309 réponses à ce sujet

[Huntress]

AlexXIV wrote...

GreyWarden36 wrote...

*SPOILERS*
i think they removed that option because of your final decision in the endgame quest
makes you think twice on who to side with mages or templars
which is obvious that most would side with mages
so its kind of evens out your choice to pick who your siding with
your mothers killers kind or the people who took Carver/Bethany if not turned into a Grey Warden

Well but it doesn't work for me. I was undecided between templars and mages. Now I can never side with the mages again, because the first enchanter protected the serial killer so he could kill my mom. So it wasn't quite balancing for me, but rather imbalancing.

Yes orsino knew about it, and so did the captain guard that wanders the city with you, she didn't move a finger, and so did the templars with all the notes , they didn't do anything about either and yet, the fault falls in the mages.. Yes lets put more kaka to them..

[CyberMurph]

Like many others have stated, the problem I have with "All That Remains" is that they do not give you the possibility of saving her. If they wanted to write her out, fine, do it in a cut scene. But making it a quest, a rescue mission in fact, without the possibility of actually rescuing her, felt contrived and out of place in a choose-your-own-adventure game. It reminds me A LOT of the Ashley Williams - Kaiden Alenko choice in Mass Effect 1. Only this time it was worse, in that they tease you into thinking you can actually rescue her. At the end of the mission, it felt like a HUGE WASTE OF TIME.

Modifié par CyberMurph, 02 mai 2011 - 01:01 .

[Rifneno]

I good, I'm glad someone necro'd this thread.  For a month I've been smacking myself for missing the opportunity to make note of this quote:

David Gaider wrote...

We're not going to re-write our quests to suit someone's individual tastes. If you don't like something that much, that's what modding is for.

So, umm...  when do we get the toolset update to do that? 

[Plaintiff]

For a minute there I thought you were requesting a DLC campaign with Leandra as a protagonist and I was like "What the hell would that even be about?"

Yeah, no. I'm pretty cool with Leandra dying. She's a neat character, and I was sad, but she doesn't do anything anyway and as much as people don't like it, I think it makes sense from a story perspective.

[Rifneno]

Plaintiff wrote...

For a minute there I thought you were requesting a DLC campaign with Leandra as a protagonist and I was like "What the hell would that even be about?"

Yeah, no. I'm pretty cool with Leandra dying. She's a neat character, and I was sad, but she doesn't do anything anyway and as much as people don't like it, I think it makes sense from a story perspective.

Leandra's fate is almost as big a difference of opinion among the fanbase as the templar vs mage issue.  I think it's a more personal matter, but that may just be my own bias.  That quest really bothered me, but that's probably because I'm very close to my own elderly mother and I'm always terrified of the inevitable.  I could be wrong though, most random jackasses pretending to have some great pscyhological insight usually are, why not me?  Still, I think it has some merit.

[Plaintiff]

Rifneno wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

For a minute there I thought you were requesting a DLC campaign with Leandra as a protagonist and I was like "What the hell would that even be about?"

Yeah, no. I'm pretty cool with Leandra dying. She's a neat character, and I was sad, but she doesn't do anything anyway and as much as people don't like it, I think it makes sense from a story perspective.

Leandra's fate is almost as big a difference of opinion among the fanbase as the templar vs mage issue.  I think it's a more personal matter, but that may just be my own bias.  That quest really bothered me, but that's probably because I'm very close to my own elderly mother and I'm always terrified of the inevitable.  I could be wrong though, most random jackasses pretending to have some great pscyhological insight usually are, why not me?  Still, I think it has some merit.

Well if it effects you emotionally, it's doing it's job, right?

I didn't feel a special connection to Leandra, but I understand other people did and it's perfectly natural that they were disappointed about not being able to save her.

But from a story mechanics view (this is sort of my area of interest and I can get pretty wanky about it), Leandra's death serves a pretty standard purpose. Dragon Age 2 is, I think we can all agree, very much about two things: Hawke and Kirkwall. Rather than focussing on any one particular conflict, it's more like a history lesson of sorts, of the events that happen in Kirkwall and Hawke's place in them.

In the three-act structure that the game follows, Act 2 is what we call the "Crisis", the point where things are at the lowest point for our hero. It is typically represented by some sort of "death", either literal or metaphorical. In this case, literal. As the only family member still present who isn't a dick, Leandra is the obvious candidate. From the very beginning, it's made pretty clear to us that family and survival are Hawke's main motivators. Leandra's death signifies the final failure of Hawke's mission to protect his family. He is, for all intents and purposes, alone. That is his crisis, his lowest point.

Hawke's crisis is reflected by the crisis state of the city. It parallels and contrasts it. While Hawke is dealing with the death of his mother at the hands of an insane blood mage (the very personification of chaos), Saemus is killed by the machinations of Mother Petrice (who wants and embodies order under Chantry law). Even the way the Viscount cradles his son is extremely similar to the way Hawke holds the dying Leandra. Hawke and Viscount Dumar are at the same time identical and opposite, almost like they're on a seesaw. Dumar sinks into despair and relies on Hawke to handle the Qunari, and that reliance is his undoing. He loses what little respect he had in the eyes of the Qunari, and is slain. Hawke however, rises to the challenge presented to him, pulls himself together, defeats the Arishok, (who has grown to respect Hawke as an equal) and becomes Champion; a position comparable to that of the Viscount in terms of respect and influence.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's my reasoning for why Leandra has to die. I won't deny, however, that it falls a bit flat. I think people would be more accepting of Leandra's death if they'd gone into Hawke's grieving process more. He gets a conversation with the chosen LI, and a talk from Aveline, and then nothing except a few throwaway comments in party banter. It's like he got distracted by Aveline and Isabela's catfight and then forgot he ever had a mother. A few offerings of condolences from the rest of the companions wouldn't hurt. It's almost brutal, the way the game abruptly shoves Hawke into the next mission without really giving him time to internalize and process what he saw, especially given the rather horrific circumstance of Leandra's murder.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 02 mai 2011 - 03:02 .

[Rifneno]

I don't think the issue most people have is that Leandra dies, it's that Leandra *always* dies.  And Carver or Bethany *always* wind up screwed over or dead.  This is more of an interactive book than a game.  You can win games, you can't win in DA2 you can only further the story.  This is just a particularly infuriating scenario because it was originally planned that we'd have the ability to win, to make a difference that actually matters, and they decided to take it away because if people actually cared enough to make the effort to avert disaster then not everyone would see their ever-so-creative Zombiemom story.  Heaven forbid people not see that exceptional piece of C minus fifth grade writing!

[Plaintiff]

Rifneno wrote...

I don't think the issue most people have is that Leandra dies, it's that Leandra *always* dies.  And Carver or Bethany *always* wind up screwed over or dead.  This is more of an interactive book than a game.  You can win games, you can't win in DA2 you can only further the story.  This is just a particularly infuriating scenario because it was originally planned that we'd have the ability to win, to make a difference that actually matters, and they decided to take it away because if people actually cared enough to make the effort to avert disaster then not everyone would see their ever-so-creative Zombiemom story.  Heaven forbid people not see that exceptional piece of C minus fifth grade writing!

I don't think that's their excuse. Or at least, it wouldn't be mine. It's not as if saving her would actually prevent you from seeing all that anyway. You'd still have to kill Quentin and you'd likely learn his plan and probably end up fighting a grotesque, faceless Frankenmom regardless. So the storyline would be mostly intact

But I really feel that being able to save Leandra would lessen the impact of the second act and the story overall in a big way. People complain about lacklustre story already. I'll agree that Bioware didn't capitalise on the plot and characters to the fullest extent they could've, but Leandra surviving adds little and takes away a lot. It sounds harsh but I really feel that Dragon Age 2 would be a poorer story without her death.

And from a practicality standpoint, what would happen to her at the end of Act 3? She can't keep running forever.

But I guess if people really wanted to save her, that's their preogative. The likelihood of her returning in the next installment would be virtually nil regardless, so what does it matter in the long run?

[IanPolaris]

Plaintiff,

I'll tell you what's wrong with it. If I wanted to watch a movie or read a book, I would do so. The DA games are SUPPOSED to be about RPGs and that means they are supposed to permit meaningful choices. This attitude epressed above by DA is why I avoid DMs who are authors if I can. A DM needs to know when to sit down, shut up, and let his players dictate the flow of the story.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I don't think the issue most people have is that Leandra dies, it's that Leandra *always* dies.  And Carver or Bethany *always* wind up screwed over or dead.  This is more of an interactive book than a game.  You can win games, you can't win in DA2 you can only further the story.  This is just a particularly infuriating scenario because it was originally planned that we'd have the ability to win, to make a difference that actually matters, and they decided to take it away because if people actually cared enough to make the effort to avert disaster then not everyone would see their ever-so-creative Zombiemom story.  Heaven forbid people not see that exceptional piece of C minus fifth grade writing!

I don't think that's their excuse. Or at least, it wouldn't be mine. It's not as if saving her would actually prevent you from seeing all that anyway. You'd still have to kill Quentin and you'd likely learn his plan and probably end up fighting a grotesque, faceless Frankenmom regardless. So the storyline would be mostly intact

But I really feel that being able to save Leandra would lessen the impact of the second act and the story overall in a big way. People complain about lacklustre story already. I'll agree that Bioware didn't capitalise on the plot and characters to the fullest extent they could've, but Leandra surviving adds little and takes away a lot. It sounds harsh but I really feel that Dragon Age 2 would be a poorer story without her death.

And from a practicality standpoint, what would happen to her at the end of Act 3? She can't keep running forever.

But I guess if people really wanted to save her, that's their preogative. The likelihood of her returning in the next installment would be virtually nil regardless, so what does it matter in the long run?

It was their excuse though.  They flat out told us so, though obviously I added my less-than-sugar-coated description of the literary abomination that was Zombiemom.  I never bought the whole "any writing that evokes any emotion, no matter what, is a success" school of thought.  By that logic I've seen some Internet trolls that were top notch authors.  And believe me, they're not.  That's why we call them "trolls" instead of "scholars."  This quest was a troll.  Simple as that.

It wasn't some grand classical writing where they made the reader genuinely care for a character and then have a realistic tragedy befall them.  Who cared about Leandra, honestly?  I've seen more "I love Loghain" posts than "I love Leandra" posts.  I've seen more love for GAMLEN than Leandra.  She was bland, pointless, and insignificant.  This is why I believe most of the emotion evoked from this quest, disgust aside, was transferance from people associating Hawke losing his/her mother to them losing their own mother.  A lot of people cared that she died, but nobody cared that she existed.  More to the point, the storytelling was terrible.  Terrible.  Even in Act III where they're basically setting off a cherry bomb in your frontal lobe, this crap wouldn't fly.  Leandra isn't just killed by a serial killer out of sheer coincedence (Quentin killed what, like 5 women out of the biggest city in the Free Marches?  And Leandra just happens to be one?  Riiiight), he cuts off her head and sews it onto a frankenstein-esque patchwork zombie who literally just stands there wobbling while you fight off the bad guys.  Then she collapses and dies in Hawke's arms (cliche spill on isle 3!) and gets the chance for one last chat with the hero, fully of her own mind and voice despite the fact she was beheaded like an hour ago!  Howard Stern would be ashamed of himself for using that much shock value in a piece.  My God!  No, this isn't some gripping piece of emotional drama that should be seen by all, this is an amateur hour shockfest that makes Orsino's Harvester twist look like the greatest works of Mark Twain.

[Plaintiff]

IanPolaris wrote...

Plaintiff,

I'll tell you what's wrong with it. If I wanted to watch a movie or read a book, I would do so. The DA games are SUPPOSED to be about RPGs and that means they are supposed to permit meaningful choices. This attitude epressed above by DA is why I avoid DMs who are authors if I can. A DM needs to know when to sit down, shut up, and let his players dictate the flow of the story.

-Polaris

Tabletop gaming is a different sort of creature altogether, the DM is right there so they can adapt to a situation if the players start thinking outside the box. The only limit is their imagination. Even so, I hardly think having some structure is a bad thing. I don't want to play a tabletop game where nothing happens because the douchebags I'm playing with think it's funny to kill everyone we meet. The DM is just as much a player as everyone else and to get a good game out of it you have to be willing to work together and accept that a DM can't account for all of a player's decisions and some things have to happen for the sake of progression.

But a videogame story has to be, well... planned out, with every eventuality accounted for. You can't have the same flexibility a tabletop RPG offers, it's a logistic impossibility. The story is already written before you get there and that's that.

The amount of freedom we got in Origins was crazy. Awesome, sure. But crazy. And it's causing problems now as the writers try to establish a canon for the series and step all over the players' toes. I won't deny that DA2 is flawed but I think scaling back the player's impact when it comes to making big decisions was the smart choice to make. It also works better for the type of story DA2 is. The Warden is a member of a select group of elite warriors, amassing an army to fulfill a sacred duty in a land on the brink of war. Hawke is just some guy, it doesn't make sense to give him the same level of agency the warden has.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 02 mai 2011 - 04:46 .

[IanPolaris]

Plaintiff wrote...
The amount of freedom we got in Origins was crazy. Awesome, sure. But crazy. And it's causing problems now as the writers try to establish a canon for the series and step all over the players' toes. I won't deny that DA2 is flawed but I think scaling back the player's impact when it comes to making big decisions was the smart choice to make. It also works better for the type of story DA2 is. The Warden is a member of a select group of elite warriors, amassing an army to fulfill a sacred duty. Hawke is just some guy, it doesn't make sense to give him the same level of agency the warden has.

There is a difference between SOME choice and NO choice and what DA2 gives us is NO choice.  There isn't a single decision you make in DA2 that has any meaningful impact on the world. 

If that's the way Bioware wanted to run it, then should have made it an interactive book rather than lying to us and calling it an "RPG".  It's not.

-Polaris

[bstrothe]

IanPolaris wrote...

There is a difference between SOME choice and NO choice and what DA2 gives us is NO choice.  There isn't a single decision you make in DA2 that has any meaningful impact on the world. 

If that's the way Bioware wanted to run it, then should have made it an interactive book rather than lying to us and calling it an "RPG".  It's not.

-Polaris

I have to agree with this, after reloading pretty much every option for Leandra's act II quest, I even went so far as to take a completely new playthrough to see see if perhaps going through act I differently would help, but nope. I know this isn't the thread for it, but the same can be said of Anders too. Even blowing off his quest he still does the exact same thing, our only choice is in not actively aiding him.

In the end, the railroad-plot in DA2 is too much for me. I played through Origins six times, and will likely play again, but after the two playthroughs of DA2, I think I would have been better off just watching the whole thing in youtube clips. I love Thedas and I did like the characters in DA2, but I felt like Hawke was useless at making any differences in Kirkwall. I enjoyed the Stolen Throne and The Calling better by far.

[Sanguinerin]

I'm so glad to see this thread alive again. This is one of the most bothersome aspects of the game. It isn't specifically that Leandra dies, it's that the choice was there and removed because too many people made that choice.

BioWare might make the game, but what we make of it is our own experience. If we want to go back to a previous save and change a decision because we like that outcome, then that's our prerogative. It's the same logic that Laidlaw used about individuality for companions. He expressed in an interview that he hated seeing Morrigan in end-game screenshots wearing armor because "that's not Morrigan." What does it matter to him if someone chooses to put Morrigan in armor? What does it matter to them if I choose to reload my game and do something differently?

If I'm really curious about a decision I make and what the alternative is, I will often impatiently go back to a save and see what happens. Sometimes I keep that decision, or sometimes I don't. Sometimes I say, "oh, I'll keep this decision, but on my next play-through I'd like to make those other choices." Having those different choices is why I replayed Origins so many times. Not having those different choices is why I've still only played DAII once.

bstrothe wrote...

I think I would have been better off just watching the whole thing in youtube clips.

I've probably never watched YouTube clips for any other game quite as much as I've done with this one. It's not satisfying enough to try and make a difference on my own with separate characters. I feel like I accomplish the same thing by watching the clips, rather than doing it myself, and far less of my time is wasted trying to get to various points in the game.

Modifié par HallowedWarden, 02 mai 2011 - 07:07 .

[Realmzmaster]

Bioware did the same action in Origins. The human noble is unable to save his mother and father no matter what he/she does. Your brother is lost or dead as far as you know. The same action in the dwarf noble origin you cannot change your brother dying and your character getting framed.
Here you do not get to save your mother. What may be gnawing at people is the lack of control over the situation. I believe that is intentional. The same thing happens when you are unable to save Nyssa (Huron's wife) who Hawke said Hawke would protect.
It shows that no matter how big and bad our characters maybe some events are out of their and our control. The events happen independent of what our character does or says.
Sometimes you cannot save the day.

[Sanguinerin]

However, DAII was supposed to emphasize family. Origins was meant to set you up as a Warden. Hawke's family is more like an insignificant side-plot more than anything else. The moment with Huon's wife really needs an interrupt, as Hawke has more than enough time to react to that situation instead of standing there and doing nothing.

A lot of people on this thread weren't asking for a happy ending with this particular scene. For example, most don't want a choice between Connor, Isolde, or happily saving both of them. However, choosing between your mother and perhaps Quentin escaping and killing again (perhaps Donnic, as a guard, during a pursuit) or some other alternative consequence would be nice.

The reason for this scene, as Gaider stated, was to show how dark magic can be. Aside from us having the entirety of every mage in Kirkwall to make that example for us anyway, not having choices and consequences here wouldn't necessarily invalidate the desire to show how terrible magic can be.

[bstrothe]

In DA2, you can never save the day. Even if you wanted to help mages and had done nothing but, they still attack you. If you say screw it, side with the Templars, and wipe every bloodmage off the map, it changes nothing in the overall arc of the game's plot. That's the problem with DA2 to me, there is not much game in this game.

Modifié par bstrothe, 02 mai 2011 - 07:25 .

[Oban1961]

IanPolaris wrote...

There is a difference between SOME choice and NO choice and what DA2 gives us is NO choice.  There isn't a single decision you make in DA2 that has any meaningful impact on the world. 

If that's the way Bioware wanted to run it, then should have made it an interactive book rather than lying to us and calling it an "RPG".  It's not.

-Polaris

This!
You're so right! I can't read it often enough. Thanks.

Oh, and thanks to laecraft as well for making me smile:

But of course, Hawke doesn't have a purpose. He really should join the Qun to get one.

Modifié par Oban1961, 02 mai 2011 - 08:15 .

[Rifneno]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Bioware did the same action in Origins. The human noble is unable to save his mother and father no matter what he/she does. Your brother is lost or dead as far as you know. The same action in the dwarf noble origin you cannot change your brother dying and your character getting framed.
Here you do not get to save your mother. What may be gnawing at people is the lack of control over the situation. I believe that is intentional. The same thing happens when you are unable to save Nyssa (Huron's wife) who Hawke said Hawke would protect.
It shows that no matter how big and bad our characters maybe some events are out of their and our control. The events happen independent of what our character does or says.
Sometimes you cannot save the day.

No, Bioware did the exact opposite in Origins.  You decide not one but TWO thrones, whether an ancient curse is broken, whether golem technology is further buried or brought back, whether the current villain and former hero is executed or lives, whether the sentient darkspawn is ally or corpse, whether Amaranthine and/or Vigil's Keep are in ruins, ect...  I can't even remember all the major, nation or even world changing decisions you get in DAO.  In DA2, you get virtually nothing beyond your own companions lives.  And even that's often very limited.  Even when they give us a big choice, "help or stop the RoA," in some convoluted way the choice is rendered meaningless because it all ends up the same regardless.

[Ulicus]

The major nation/world changing decisions that have next to no impact on Dragon Age 2, you mean? The only truly important thing the Warden did in DA:O was stop the Blight. Everything else was window dressing. Window dressing is nice, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all.

Fun to feel like you're having a massive effect (ho ho ho) during the game, though, even if you weren't.

Modifié par Ulicus, 02 mai 2011 - 11:20 .

[Rifneno]

Ulicus wrote...

The major nation/world changing decisions that have next to no impact on Dragon Age 2, you mean? The only truly important thing the Warden did in DA:O was stop the Blight. Everything else was window dressing. Window dressing is nice, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all.

Fun to feel like you're having a massive effect (ho ho ho) during the game, though, even if you weren't.

You're aware that DA2 takes place in a different nation, right?  Hence "Nation changing?"

This game barely qualifies as an RPG IMO.  In DAO you were free to pick your role.  You wanted to play a character that hates the Chantry or Orlais?  You're free to tell Leliana she's off her rocker and leave her in Lothering.  You want to play a pro-templar character or even a good mage that hates blood mages with a passion?  Well too damn bad, Merrill's along for the ride whether you like it or not and there's no reporting or killing her (at least until the ending, I think?).  Think Anders is a dangerous abomination that needs to be put to the torch when he murders Ella?  Suck it up, that's not the role you're playing.  This crap is what you expect from a poorly translated Square game, not Bioware.

[Ulicus]

Rifneno wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

The major nation/world changing decisions that have next to no impact on Dragon Age 2, you mean? The only truly important thing the Warden did in DA:O was stop the Blight. Everything else was window dressing. Window dressing is nice, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all.

Fun to feel like you're having a massive effect (ho ho ho) during the game, though, even if you weren't.

You're aware that DA2 takes place in a different nation, right?  Hence "Nation changing?"

Excuse me?

You said: "nation, or even world changing" decisions, which is why I referred to both. Such brazen backpedalling does not become you. If you must shift the goalposts, then how do you explain Awakening? That was set in the very same nation as DA:O and, even there, the nation changing decisions you made in DA:O were nothing more than window dressing.

If you're going to be condescending, you need to be able to back it up.

[Rifneno]

Ulicus wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

The major nation/world changing decisions that have next to no impact on Dragon Age 2, you mean? The only truly important thing the Warden did in DA:O was stop the Blight. Everything else was window dressing. Window dressing is nice, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all.

Fun to feel like you're having a massive effect (ho ho ho) during the game, though, even if you weren't.

You're aware that DA2 takes place in a different nation, right?  Hence "Nation changing?"

Excuse me?

You said: "nation, or even world changing" decisions, which is why I referred to both. Such brazen backpedalling does not become you. If you must shift the goalposts, then how do you explain Awakening? That was set in the very same nation as DA:O and, even there, the nation changing decisions you made in DA:O were nothing more than window dressing.

If you're going to be condescending, you need to be able to back it up.

What backpeddle?  Where did I backpeddle?  I said that we get to make big decisions in DAO.  We do.  I'm not even entirely sure what you're arguing.  That those choices don't matter because the next game took place somewhere that who is on the throne of Orzammar (just for instance) didn't make a big difference to our next character's life?

[appleyum]

The problem is if you are able to save her, Orino mentioning Quentin at the end wouldn't have as much of a punch. Too bad you can't send your uncle to Quentin instead...

My major issue is with the writing style, write off your whole family without ever having them make connection with the player or give you the opportunity to change the outcome . Why even bother have Hawke with family members? Also, the time forwarding misses out a lot of deepen story line opportunity.

• You start out with of no real connection with your siblings and bang one dies off
• When you started to make connection with your sibling. Off they go. (At least you have some control over how it goes and if there would be a continuation of the story)
• Finally, with only few conversation and interaction with your mom....she ends up dead. Lovely

Mom being not a party member she should have more conversation written for her.

Leandra => Seek out Gamlen => Oh crap one of sibling died => Find grandfather's will =>I must talk to Viscount to get our inheritance back => OH no don't take another sibling away => I wish the sibilings were still here => I have a date => Dead

That's pretty much of the interaction I had with Leandra. How about show some mother's affection, motherly advise, mother's home made food, mother's gift, etc...anything that would make you connection with her as a mother.  There should have been personal quest with Leandra...like with your party member.

Modifié par appleyum, 02 mai 2011 - 03:16 .