152 réponses à ce sujet

[Ortaya Alevli]

Ziggeh wrote...

Did being dalish effect the decision to smack tuvok?

Uh, excuse my ignorance, but what exactly does that mean? Does it have anything to do with a certain Vulcan?

[PsychoBlonde]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Did being dalish effect the decision to smack tuvok?

Uh, excuse my ignorance, but what exactly does that mean? Does it have anything to do with a certain Vulcan?

I think Tuvok = Zarethein, at least from context.

[Ziggeh]

Erm, yes, sorry, like I say, the quest doesn't really stand strong in my mind because it had a healthy heroic resolution. I mean does it change the decision it asks you to make at all, or is it still kill one group, t'other or just the one maniacal stubborn guy?

Modifié par Ziggeh, 04 janvier 2011 - 02:35 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Heh, fair enough. Dialogue isn't all that different unless you decide to help werewolves kill the elves.

[Maria Caliban]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Did being dalish effect the decision to smack tuvok?

Uh, excuse my ignorance, but what exactly does that mean? Does it have anything to do with a certain Vulcan?

Tim Russ, the actor for Tuvok, voiced Zathrian.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Tim Russ, the actor for Tuvok, voiced Zathrian.

I see. Well, out here we have a strict all-dub-no-sub policy in television, so I had no way of knowing.

[ErichHartmann]

I really don't care what choices other people make in a SINGLE player game. Killing Connor was the "best" choice and I'm sticking with it.

[Rovay]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I really don't care what choices other people make in a SINGLE player game. Killing Connor was the "best" choice and I'm sticking with it.

Best as in, consequences, or because you could punch Isolde?

[LadyJaneGrey]

General Warfield wrote...

What I mean is in Redcliffe you
could choose the choice with no consequences at all which imo is just
stupid. Please keep the choices grey like the golem choice.

How
is a fairy-tale-type resolution not a consequence?  It's still based on
that player's choice, whether we like how it was written or not.

I agree that playing a dwarf commoner made choosing Orzammar's king much easier; context always helps.  As for the Dalish and Zathrian, my Warden felt much more "personal" anger at Zathrian's duplicitousness and refusal to protect his own people.<_<

[Ziggeh]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
I agree that playing a dwarf commoner made choosing Orzammar's king much easier; context always helps.

I think it made it a lot harder. I pretty much but the evil laughing murder suspect on the throne based on his progressive views on the casteless.

[Mr_Steph]

 I'm find with it as long as it is not possible to go to Redcliffe first, figure out what's wrong and THEN go to the circle, do the quest there and get the help. That was just stupid imo.

[Moondoggie]

The only thing i dislike about the whole choice with Conner is how it tries to shoehorn you into doing the "good" decision. You have to fight to make your own choices since it prompts you about 50 times then when you want to kill him you get tons of "but are you sure?" "maybe we should go to the circle of magi" "Are you really really sure we won't go?" All after being told "It's your decision" Well if it is my decision stop trying to force me to play a certain way.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Ziggeh wrote...

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
I agree that playing a dwarf commoner made choosing Orzammar's king much easier; context always helps.

I think it made it a lot harder. I pretty much but the evil laughing murder suspect on the throne based on his progressive views on the casteless.

Did you play through the DC as you're first Warden?  Without knowing the full story from the DN origin, my DC felt like all the dwarven nobles lied and tried to kill one another.  Bhelen seemed to be helping the casteless and the immediate family so that's who she chose.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Moondoggie wrote...

The only thing i dislike about the whole choice with Conner is how it tries to shoehorn you into doing the "good" decision. You have to fight to make your own choices since it prompts you about 50 times then when you want to kill him you get tons of "but are you sure?" "maybe we should go to the circle of magi" "Are you really really sure we won't go?" All after being told "It's your decision" Well if it is my decision stop trying to force me to play a certain way.

Is the prodding worse if you kill Connor rather than perform the blood magic ritual?

[Moondoggie]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

Moondoggie wrote...

The only thing i dislike about the whole choice with Conner is how it tries to shoehorn you into doing the "good" decision. You have to fight to make your own choices since it prompts you about 50 times then when you want to kill him you get tons of "but are you sure?" "maybe we should go to the circle of magi" "Are you really really sure we won't go?" All after being told "It's your decision" Well if it is my decision stop trying to force me to play a certain way.

Is the prodding worse if you kill Connor rather than perform the blood magic ritual?

Far worse you have to make the choice about 5 times before you actually get to do it.

[Ziggeh]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

Did you play through the DC as you're first Warden?  Without knowing the full story from the DN origin, my DC felt like all the dwarven nobles lied and tried to kill one another.  Bhelen seemed to be helping the casteless and the immediate family so that's who she chose.

Only warden I did it with. I get the impression without that perspective harrowmont would seem far more sensible, it turns it from nice old fella versus crazy manipulation guy into the good of the empire versus the good of a section of it and maybe personal motivations.

[Sherbet Lemon]

While I don't have too much of an opinion on this as I like to take the wait and see approach (though I can be a bit of a Pollyanna), I don't want give my opinion as a definitive yes or no.  We haven't seen Dragon Age 2 yet.  We don't know the moral dilemmas that we will be presented with and in that sense, there may come an instance where the third option is almost welcome or necessitated. To take that a step further, we don't know what happens with the choices we made in DA:O.  What if saving Connor has some averse consequence that we dont know about?  I can't help but think about Eamon's remark about the boy being too quiet, and my memory fails here a bit, but wasn't he sent to Tevinter to study the fade if he survives?  What will he learn there?  What if he picks up something dangerous?

To take that a step further, and I can only guess and this is merely my opinion, but perhaps the writers felt the Connor situation was gray enough?  The whole town of Redcliffe steamrolled night after night (and depending upon when you went there, it could have been months).  I'm not particularly fond of Isolde but I understand and empathize with her dilemma.  Essentially, lose your child to the Circle or tutor him privately.  I don't maybe they felt that the third option is one bright spot in that whole ordeal.  As it is, their family  (even if they are all saved) in some ways seems forever changed and slightly broken.

#kanye shrug#

[jpdipity]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I want nothing more than several choices with realistic conseuqences. I don't give a damn if they're dark, grey, white or pink, as long as they are consistent and believable.

I agree... with the caveat that 'consistent and believable' is simply a product of the expectations of the world and thus as much a thematic element as anything.

I also agree here.  Consistent and believable is much more important than "grey."  Third happy-happy-joy-joy options don't bother me because I don't have to choose them.  Easy enough.  Not mention, not every action has a consequence - if it did, that would be unrealistic.

I had high hopes for The Witcher and was extremely disappointed because there was virtually ALWAYS a negative consquence and sometimes the consequence made absolutely no sense at all.  There was no neutral option at all - the player is frequently pigeon-holed into - not a grey area or a black/white consequence - but a black/black damned if I do/damned if I don't situation.  Whereas that is fine on occassion, but there better be a darn good reason for it and oftentimes TW failed at providing me a valid reason for the forced negative consequence.  As mentioned, having a netural option would have completely changed my opinion of the game because I could have avoided those non-sensical consequences.

I think choosing Orzammar's king is a great grey area.  I think it is up to constant debate on who is the better choice.  On my first playthrough, I thought both Harrowmont and Bhelan were potentially involved in some very dirty, dirty things.  Both candidates could have had blood on their hands.  Especially as an outsider to Orzammar, I didn't know if Harrowmont killed the King or if Bhelan murdered his brother.  There was no proof either way.  However, it was pretty clear to me that Bhelan was the stronger candidate for King - I didn't need the epilogue for that and I'm not sure why it was so unclear to a lot of players.  On the other hand, many players were convinced that Bhelan was the bad guy right off the bat.  That shows that the writers did a very good job at making the decision "grey."

[Ortaya Alevli]

Umm... I don't remember any consequence in The Witcher which made absolutely no sense. Might just be my memory, though.

[jpdipity]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Umm... I don't remember any consequence in The Witcher which made absolutely no sense. Might just be my memory, though.

Sorry, I put that game up so long ago that I can't even tell the you the specific situations.  I only played one playthrough because, quite frankly, I couldn't stomach a second one.  I do remember that there were 2 times where I completely stopped playing for an extended period because the consequence of an action had me scratching my head wondering how the heck the reason for the consquence had anything to do with the action.  Perhaps the English verison is poorly translated.  I don't know.  That being said, there were other things that I liked about the game.

[Maria Caliban]

Hanz54321 wrote...

At Redcliffe . . . the 3rd option to go get the Circle Mages and have the Sunshine n Flowers outcome . . . I would've prefered that choice to end in your party returning to Redcliffe to find Connor had destroyed everything in your absence.

Why not just send a messenger?

I mean, if we're going to be realistic, I have a bunch of knights sitting around doing nothing. Send two to the tower with a note. Make me play through Connor trying to sack Redcliffe while I and my heavily armed companions are sitting around the castle.

The only reason to force you to go yourself and then kill everyone while you're away is the desire to be grimdark.

[soteria]

Maria wrote...

The only reason to force you to go yourself and then kill everyone while you're away is the desire to be grimdark.

Well, they could just force you to kill Connor if you take the time to send a messenger in your hypothetical. Demon-possessed Connor attacks you, etc.

[Maria Caliban]

Indeed, they could.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 04 janvier 2011 - 08:04 .