1079 réponses à ce sujet

[nightcobra]

Master Shiori wrote...

Sadly no. You can only save one sibling. The other one bites the dust.

i don't know, they never did say one would die if you didn't choose him/her, just that the one wouldn't be in your party.
and even then we don't even know if they're available after the prologue.

my guess is that it's like the section of the tower of Ishal where your party depends on your class.
and the one who is left could be an allied (blue) npc.

[Qset]

Herr Uhl wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Ms. Lovey Dovey wrote...
@MIdey77 As real as Bethany's breasts, mi boy.

This is very funny, for reasons that will eventually become self-evident.

*thinks through scenarios*

1. Varric is making them bigger
2. Hawke feels his/her sister up at some point
3. The game has jiggle animations

Bethany is not in fact a female? Or both of your siblings are in fact something else entirely?

[upsettingshorts]

The Varric-as-a-breast-dwarf theory is my personal favorite. Look, the man has his preferences let him embellish the story.

"And she had big boobs!" is pretty much the equivalent of overstating the size of the fish he caught on his last trip to the lake.

I don't think it's that creepy, really. Dude's just spinning a yarn.

That is if that's the actual explanation. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 décembre 2010 - 02:48 .

[smac83]

I really like the sibling thing... I mean I tend to play rpgs more than once and it's cool if you have real differences between two playthroughs something that was also very cool with the origins... but ostagar was a real pain when you played it the tenth time...

[Qset]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The Varric-as-a-breast-dwarf theory is my personal favorite. Look, the man has his preferences let him embellish the story.

"And she had big boobs!" is pretty much the equivalent of overstating the size of the fish he caught on his last trip to the lake.

I don't think it's that creepy, really. Dude's just spinning a yarn.

That is if that's the actual explanation. 

ah yes, that makes sense

[Apollo Starflare]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Master Shiori wrote...

Sadly no. You can only save one sibling. The other one bites the dust.

i don't know, they never did say one would die if you didn't choose him/her, just that the one wouldn't be in your party.
and even then we don't even know if they're available after the prologue.

my guess is that it's like the section of the tower of Ishal where your party depends on your class.
and the one who is left could be an allied (blue) npc.

I think most of us are presuming it is a lives/dies decision due to the fact we have already seen Carver die in the old demo. Of course it seems likely that the escape sequence has changed somewhat since then, so who knows maybe they do both survive now. I doubt it, but you never know.

[magicwins]

Lukas Kristjanson wrote...
Ah, but if you played a certain way in Origins, the behavior of those characters changed towards you and people could die. Did you know that on your first playthrough? Did it change your second?
You’re on the forums. At this point you're effectively on your second playthrough of the meta-game. In an isolated single playthough of the actual game you're much closer to the reactionary experience of your character and these events are seamless. But frontload with info and you change the game for yourself. Once you know the mechanics that govern any entertainment you're deciding what experience you want to have, which is far different than reacting to it. You start playing a character rather than defining one. And at a certain point, it's less about our decisions making the game than it is about your preconceptions. Eventually you'll have so much info that your first playthrough of DAII will be your second, except the first one never existed.
Pull back the curtain too far (or worse, have a job like mine where you start behind the curtain), and eventually you’ll do it by reflex. You’ll never play a game/see a movie/read a book/watch network television/insert-media-here without seeing the background mechanics, and you’ll wonder why nobody else sees the obvious. Somewhere around that time a person makes their first “why don’t they make BLAH like they used to” post on a forum.

When I read this post, I thought Mary was joking, loopy or in the very least had a strange point of view. Nuh uh. The workings of your brain are as complicatedly weird as she made them out to be.

David Gaider wrote...

Ms. Lovey Dovey wrote...
@MIdey77 As real as Bethany's breasts, mi boy.

This is very funny, for reasons that will eventually become self-evident. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

You heard it here first folks! Implants!

Modifié par magicwins, 21 décembre 2010 - 04:17 .

[dorquemada]

Leaving aside the question whether Escapist needed kneepads during the meeting and a mighty teeth brushing afterwards, what really boggle me are things like this: "Concerned that Origins both looked and played too "old fashioned,"[...]"



I'm sorry, but wasn't the old-fashionedness, or, how it was PR'ed for Origins, "return to the roots aka BG's spiritual successor" the key selling point of Origins? So, a few years ago it was a huge marketing peak, now it's an annoying con to be rid of? Do marketing people think all customers have attention spans of a kitten or they just cater to this segment?



I'd say something about difficulty, too, but that'll probably get me labeled as "leet" braggard. Even if I never went above casual in NWN, used alchemy in "Witcher" on easy all the time and still got my ass handed to me from time to time, and can do DA:O on nightmare after 3 pints o'beer and a cat sleeping on my keyboard.

[AlanC9]

dorquemada wrote...
I'm sorry, but wasn't the old-fashionedness, or, how it was PR'ed for Origins, "return to the roots aka BG's spiritual successor" the key selling point of Origins? So, a few years ago it was a huge marketing peak, now it's an annoying con to be rid of? Do marketing people think all customers have attention spans of a kitten or they just cater to this segment?

Disliking old-fashioned gameplay isn't the same thing as having the atttention span of a kitten, of course. And I don't think having a game that looked old-fashioned and played clunky was ever a selling point in Bio's mind. There are some folks here who seem to positively prefer clunkiness, but I don't think Bio intended to cater to them with DAO. They just didn't a good job of making combat responsive.

I'd say something about difficulty, too, but that'll probably get me labeled as "leet" braggard. Even if I never went above casual in NWN, used alchemy in "Witcher" on easy all the time and still got my ass handed to me from time to time, and can do DA:O on nightmare after 3 pints o'beer and a cat sleeping on my keyboard.

That's the thing about DAO diffficulty -- it's not so much that it's a difficult game as that it's an obscure game, thanks to inadequate documentation and feedback. The early combat and build threads were all over the map, if you'll recall. The game was simultaneously too hard for new players and too easy for experienced ones. And since most game players don't ever get to be experienced players, the first of these is a bigger problem.

[Legion 2.5]

I read in a preview that a Rogue female Hawke had Carver.

[druplesnubb]

What I don't get is why you can'y just have both survive. Then you get more party members to choose from which leads to more class combinations andmore people get to experience both siblings.

[nightcobra]

druplesnubb wrote...

What I don't get is why you can'y just have both survive. Then you get more party members to choose from which leads to more class combinations andmore people get to experience both siblings.

in the preview it doesn't say that one of the siblings MUST die, just that your party at the prologue section is definitely dependent on hawke's class.
at this point we don't even know if either of the siblings will continue to journey with you as permanent companions, if both can be saved or that both can be killed.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 21 décembre 2010 - 07:56 .

[namedforthemoon]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

druplesnubb wrote...

What I don't get is why you can'y just have both survive. Then you get more party members to choose from which leads to more class combinations andmore people get to experience both siblings.

in the preview it doesn't say that one of the siblings MUST die, just that your party at the prologue section is definitely dependent on hawke's class.
at this point we don't even know if either of the siblings will continue to journey with you as permanent companions, if both can be saved or that both can be killed.

If the siblings don't join you as permanent companions, then that could open the door for other companions. Like a wider variety of companions to choose from. I'd be happy with that.

[nightcobra]

namedforthemoon wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

druplesnubb wrote...

What I don't get is why you can'y just have both survive. Then you get more party members to choose from which leads to more class combinations andmore people get to experience both siblings.

in the preview it doesn't say that one of the siblings MUST die, just that your party at the prologue section is definitely dependent on hawke's class.
at this point we don't even know if either of the siblings will continue to journey with you as permanent companions, if both can be saved or that both can be killed.

If the siblings don't join you as permanent companions, then that could open the door for other companions. Like a wider variety of companions to choose from. I'd be happy with that.

that's what i'm guessing.

i'm thinking carver and bethany are the equivalent of the soldier and mage allies we had in the tower of ishal for the duration of the prologue section (blightlands and beginning of kirkwall) 

[Atakuma]

nightcobra8928 wrote...


that's what i'm guessing.

i'm thinking carver and bethany are the equivalent of the soldier and mage allies we had in the tower of ishal for the duration of the prologue section (blightlands and beginning of kirkwall) 

We have seen screenshots of one or the other in your party after the prologue so I would bet that the one you choose is a permanent companion. because there really isn't much point in either of them even existing if they weren't going to play a larger role IMO.

[Herr Uhl]

Atakuma wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...


that's what i'm guessing.

i'm thinking carver and bethany are the equivalent of the soldier and mage allies we had in the tower of ishal for the duration of the prologue section (blightlands and beginning of kirkwall) 

We have seen screenshots of one or the other in your party after the prologue so I would bet that the one you choose is a permanent companion. because there really isn't much point in either of them even existing if they weren't going to play a larger role IMO.

There is also one with both of them in Kirkwall. Screenshots can lie, it is a fact.

[Gill Kaiser]

Regardless of whether they're permanent companions or not, odds are that they'll be sticking around throughout the storyline. I mean, they are Hawke's family after all. Therefore, for those of us interested in a specific type of sibling relationship, such as big brother/little sister, for example, rather than a party member, this mechanic is inevitably going to affect our enjoyment of the class we choose.

Now, at character creation, I can no longer just think about the type of Hawke that I want to play; I must also factor in which sibling I want to develop the relationship with. If I want my preferred sibling relationship for the specific Hawke I'm creating, I can't be the class I want. It's niggling away at me.

[HighlandBerserkr]

What i don't understand is all this talk of how difficult Dragon Age O was, i have been a gamer a LOOOONG time, but i am not the best in any respects, i basically just went in with sword swinging and didn't find the game that hard at all on Normal and later in the game i switched to the hardest setting, and played all of Awakenings on the Hardest setting and still made Mincemeat of even the hardest of bosses.

[Tamyn]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Regardless of whether they're permanent companions or not, odds are that they'll be sticking around throughout the storyline. I mean, they are Hawke's family after all. Therefore, for those of us interested in a specific type of sibling relationship, such as big brother/little sister, for example, rather than a party member, this mechanic is inevitably going to affect our enjoyment of the class we choose.
Now, at character creation, I can no longer just think about the type of Hawke that I want to play; I must also factor in which sibling I want to develop the relationship with. If I want my preferred sibling relationship for the specific Hawke I'm creating, I can't be the class I want. It's niggling away at me.

Ditto. I wanted to start with a rogue this time, but since I want Carver I'm leaning toward mage.

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

What i don't understand is all this talk of how difficult Dragon Age O was, i have been a gamer a LOOOONG time, but i am not the best in any respects, i basically just went in with sword swinging and didn't find the game that hard at all on Normal 

Did you first play after you had a patch installed?

Modifié par Tamyn, 21 décembre 2010 - 11:05 .

[Wissenschaft]

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

What i don't understand is all this talk of how difficult Dragon Age O was, i have been a gamer a LOOOONG time, but i am not the best in any respects, i basically just went in with sword swinging and didn't find the game that hard at all on Normal and later in the game i switched to the hardest setting, and played all of Awakenings on the Hardest setting and still made Mincemeat of even the hardest of bosses.

And yet many many other players had a very hard time. Especalliy at redcliff at a low level. If you were on the forums back when the game came out then you'd know about the scores of post about how hard DA:O was.

[AlanC9]

Awakenings doesn't count- I don't think anyone's saying that one was hard.

[HighlandBerserkr]

I got Dragon AGe O on day of release and have been a part of the forums since before then, i understand people had trouble, what i don't understand is why i didn't like i said i played with no strategy whatsoever, just went in to battle with guns a blazin

[HolyAvenger]

People still whinging about the Carver/Bethany thing...aren't you all going to play through twice, once as a mage and once as a warrior or rogue in any case?

[HolyAvenger]

Wissenschaft wrote...

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

What i don't understand is all this talk of how difficult Dragon Age O was, i have been a gamer a LOOOONG time, but i am not the best in any respects, i basically just went in with sword swinging and didn't find the game that hard at all on Normal and later in the game i switched to the hardest setting, and played all of Awakenings on the Hardest setting and still made Mincemeat of even the hardest of bosses.

And yet many many other players had a very hard time. Especalliy at redcliff at a low level. If you were on the forums back when the game came out then you'd know about the scores of post about how hard DA:O was.

DAO is definitely more challenging early in the game at lower levels. Later on your party gets so strong you can blow through enemies without blinking.

[Atakuma]

HolyAvenger wrote...

People still whinging about the Carver/Bethany thing...aren't you all going to play through twice, once as a mage and once as a warrior or rogue in any case?

I will, but the majority of people wont even finish their first playthrough.