244 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

TJPags wrote...

As for the werewolves, that one I like. The option makes sense to me, game wise, and there IS a bit of a consequence - Zathrien dies. However, that doesn't really affect the player . . . .so it's borderline.

Yeah, it's not a complete out as there is a death, and being forced to choose between butchering one group or the other would have been deeply dissatisfying. My only concern with it is that it was such a logical conclusion that it makes the other paths "options" rather than a true decision.

That one could use a fourth option of some sort.

[Piecake]

Xallah wrote...

I'm totally for the third option and i'm always choosing it. I love playing a good character and making everyone happy, finding the ideal solutions. I just need it. It brings rest to my saul and just nice feelings.

I've got enough tough decisions in life, even life/death ones and I wish i could always find these third options in life. Sadly I fail here sometimes.

But i'm awfully glad that at least in games i've a chance to make a perfect jorney and make everyone happy. If someone want to play different they have the choice, so everyone can have experience they want from the game. And i'm not sure i'm realy to lose some nerver over a decision in the game like kill this or kill this.

So i'm for it. I'm sure i'm not the only one who plays games for positive emotions, so regrdless of how many people choose other options. I opt for the third option to be always present. At least for people like me. Please...

Using Redcliffe as the example, would you be ok with instead of the third option fixing everything, it resulted in more deaths for the townsfolk or something similar?  I know that sounds bad, but let me explain myself before rejecting it out of hand.  (in that situation i really cant see one of your party members sacrificing themselves or you losing money/skills to fix the problem)  My view is that people who are trying to playing the virtuous hero, the choices they make are more important than the results.  I guess it boils down to do the ends justify the means question, because killing either conner or the mother should have (i think) meant deliberatly sacrificing one life to save the lives of an unkown number of townsfolk.   

Instead, choosing to go to the tower fixes everything and cheapens the
other two options so in realitly, their is really no choice at al, which is what, i think, most people have an issue with.   Its just not very believable that everything remains peachy in the town while you are gone for 2-3 days, especially since the events leading up to that point made it seem that the town was constantly being harrassed by darkspawn and the whims of the demon inside Conner.  People who are playing the virtous hero still get the choice to be just that, They have the option of trying to save everyone instead of the gaurantee of saving the town at the expense of one life, they just meant with with a bit of failure.  Failure in certain situations is definitely a thing I am ok with, because I think it makes for a stronger, more believable narrative. 

Honestly, in my first playthrough, I chose to sacrifice the mother because she was willing to do it for her son, and if i thought If I left to go get help from a place as far away as the circle, I would, upon my return, find the town as flaming rubble. 

that is not saying I want the game to be filled with damned if you do dambed if you dont choices because I definitely do not want to be presented with a choice that if you don't kill this innocent pregnant woman now, her baby will cause a deadly epidemic.  I think being presented with a dilema like that is a cheap, lazy shock tactic so that some people might think, "ooooo, this game is so dark and mature!"  I just want my choices to have believable consequences, and I dont think the third redcliffe choice fits that bill.  There are no consequences, which i find absurd since you leave an abomination in a town filled with defensless villagers for 2-3 days, and since there are no consequences cheapens the other two choices, which means that there really is no choice at all.  So, go go idealistic good guy choice, just dont make that choice mean that everyone will live happily ever after.

[Kileyan]

I like third choices only because I don't really enjoy this trend where people want every choice to be dark, dreary and terrible. I don't subscribe to the idea that for a game to be meaningful, I have to make a terrible choice and kill an innocent person to make a choice meaningful.

An occasional choice like that is ok. A game filled with those choices, just so that it can be categorized as "dark", no thank you on that game.

Modifié par Kileyan, 12 novembre 2010 - 03:06 .

[Maria Caliban]

Piecake wrote...

Using Redcliffe as the example, would you be ok with instead of the third option fixing everything, it resulted in more deaths for the townsfolk or something similar? 

Not if I'd already freed the mages in the tower. There's no reason for townsfolk to die because I can just send a messenger explaining the situation to Irving. Or if for some reason the PC has to go personally, I could just leave some of my party behind.

[TJPags]

Kileyan wrote...

I like third choices only because I don't really enjoy this trend where people want every choice to be dark, dreary and terrible. I don't subscribe to the idea that for a game to be meaningful, I have to make a terrible choice and kill an innocent person to make a choice meaningful.

An occasional choice like that is ok. A game filled with those choices, just so that it can be categorized as "dark", no thank you on that game.

Well, personally, that's all I'm really asking for - some realism.  It doesn't have to be terrible, but it should be something.  One person dies if I go to the Mage Tower, or maybe Connor runs away, or maybe we get back to find the demon gone . . .and someone missing, and find out in the epilogue that person has been possessed, and is now a danger.
I don't need everything to be doom and gloom, but not everything should have a sun and fun option, either.

Maria Caliban wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Using Redcliffe as the example, would you be ok with instead of the third option fixing everything, it resulted in more deaths for the townsfolk or something similar? 

Not if I'd already freed the mages in the tower. There's no reason for townsfolk to die because I can just send a messenger explaining the situation to Irving. Or if for some reason the PC has to go personally, I could just leave some of my party behind.

Good point - make there a consequence for those that didn't clear the Tower yet, and leave it as is for someone who did do it.

[Piecake]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Using Redcliffe as the example, would you be ok with instead of the third option fixing everything, it resulted in more deaths for the townsfolk or something similar? 

Not if I'd already freed the mages in the tower. There's no reason for townsfolk to die because I can just send a messenger explaining the situation to Irving. Or if for some reason the PC has to go personally, I could just leave some of my party behind.

That choice definitely makes the most sense, but I think it can be somewhat reasonably explained away if bioware wanted to create a more dramatic narrative for redcliffe.  Something like bandits and darkspawn are attacking people outside of redcliffe and the tower so no townspeople could survive the trek, and you need to take your whole party to survive.  Actually, that does make some sense considering that the earl of redcliffe is bedridden, most of their knights are away on a quest, and the rest are busy defending the town of redcliffe from darkspawn attack, so I imagine that the countryside is not patroled at all. 

I dont have a problem with your choice though because at least that makes sense, and is predicated on you completing the mage tower quest first.  The problem i have with the third choice in the game is that it doesnt

If you want the ideal choice and the ideal consequence, another way to do it in that bandit and darkspawn roaming the countryside situation is if you saved the tower first, the mages and templars are making the roads safe for travel, and then relay that information to the brother that it is save to send a messanger. 

Of course, it can be explained the other way as well if bioware wanted to go for the more 'dramatic' narrative.  Something like the templars and mages are too few, and need to focus on rebuilding the circle, instead of making the countryside safe from bandits and darkspawn.

Modifié par Piecake, 12 novembre 2010 - 03:43 .

[Seagloom]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd argue that if I've already fixed the tower, I ought to just be able to send a messenger to the Tower with a request from the PC. There's no reason why the PC should need to go herself and that explains why the town wasn't overrun again.

That is possible. The question is would it matter? The Warden's party would need to intervene when possessed Connor acts up again in order to prevent that very outcome. What if they kill him in the process? What if the only way to stop him at that point goes back to the previous two options? Even if the demon is safe from physical harm, Connor is a child. I imagine there is only so much abuse his body could take before suffering serious injury or death. If we presume possessed Connor will act out if not dealt with immediately, guarding him will not actually prevent that.

Granted, the demon patiently waits for the Warden to act in the quest's current incarnation, but this whole exercise presumes it would act if left to its own devices for too long.

Modifié par Seagloom, 12 novembre 2010 - 03:51 .

[Maria Caliban]

Okay. We tell the messenger to leave and the next thing we see is Connor... rushing the Warden with his bare fists? We've already destroyed the undead army and the plate armor suits. It's fine if he going to summon more undead because we can kill them.

At this point, all he could do is attack the Warden directly, and I'm not sure how that would lead to the people of Redcliffe dying.

[TJPags]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Okay. We tell the messenger to leave and the next thing we see is Connor... rushing the Warden with his bare fists? We've already destroyed the undead army and the plate armor suits. It's fine if he going to summon more undead because we can kill them.
At this point, all he could do is attack the Warden directly, and I'm not sure how that would lead to the people of Redcliffe dying.

DId we actually destroy the undead army?  Or did we just, you know, kil them again.  After all, we're talking about animated corpses . . . I honestly don't remember if they get burned or something, but if not, well, aren't there still bodies to be possessed?

Even without that, remember, the demon basically mind-controlled Teagan when we were walking in.  What's to stop it from doing that again?  To one of the knights, this time, except instead of dancing, he kills someone . . .who becomes an animated corpse . . .etc, etc.

The whole concept that Connor sits in his room having a 'timeout' while I run off the the Tower to spend who knows how long killing abominations there, then coming back with mages . . . .well, as I said before, it suspends reason.  SOMETHING should have happened over the course of 2-3 days.

[Piecake]

the Connor abomination obviously has some demonic power of his own besides just summoning creatures. I mean, he did turned his uncle into a fool.

But like I previously said, as long as the choices, actions in between, and the consequences are believable, I dont have an issue if there is a third option and, if the situation warrants it, it turns out peachy in the end. the game's redcliffe third option did not

Modifié par Piecake, 12 novembre 2010 - 04:06 .

[Seagloom]

@Maria Caliban - Have you ever fought the desire demon in corporeal form? She is not exactly a pushover. Worse, defeating her does not drive her out either, so there is nothing to stop her from reemerging again later even if the Warden's party does win.

In the meantime the party stands around, watching over Connor for several days. If the demon just raised undead, it would eventually wear down the Warden's group through attrition. I suppose that could be hand waved away if the plot took the video game route of no one needs rest or sustenance ever, but that would just be lame in this case. Either way, it should be obvious at this point I do not see that solution as a real answer. We could keep trying to come up with reasons why our respective ideas are flawed forever, so I will stop my train of thought here.

Modifié par Seagloom, 12 novembre 2010 - 04:10 .

[Urazz]

Seagloom wrote...

@Maria Caliban - Have you ever fought the desire demon in corporeal form? She is not exactly a pushover. Worse, defeating her does not drive her out either, so there is nothing to stop her from reemerging again later even if the Warden's party does win.

In the meantime the party stands around, watching over Connor for several days. If the demon just raised undead, it would eventually wear down the Warden's group through attrition. I suppose that could be hand waved away if the plot took the video game route of no one needs rest or sustenance ever, but that would just be lame in this case. Either way, it should be obvious at this point I do not see that solution as a real answer. We could keep trying to come up with reasons why our respective ideas are flawed forever, so I will stop my train of thought here.

I dunno, I doubt abomination Conner would be able to summon enough undead to overwhelm the warden and his/her party by the time the mages come.

[TJPags]

Urazz wrote...

Seagloom wrote...

@Maria Caliban - Have you ever fought the desire demon in corporeal form? She is not exactly a pushover. Worse, defeating her does not drive her out either, so there is nothing to stop her from reemerging again later even if the Warden's party does win.

In the meantime the party stands around, watching over Connor for several days. If the demon just raised undead, it would eventually wear down the Warden's group through attrition. I suppose that could be hand waved away if the plot took the video game route of no one needs rest or sustenance ever, but that would just be lame in this case. Either way, it should be obvious at this point I do not see that solution as a real answer. We could keep trying to come up with reasons why our respective ideas are flawed forever, so I will stop my train of thought here.

I dunno, I doubt abomination Conner would be able to summon enough undead to overwhelm the warden and his/her party by the time the mages come.

Why not?  He was calling up a whole mess of them every night before the Warden got there, and plenty of people have had trouble with that fight.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the demon resurfaces, calls up undead or possesses people, leading to quite a few deaths.  In fact, I think it's rather probable.  Which makes its absence such a glaring issue for me, and many other people.

[Dave of Canada]

Maria Caliban wrote...

At this point, all he could do is attack the Warden directly, and I'm not sure how that would lead to the people of Redcliffe dying.

Connor managed to overtake the castle by himself, he also was able of mind controlling Teagan and his guards. Who says he wouldn't be able to do it with what's left of Redcliffe?

[WuWeiWu]

Honestly, for the Redcliffe decision, I wanted to entice the demon to enter Jowan and leave Connor. It was the only option, for me. Jowan never got his harrowing - by enticing the demon to enter a more powerful mage (desire for power), Jowan could face his harrowing. If he succeeded, I would have let him go; if Jowan failed, I would have slain him. Connor and Isolde live, the town isn't left undefended for the time it takes to get to the Circle and back, and Jowan get's to atone for his crimes, and possibly absolve himself.



I was slightly saddened that this was not an option I always choose to kill Isolde, except for the 'extreme moralist' playthrough I did. The first time, I didn't know that there wouldn't be consequences for going to the Circle, so I killed the willing participant.

[Jacks Smirking Revenge]

I don't mind the third choice as long as it has pros/cons as the first two choices. The Redcliffe example the third option has no downside at all which cheapens the other two choices.

[Maria Caliban]

Seagloom wrote...

@Maria Caliban - Have you ever fought the desire demon in corporeal form? She is not exactly a pushover. Worse, defeating her does not drive her out either, so there is nothing to stop her from reemerging again later even if the Warden's party does win.

I never said she was a push over. I said, the PC would fight her.

In the meantime the party stands around, watching over Connor for several days. If the demon just raised undead, it would eventually wear down the Warden's group through attrition.

We know that the undead we fight are the ones she's been raising for weeks - those the town has already killed off. If she had the power to raise hundreds of undead effortlessly, she'd probably have done so at the beginning and Redcliffe would be overrun before the PC got there.

This is the same PC group that manages to battle its way through the Dark Roads and Denerim during a darkspawn invasion. I don't think she'd be able to create enough undead fast enough for it to be a problem.

I suppose that could be hand waved away...

I'm not saying that this should be hand-waved away. I'm saying that if the PC stays in Redcliffe, I see no reason why Redcliffe would be overwhelmed by undead.

The demon decides to come out and fight? Okay then. The demon is suddenly able to summon far more undead in a shorter amount of time? No, I don't think that's plausible.

[Kroaks]

Conceptually speaking; the demon could set up one of those force fields to block you off while it mind controlled others to fight you.



Also I don't remember their being any graphics of bodies being burned until after the problem is solved.



And doesn't the codex actually refer to "bodies rising again and again" when talking about possessed corpses?



But basically yeah; theirs mind control, which hypothetically could probably be done to a member of your party, there's raising the dead. Though it could reanimate those suits again instead as well.



Now these could all be dealt with but its just an indication that there isn't any reason that the warden and co. staying there while a messenger gets sent wouldn't be a cause of a mess load of problems.



To me; the best consequence of being the hero would simply be the demon decides not to bother with keeping the arl alive anymore....after all why should it and it can use the energy to fight you instead of expending it on him.



So you save the boy and the mother but you lose the assistance of the arl; can't get any play at the landsmeet (or aren't made aware of it) and have to deal with Loghain having total political control and either have to capitulate to him or fight your way through his armies slaughtering tons of people causing great stryfe and possibly allowing the darkspawn to overwhelm you as a result.



IE this result basically either ends up with Loghain having total control at the end or the country having to suffer even more horrific destruction.

[soteria]

The demon decides to come out and fight? Okay then. The demon is suddenly able to summon far more undead in a shorter amount of time? No, I don't think that's plausible.

They could even force the Warden (as in, the PC) to fight the demon while the messenger goes to the Circle Tower. Depending on how well you do in the fight, you might be forced to kill Connor.

[Savey Anchev]

I think DAO showed that most people can't handle not having a third option. Morrigan's dark promise proved that.

[Urazz]

TJPags wrote...

Urazz wrote...

Seagloom wrote...

@Maria Caliban - Have you ever fought the desire demon in corporeal form? She is not exactly a pushover. Worse, defeating her does not drive her out either, so there is nothing to stop her from reemerging again later even if the Warden's party does win.

In the meantime the party stands around, watching over Connor for several days. If the demon just raised undead, it would eventually wear down the Warden's group through attrition. I suppose that could be hand waved away if the plot took the video game route of no one needs rest or sustenance ever, but that would just be lame in this case. Either way, it should be obvious at this point I do not see that solution as a real answer. We could keep trying to come up with reasons why our respective ideas are flawed forever, so I will stop my train of thought here.

I dunno, I doubt abomination Conner would be able to summon enough undead to overwhelm the warden and his/her party by the time the mages come.

Why not?  He was calling up a whole mess of them every night before the Warden got there, and plenty of people have had trouble with that fight.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the demon resurfaces, calls up undead or possesses people, leading to quite a few deaths.  In fact, I think it's rather probable.  Which makes its absence such a glaring issue for me, and many other people.

Errr, most of those people were peasants so of course they would be overwhelmed.  Not to mention they could always just punch abomination Conner in the face and knock him unconcious before he summons too many of them.

Anyways, I hope we do get a few 3rd option scenarios but I would hope they would set them up better.  The 3rd option for the Dalish and the Werewolves seemed to have the most common sense of them all actually.

Modifié par Urazz, 12 novembre 2010 - 12:25 .

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Works for me, as long as anything that the game bills as being risky actually is risky. Redcliffe plays properly only the first time, when the player doesn't know if he'll get back in time or not.

The first playthrough is always the most fun in this regard, because you essentially don't know the consequences of your actions and have to make hard choices. That's why I like my first playthrough the most.

Saved the mages becuase the risk of blood mages is irrelevant compared to the blight and the power of the mages against it; saved the anvil of the void (at the cost of Shale who was in my party, too) because Golems could make a tremendous difference in the war; allowed Isolde to die for her child because it was the safest course, while at the same time the most humane, in that it spares a mother the terrible pain of having to see her child die.

Good stuff. Otherwise DA:O plays like sunshine and lolipops.

[In Exile]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

It would have worked for any of the 3 "main plot" line quests.  Here are some sample layouts (note that these may not be perfectly true to the game as I didn't finish this quest as the dwarf noble so I didn't see if there were other options from that):

Bhelen vs. Harrowmont options:
1.  Vanilla Bhelen.  Plays out as normal Bhelen choice.
2. Vanilla Harrowmont.  Plays out as normal Harrowmont choice.
3.  You put forward your own claimant (my favorite would be that chick whose family records you go dig up and find she's actually a noble).  Bhelen and Harrowmont refuse to accept this and there's a bloody melee where both are killed.
4.  You put forward your own claimant after having gotten a Paragon's support AND the support of the rogues in Dust Town.  The leader of the Dust Town rogues (I forget her name and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) threatens to expose Bhelen and Harrowmont's background double-dealing if they don't go along with it.  Reluctantly, they do.  Later on Harrowmont dies in honored old age and your claimant marries Bhelen, giving him the power he wants while mitigating his excesses.  This arrangement turns out to suit everyone quite well.
5.  You tell the Assembly that the paragon (Caradin or Branka) really doesn't give a hoot over who sits on the throne.  Bhelen and Harrowmont attack each other.  (The game could have it  be random who survives.)  The survivor boots you out of the city with all of the other person's supporters, saying "those are the troops you wanted you worthless twit.  Now get the eff out."
6.  You talk with the rogues in dust town instead of just slaughtering them all, and they agree to help you consolidate power by undermining both claimants' support.  At the end, no one gets the throne, the assembly is dissolved, and the rogues take over the city with you as their (largely absentee) boss.

I have never understood why, as a dwarf, you can't just say the paragon chose you as King, the hero who found the anvil of the void.