choose to defend it in the end. Amaranthine battle pales in comparison to defending the keep.

[durasteel]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Well, I fit the keep head to toe and still choose to defend it in the end. Amaranthine battle pales in comparison to defending the keep.

Awakening did not exactly have an excess of content.  You should not have had to chose between those two fights, you should have been able to have player control over both in each play through.

[Ortaya Alevli]

durasteel wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Well, I fit the keep head to toe and still choose to defend it in the end. Amaranthine battle pales in comparison to defending the keep.

Awakening did not exactly have an excess of content.  You should not have had to chose between those two fights, you should have been able to have player control over both in each play through.

No arguments here. That would be neat indeed.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

[quote]Brockololly wrote...


[quote]In Exile wrote...
Springingthe dark ritual on you does that anyway. And it's not the fact that  there is a ritual - but the fact that you are essentially a worthless  chess piece that gets played around with that's the shot. It's a very  hard scene to do right, and in a game that venerates the hero so  strongly (which is how Bioware approaches RPGs), to have such a powerful moment of manipulation where any revenge or payoff for the hero is very daring, and IMO, fell flat.
[/quote]

I completely agree that the DR scene is pure Plot Hammer and quite frankly I'd say its easily the absolute worst scene in Origins and practically breaks the game. Its the biggest "choice" moment in the game and yet Morrigan gives you absolutely nothing to make your decision off of beyond very very vague abstractions. And role playing wise, the scene is absolutely cookie cutter and pretty much plays out the same whether you ditched Morrigan at Lothering or romanced her all the way through. And even if you did the DR, you never see any consequence from it- so the whole Old God Baby could still become a GOTCHA! moment down the road, depending on how its handled.

Hell, the whole Morrigan plot line could be one big GOTCHA! moment considering how we really know zilch about her and her plans.

Basically, I just like having the choice- if my Warden wants to take that chance I'd like to have the option. Thats basically the big home run type choice, you're taking a huge risk and its all or nothing. But I don't think those sorts of choices should always necessarily end badly just as they should always pay off. Like I mentioned earlier, it would be like having your crew die in ME2 regardless of what you did- the consequences should be rooted in the PC's  actions if at all possible. So maybe something bad does happen, but if its some foregone conclusion,  meh.
[/quote]


[/quote]

Totally agree Brock they give you essentially zero fill in at all about the DR and its one of the most pivotal choices in the main game, I actually caved in tonight after finishing off my two handed warrior playthru of Origins, and got Witch Hunt, now to be fair I'm not all the way through it yet, *SPOILER ALERT*





just did Cadash and am now going to get a piece of the mirror from the ruin, but having read others opinions and hearing it discussed during a podcast or two, I fully expect to know no more about the DR or Morrigan's plans once I'm done with it. And its really unfortunate that it's another case where Bioware either rushed due to a change in scheduling of  DLC, or half assed it for the sake of holding it over to be answered in DA2 or DA3 should DA3 be made.

Edit: Incidently who ever decided that not offering a two handed weapon in Witch Hunt, since they decided Starfang past Origins is not an option, is on my crap list.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 07 octobre 2010 - 05:38 .