244 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...
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.

With that quest you aren't arbitrarily awarding the throne, just simply irreversibly turning the tide of support one way or another.  Through your actions you've earned enough influence to be a kingmaker but not a king.

You've got a nonexistent powerbase and will have to leave to go take care of a surface problem, as well.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 novembre 2010 - 12:47 .

[Seagloom]

Savey Anchev wrote...

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

I can agree with that. Interesting as this discussion has been to follow at times, I do not expect this to change a great deal. David Gaider was asked during the Pax Q&A if "Dragon Age 2" would be any darker than Origins. His answer was no. A game can only be so dark before a player started feeling the futility of their actions as a hero. Most people will not enjoy playing an RPG that makes them feel powerless time and again. Eventually it would lead to fatalism that might sap any incentive to keep playing. If anything can be said about BioWare's RPGs throughout the years, it is the player character always gets to be a successful heroic figure. Dark fantasy is usually too bleak for that.

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

With that quest you aren't arbitrarily awarding the throne, just simply irreversibly turning the tide of support one way or another.  Through your actions you've earned enough influence to be a kingmaker but not a king.

You've got a nonexistent powerbase and will have to leave to go take care of a surface problem, as well.

No, I get why the game is forcing you to do it; but there is no reason not to actually do it, so to speak. But the bold portion is my issue with DA:O - I have no reason to care. In fact, I think the only character that might have a reason to care is either the City Elf or the Mage, becuase these are the only two origins where being a Grey Warden is a step-up from what you had before.

That being said, as a dwarf being a paragon > being the King/Queen, so I actually think this is the one origin where you get an ending that's half worth it. Not that Awakening doesn't decide to throw that all out the window.

[PsychoBlonde]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Heh, I was wondering about that.  It would have made perfect sense to me, but it may have been a bad move politically since you had no backing and no supporters in dwarf society--and you're technically a "surface dwarf" so getting the assembly to go along with this would have been nigh-impossible.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Anakin1000 wrote...

Third option is good for Epic fantasy like D&D when there is good-vs-evil and white-black moral choices
Ultimate good option in Dark fantasy it's one big Mistake. Blood and (pseudo)violence doesn't make game dark fantasy. 

No.
No that that and the "blaanced options" notion. Just no. Tehre is no balance in real life. We don' need balance. I dont' wnat balance.

I want common sense. Sometimes there are many options. Someontimes there are only a few. Sometimes you can solve the situation perfectly. Other times it may fail spectacularly.

The last thing I want is someone designing such choices with a calculator thinking "we need 3 more good outcomes, better cut this bad ne out" (or something similar).

Sensible choices and consequences. Nothing more. Nothing else. As soon as you try trating this like some zero-sum game, everybody loses out.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 12 novembre 2010 - 01:21 .

[nightcobra]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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.

Heh, I was wondering about that.  It would have made perfect sense to me, but it may have been a bad move politically since you had no backing and no supporters in dwarf society--and you're technically a "surface dwarf" so getting the assembly to go along with this would have been nigh-impossible.

could have worked if they acknowledged a few things to get the dwarves support, like becoming the provings champion, demolishing the carta and etc.

[Apollo Starflare]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In Exile wrote...
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.

With that quest you aren't arbitrarily awarding the throne, just simply irreversibly turning the tide of support one way or another.  Through your actions you've earned enough influence to be a kingmaker but not a king.

You've got a nonexistent powerbase and will have to leave to go take care of a surface problem, as well.

I'd of been happy if my Aeducan had been made a Paragon herself. Who wants to be King or Queen anyway? It would require you to be actively involved in Dwarven politics *shudders*.

[Nighteye2]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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.

Heh, I was wondering about that.  It would have made perfect sense to me, but it may have been a bad move politically since you had no backing and no supporters in dwarf society--and you're technically a "surface dwarf" so getting the assembly to go along with this would have been nigh-impossible.

Or another interesting option: saying that the paragon said there should be no king - turn it into a dwarven republic.

[Piecake]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Anakin1000 wrote...

Third option is good for Epic fantasy like D&D when there is good-vs-evil and white-black moral choices
Ultimate good option in Dark fantasy it's one big Mistake. Blood and (pseudo)violence doesn't make game dark fantasy. 

No.
No that that and the "blaanced options" notion. Just no. Tehre is no balance in real life. We don' need balance. I dont' wnat balance.

I want common sense. Sometimes there are many options. Someontimes there are only a few. Sometimes you can solve the situation perfectly. Other times it may fail spectacularly.

The last thing I want is someone designing such choices with a calculator thinking "we need 3 more good outcomes, better cut this bad ne out" (or something similar).

Sensible choices and consequences. Nothing more. Nothing else. As soon as you try trating this like some zero-sum game, everybody loses out.

Exactly, this is what so annoyed me about Redcliffe.  It simply wasnt sensible.  Failing spectacularly is not a bad thing!  Well, it is for you, but not for the story.  Believability and dramatic tension baby!  Frankly, I'd like some unexpected or unintended consequences thrown into the mix.  Choosing the good and holy option shouldnt automatically result in a good and holy outcome (I'm looking at you, Redcliffe).  Spice it up a bit!   

Also, a lot of people did'nt like Morrigan's proposition?  I thought that was definitely one of the best choices you had to make.  I actually had to think about it for a while. 

[Ziggeh]

Piecake wrote...

Also, a lot of people did'nt like Morrigan's proposition?  I thought that was definitely one of the best choices you had to make.  I actually had to think about it for a while. 

I think that's the thing a few people here seem to be missing. They put these decisions throughout the game for people to think about. The outcomes don't necessarily need to be dark to achieve that (though "morally grey" was a theme of the game), but they do need weight in every direction so that it's an emotional or moral puzzle.

The "good" ones (Connor, as I didn't believe the tower to be an option at the time, the dwarfven king and the Anvil) had me thinking for days about whether I had done the right thing. Sometimes stopping play in order to debate a position back and forth.

That's really strong storytelling, a really powerful engagement with the world the writers have created, that simply isn't achievable within any other medium, and I find it almost unfathomable people would prefer to just be the hero and move on.

[errant_knight]

I probably would have stopped playing if there hadn't been 'third options'. I wouldn't have found the game enjoyable. They can be difficult to acheive and time consuming, they can involve a whole lot more work and cost, but they have to be there, or I'm just going to find the game too grim to play.

[In Exile]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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.

Heh, I was wondering about that.  It would have made perfect sense to me, but it may have been a bad move politically since you had no backing and no supporters in dwarf society--and you're technically a "surface dwarf" so getting the assembly to go along with this would have been nigh-impossible.

State of war, ban the entire mess. If Bhelen can do it...

[In Exile]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Also, a lot of people did'nt like Morrigan's proposition?  I thought that was definitely one of the best choices you had to make.  I actually had to think about it for a while. 

I think that's the thing a few people here seem to be missing. They put these decisions throughout the game for people to think about. The outcomes don't necessarily need to be dark to achieve that (though "morally grey" was a theme of the game), but they do need weight in every direction so that it's an emotional or moral puzzle.

I thought that choice was significant and poignant, until I realized I misunderstood it. I always took Morrigan's offer to be a cure for the taint; save the soul or the archdemon, but in return, you save yourself. Except it turns out that apparently all it does is just make it so you don't die, with the trade off being Morrigan gets the soul of the archdemon. Naw, makes a lot more sense to have Alistair/Loghain to die doing it. Doesn't even offer very much strategic benefit, since it only works in the insanely unlikely scenario that you can survive to the archdemon without incuring any fatal wounds and with Alistair/Loghain dead.

[errant_knight]

In Exile wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Also, a lot of people did'nt like Morrigan's proposition?  I thought that was definitely one of the best choices you had to make.  I actually had to think about it for a while. 

I think that's the thing a few people here seem to be missing. They put these decisions throughout the game for people to think about. The outcomes don't necessarily need to be dark to achieve that (though "morally grey" was a theme of the game), but they do need weight in every direction so that it's an emotional or moral puzzle.

I thought that choice was significant and poignant, until I realized I misunderstood it. I always took Morrigan's offer to be a cure for the taint; save the soul or the archdemon, but in return, you save yourself. Except it turns out that apparently all it does is just make it so you don't die, with the trade off being Morrigan gets the soul of the archdemon. Naw, makes a lot more sense to have Alistair/Loghain to die doing it. Doesn't even offer very much strategic benefit, since it only works in the insanely unlikely scenario that you can survive to the archdemon without incuring any fatal wounds and with Alistair/Loghain dead.

I found the decision to sacrifice the soul of an unborn child for my well being to be incredibly difficult, compounded by the fact that we have no idea just how bad a thing saving the soul of an old god might or might not be, and the knowledge that we're putting the whole world at risk to save ourselves. I'm assuming that you mean 'sense' in terms of the most powerful story, bcause from a PC perspective, it only makes sense for Alistair or Loghain to die if you don't care what happens to Alistair, or about Anora ruling Ferelden..

Modifié par errant_knight, 12 novembre 2010 - 03:48 .

[AlanC9]

Do unborn children have their souls yet?

I guess that's a question for the Chantry.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 novembre 2010 - 03:59 .

[sten_super]

I actually think that DAO did a decent job of the third options; they were there, and I took them, in my first play through (thinking specifically about the Connor situation and the Archdemon/baby scenario), as I wanted the 'optimum' outcome. However, for my second playthrough (I've only done two from start to finish) I RPed the scenarios; my character (although still a goodie) would not have left the demon in Redcliffe on the offchance that he could come back in several days with the mages; as such I accepted Isolde's sacrifice. Similarly, having refused to kill misguided Loghain the killing of the archdemon proved a fitting redemption.



I agree that there should be some potential complications arising from taking this option; I can't remember Redcliffe but I felt that the problems with allowing Morrigan to take away the soul of an Old God were pretty obvious.

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...
I found the decision to sacrifice the soul of an unborn child for my well being to be incredibly difficult, compounded by the fact that we have no idea just how bad a thing saving the soul of an old god might or might not be, and the knowledge that we're putting the whole world at risk to save ourselves. I'm assuming that you mean 'sense' in terms of the most powerful story, bcause from a PC perspective, it only makes sense for Alistair or Loghain to die if you don't care what happens to Alistair, or about Anora ruling Ferelden..

I don't think you're getting my point.

The choice is about temptation. Picking the ritual is about doing the selfish thing. Well, for you do want to do it, there has to be some meaningful payoff.

If the payoff was salvation, a reset button that took you back before the taint, that's tempting. Because with it you're free. But what Morrigan is offering you is pretty raw. Becoming a hero, if anyone takes a second to think about it, isn't very clear. Even if you're the most selfish, amoral person ever, you know Morrigan is too; there's no guarantee she'd be on your side with whatever she gains from this, and there's no gaurantee the old god child isn't some kind of elrdich horror. The only tactical payoff is the one remote scenario where you aren't fatally wounded prior to landing the final blow...

I just don't see the temptation. It's not a hard choice because Morrigan isn't offering you anything worthwhile, if you're selfish. And if you're selfless, you'll tell her to shove her deal.

[errant_knight]

In Exile wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
I found the decision to sacrifice the soul of an unborn child for my well being to be incredibly difficult, compounded by the fact that we have no idea just how bad a thing saving the soul of an old god might or might not be, and the knowledge that we're putting the whole world at risk to save ourselves. I'm assuming that you mean 'sense' in terms of the most powerful story, bcause from a PC perspective, it only makes sense for Alistair or Loghain to die if you don't care what happens to Alistair, or about Anora ruling Ferelden..

I don't think you're getting my point.

The choice is about temptation. Picking the ritual is about doing the selfish thing. Well, for you do want to do it, there has to be some meaningful payoff.

If the payoff was salvation, a reset button that took you back before the taint, that's tempting. Because with it you're free. But what Morrigan is offering you is pretty raw. Becoming a hero, if anyone takes a second to think about it, isn't very clear. Even if you're the most selfish, amoral person ever, you know Morrigan is too; there's no guarantee she'd be on your side with whatever she gains from this, and there's no gaurantee the old god child isn't some kind of elrdich horror. The only tactical payoff is the one remote scenario where you aren't fatally wounded prior to landing the final blow...

I just don't see the temptation. It's not a hard choice because Morrigan isn't offering you anything worthwhile, if you're selfish. And if you're selfless, you'll tell her to shove her deal.

Ahh... I see. In that case, we just differ on what constitutes a temptation. My PC found saving herself and Alistair an irresistable temptation. She probably would have done it to save Alistair, alone. 30 years is a whole lot more life than none. To me, it was a clear illustration of what Wynne meant by saying that love is selfish.

Modifié par errant_knight, 12 novembre 2010 - 04:33 .

[Xallah]

Malanek999 wrote...

I'm not advocating making the game incredibly bleak. The hero is a hero. They should ultimately be able to come out on top most of the time, I have no problem with that. But when the writers want to put in a tough choice, having the third option means it isn't a choice at all and it certainly isn't tough. And this might sound cheesy but it is all about contrast. If you suffer some failure along they way success, can be even more satisfying.

Ok, maybe... But then this sacrifice for the better should be itself the third option, so i know i did the best possible thing, chose the right option and saved as many as possible. I don't want to feel guilty afterwards or unsure if i did or didn't do the right thing. So here maybe not the "everyone and happy" option, but "the best come out of the situation" option could be ok. The total Paragon one... But i still want "everyone is happy and alive and everything is going to be fine" options...

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?  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.

Yeah, the Redcliffe thing seemed a bit strange, especially since i didn't clean out the Magi tower before going to Redcliffe. But on the other hand there were some templars left in the castle, i'm sure they could slain Connor if anything during my absence (that's their primary objective, isn't it?).

Anyway I totally get your point that tough decisions make the game more memorable and emotional. While the third options which sometimes are just pure magic (too idealistic, incredible and good) lessen the value of your choices. But on the hand i'm damn sure that if there wasn't a third option in the Redcliffe situation I wouldn't be able to continue my walkthrough, this choice is just too heavy for me. At least if left everything as it is but without the "go ask mages help" option i'd suffer mental pain with any option. Maybe if one was good or bad I could choose the good one and carry on. But really, can either killing Isolde or Conner be a good variant.

So thank you for being civil and polite in this little argue. I totally understand your point, but i'm a bit different person... Too emotional, naive and ... good in intensions to be able to bear the absence of the third option.

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...

I thought that choice was significant and poignant, until I realized I misunderstood it. I always took Morrigan's offer to be a cure for the taint; save the soul or the archdemon, but in return, you save yourself. Except it turns out that apparently all it does is just make it so you don't die, with the trade off being Morrigan gets the soul of the archdemon. Naw, makes a lot more sense to have Alistair/Loghain to die doing it. Doesn't even offer very much strategic benefit, since it only works in the insanely unlikely scenario that you can survive to the archdemon without incuring any fatal wounds and with Alistair/Loghain dead.

Yeah, I never saw it as an offer to save people, as far as I was concerned, she was after something, something potentially more dangerous than the current Blight and she was playing on your survival instincts to get it. The fact that she was reluctant to outline her thinking or plan for such a dangerous being just made me all the more suspicious. It is far from a "happy" ending.

I still think it's an interesting dilemma, because some of Morrigan's logic holds: you're sticking to a tradition you don't really hold, you're destroying something powerful that might feasibly be turned to good etc, but by that point in the game I'd consigned myself to the fact that having asked all these sacrifices of all these people, now it was my turn to face the music.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 12 novembre 2010 - 04:46 .

[PsychoBlonde]

In Exile wrote...

I just don't see the temptation. It's not a hard choice because Morrigan isn't offering you anything worthwhile, if you're selfish. And if you're selfless, you'll tell her to shove her deal.

Morrigan didn't strike me as amoral--it wouldn't have been possible to get so much negative favor with her if she was amoral, because she'd be indifferent.  (Zevran and Oghren were largely amoral--the only real way to get negative favor with them was to go against their personal interests, and those were generally pretty shallow.)  I always either took the deal or let Loghain sacrifice himself, I was happy with either option.  (My favorite final option was to bully Anora and Alistair into getting married, do the ritual, and have Loghain take over as Warden-commander while I rode off into the sunset.)

Ultimately the "god-child" is in the position of any other person--has to decide what it wants for itself.  And I'm intensely curious to see the result.

[Zjarcal]

In Exile wrote...
I just don't see the temptation. It's not a hard choice because Morrigan isn't offering you anything worthwhile, if you're selfish. And if you're selfless, you'll tell her to shove her deal.

What?

Offering you to NOT die when killing the Archdemon isn't worthwhile? To each their own I guess.

[PsychoBlonde]

Zjarcal wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I just don't see the temptation. It's not a hard choice because Morrigan isn't offering you anything worthwhile, if you're selfish. And if you're selfless, you'll tell her to shove her deal.

What?

Offering you to NOT die when killing the Archdemon isn't worthwhile? To each their own I guess.

You could personally not die by having Alistair or Loghain do it, I think he means, so the ritual was hardly the "only way out".

[Ziggeh]

Zjarcal wrote...
What?

Offering you to NOT die when killing the Archdemon isn't worthwhile? To each their own I guess.

At the price of 1) the soul of a child and 2) handing someone with slightly dodgy motives something of potentially world shattering power.

[Zjarcal]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I just don't see the temptation. It's not a hard choice because Morrigan isn't offering you anything worthwhile, if you're selfish. And if you're selfless, you'll tell her to shove her deal.

What?

Offering you to NOT die when killing the Archdemon isn't worthwhile? To each their own I guess.

You could personally not die by having Alistair or Loghain do it, I think he means, so the ritual was hardly the "only way out".

Oh I know, but from an RP perspective, you couldn't know if Alistair or Loghain would even make it to the AD. Sort of like Riordan also offering to make the final blow but failing at it. So for my PCs doing the DR is the only way to make sure that they really have a chance of surviving the battle

ziggehunderslash wrote...
At the price of 1) the soul of a child and 2) handing someone with slightly dodgy motives something of potentially world shattering power. 

Between the soul of an unborn child and their own, my PCs choose their own. And they happen to like and trust Morrigan enough, so they're not that concerned about the outcome. And if it does turn out to be something bad, well, at least they will still be alive to fight it back.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 12 novembre 2010 - 06:13 .