309 réponses à ce sujet

[Mistress9Nine]

Or maybe you could sustain her life as the zombie thing she's become or convince Bethany to do it. That'd be a very tough decision and ties very well into the templar/mage thing using blood magic to keep someone you love alive.

Modifié par Mistress9Nine, 15 mars 2011 - 09:21 .

[Maugrim]

David Gaider wrote...

Correct. It's not, however, about what the player wants to do.

In this case, it's not the story that needs to be told.

If you're of the opinion that every story should have an outcome that the player can directly control-- I'm not going to argue with you. Not everyone is going to like that sort of tale, and certainly I think there's a limited amount of that you can really do inside a game. But this is the sort of thinking that led to the "Save Everyone" option in the Redcliffe Quest, which ultimately became the quest option that everyone thought was the only "real" solution even though it was the least dramatic. I don't really intend to do that again, and I'm not about to re-write it simply because some people feel uncomfortable about it.

Without reservation I support the first two sentences no matter what I say following.  A game designed by fan committee would only be interesting in a train wreck way.

That said I still sort of wish that there had been a way to save Leandra.  The way I solve the situation in Redcliffe has never been determined by what is the best outcome.  Depending on several factors and the outlook of my characters I have had all permutations occur and it's sad that some people just automatically do the "optimal" solution.  For example if a good PC had already cleared out the tower and sided with the mages my PC's are usually willing to risk traveling to the circle because it's not that far and they know they will likely receive help.    If they haven't been to the circle they kill Connor.  If the PC is morally grey they may opt for the blood magic ritual and save Connor.  If they are evil/selfish/win at all costs they'll opt for the ritual and then strike a bargain with the demon.

I imagine most of my Hawke's would sacrifice whatever was needed to save Leandra.  But there are some who wouldn't do an evil act, some who might be oblivious and never make it to the rescue in time and of course the always fun Hawke who would help cut dear old moms head off for a stat boost.  And it would've been neat if all those were options.  But they weren't and I'll survive!

Modifié par makenzieshepard, 15 mars 2011 - 09:22 .

[Sanguinerin]

Danjaru wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The quest isn't about saving her, after all, it's about putting a more personal face on the darker side of magic and the repercussions it can have on innocents.

Really? after making just about every mage you encounter a blood mage or abomination, you felt that it was necessary to show the bad side of magic when there was no good side? one of the nicest mages even started a war by blowing up priests, fun times.

I agree with this as well. It's not like we weren't being overstuffed with examples of the darker side of magic.

[WidowMaker9394]

I liked how All That Remains was written. It saddened me, in a good way. A fine example of excellent writing.

[David Gaider]

Piecake wrote...
I realize that there are time constraints and resource allocation and what-not involved, but I think the bigger problem that people have is that there wasn't an "I win" button, the problem is that there was no choice at all, even it was two really bad ones.

Because if that was the case there totally wouldn't be people here complaining about it in an entirely different way.

Not that I necessarily disagree. With enough time, we might have added something-- but the same could be said about a lot of things.

Still, I really really liked the quest.

And that, in the end, is what's important. I don't expect everyone to like it, or even "get" it, but I stand by it as the story I wanted to write. People are free to react as they wish, but I'm personally very pleased at how moved many were by it. To me that's a win.

Modifié par David Gaider, 15 mars 2011 - 09:21 .

[Shockwave Pulsar]

I think it's great that the writers try to do sth different and don't always want to give a cliché happy ending, but it this case it seems so random and pointless. If it had some impact on the main plot then it would have served a purpose, but as it is it doesn't. She dies and that's it, off to the next quest like she never existed - we don't see how it changes Hawke in any way or has any kind of relevance for the story. I mean, your mother gets killed in such a gruesome way and nothing happens ? Sth as heavy as this is usually used as a turning point in a story, to change a character, give him a motive for his future actions etc. But nothing like that here...

[UltiPup]

Geiyu wrote...
Free the mages that escaped? They get caught anyway. And hate you as if you turned them in. Try to appease the Qunari? The arishok still incites war. Choose to have Dupuis help? Mother still dies. Don't help Anders? He still blows up the Chantry. The choices aren't choices at all.

You apparently have no idea what choices are. You still make the choice to do all those things in a different way. It doesnt matter if the outcome comes up similarly. You still made a choice. You aren't superman. Things cannot always happen in the way you expect. Hawke makes decisions based on his or her's best decision. Some things are unavoidable. You are only human. 

[Sanguinerin]

David Gaider wrote...

With enough time, we might have added something.

It was disheartening enough when you said that saving Leandra was scrapped. This just reinforced everyone I previously didn't agree with who said that Dragon Age II was too rushed.

I think I'm going to take a break from the forums. They're about as equally despairing as the game is. 

[upsettingshorts]

HallowedWarden wrote...

I agree with this as well. It's not like we weren't being overstuffed with examples of the darker side of magic.

I think this is necessary, otherwise it would be easy for a contemporary individual to side with the freedom of the mages by default, as modern Western sensibilities would more or less dictate.

HallowedWarden wrote...

It was disheartening enough when you said that saving Leandra was scrapped. This just reinforced everyone I previously didn't agree with who said that Dragon Age II was too rushed.

 "If only we had more time we could..." could apply to every game ever made.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 mars 2011 - 09:26 .

[WhiteKnyght]

David Gaider wrote...

Still, I really really liked the quest.

And that, in the end, is what's important. I don't expect everyone to like it, or even "get" it, but I stand by it as the story I wanted to write. People are free to react as they wish, but I'm personally very pleased at how moved many were by it. To me that's a win.

That quest is also a good example of how that kind of stuff can happen to anyone. Being the star of the show doesn't always grant you the perk of your family/friends being completely safe like a lot of media gives the impression of.

[Cajeb]

David Gaider wrote...

Piecake wrote...
I realize that there are time constraints and resource allocation and what-not involved, but I think the bigger problem that people have is that there wasn't an "I win" button, the problem is that there was no choice at all, even it was two really bad ones.

Because if that was the case there totally wouldn't be people here complaining about it in an entirely different way.

Not that I necessarily disagree. With enough time, we might have added something-- but the same could be said about a lot of things.

Still, I really really liked the quest.

And that, in the end, is what's important. I don't expect everyone to like it, or even "get" it, but I stand by it as the story I wanted to write. People are free to react as they wish, but I'm personally very pleased at how moved many were by it. To me that's a win.

Can you at least explain your thought process behind linking Orsino to the mom's death? That is when the game fell apart for me. Before that the mother's death really impacted me as did the convo with the Uncle. However, when Orsino revealed he knew about it and transformed it really broke the immersion and I had to sit back and just say, "Really?" I wanted to quit playing at that point.

[upsettingshorts]

I think the point may have been "Maybe Meredith isn't as paranoid and crazy as she seems, seeing as the First Enchanter of the Circle of Kirkwall..." etc. Just my guess though.

[Piecake]

Balthamoss wrote...

I think it's great that the writers try to do sth different and don't always want to give a cliché happy ending, but it this case it seems so random and pointless. If it had some impact on the main plot then it would have served a purpose, but as it is it doesn't. She dies and that's it, off to the next quest like she never existed - we don't see how it changes Hawke in any way or has any kind of relevance for the story. I mean, your mother gets killed in such a gruesome way and nothing happens ? Sth as heavy as this is usually used as a turning point in a story, to change a character, give him a motive for his future actions etc. But nothing like that here...

They left that up to you.  If you were previously pro-mage and that event changed your mind on things, you could decide to switch sides and become very anti-mage, pro-templar because of what a mage did to your mother was unforgivable.  If you thought that was the work of one crazy blood mage and didnt taint your overall feelings towards mages, then you could still take their side.

[Sanguinerin]

^ Upsettingshorts,
And then the next scene shows us just how crazy she is.

Modifié par HallowedWarden, 15 mars 2011 - 09:28 .

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I think this is necessary, otherwise it would be easy for a contemporary individual to side with the freedom of the mages by default, as modern Western sensibilities would more or less dictate.

This is absolutely true. One need only glance at your average templar vs. mage thread (previous to DA2 coming out, in particular) to see that most people fall on the side of the mages almost by default.

HallowedWarden wrote...
 "If only we had more time we could..." could apply to every game ever made.

It could indeed. People will read what they want into such things, however. *shrug*

[RosaAquafire]

Why would Orsino not being involved make the end choice better? I thought it was great. The templars are the obvious "evil," but the mages are just as twisted. I LIKED that they were evenly matched. 90% of the templars were corrupt and powertripping. 90% of the mages were ammoral and weak. That's the whole point.

If Orsino were actually a swell guy, and Meredith were a crazy crusader, what would the right choice have been? Orsino, obviously. Why side with the possessed, lyrium-crazed jailer when the conservative little scholar wants your help? But turn the little scholar into an ammoral scientist who found it easy to see innocents die when he didn't have to look into their eyes, well, NOW it's a choice.

[Fennel]

The problem isn't that the plot "needs" to be told some way or another.

The problem is that the game pretends that you can make choices, and that they matter. It cheapens the gameplay if you find out that the choices do not matter after all.

The worst offender, by far, is the battle against Orsino in Act 3, when you choose mage. This is not only pointless story-wise, at this point the game also stops even pretending that choices matter: The players sees directly that its all the same and the choice wasn't a choice after all. The entire illusion of choice unravels.

If this were a JRPG, this wouldn't be a problem. People don't expect choices in a JRPG. This, however, isn't a JRPG. It claims to be a western one, and it did pretend that choices matter and have impact. If we have no choices in such quests, why pretend that we have any?

In many cases, this actually isn't very good writing. A good example of that is 'Best served cold' in Act 3. What about a Hawke who would side with the conspiracy? Mine should have. The game, however, prevented me from doing so in outright silly ways: For example, the first meeting with the conspirators should have been me sneaking up on them, and listening to what they are up to. The quest itself is written that way. Yet, for some reason, even if you sneak up, it doesn't matter, the game just starts a cutscene which makes little sense (walking up to the conspirators), and ends worse (no way to tell them we're on their side, which they should know, considering how often I helped mages, including many mages who were part of this group).

Not giving choices is an acceptable decision, of course. But a player would feel a lot better to know this beforehand. Advertizing this as a game where choices matter, and then making a game where choices don't matter, is pretty much cheating. Why not just be honest, and emphasize that this is a story-driven game, a cinematic game, that goes one way: Like a JRPG?

There's no harm in admitting this, and it's not a bad way to have a story. It'd also be more fair to customers, who may expect a completely different gaming experience, no?

[upsettingshorts]

HallowedWarden wrote...

^ Upsettingshorts,
And then the next scene shows us just how crazy she is.

Yeah and?  I don't think the "final path" choice is supposed to be easy.  They had to throw a lot of data at us - of mages and templars behaving badly - in order to beat us out of our contemporary real world mindset.  Mages are completely dangerous and often irresponsible, Templars abuse their authority and ruin lives constantly.  Make your choice!  Feel free to be ambivalent about it, though.  I know I did. 

[Piecake]

HallowedWarden wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

With enough time, we might have added something.

It was disheartening enough when you said that saving Leandra was scrapped. This just reinforced everyone I previously didn't agree with who said that Dragon Age II was too rushed.

I think I'm going to take a break from the forums. They're about as equally despairing as the game is. 

I really don't know how that is evidenced that DA2 was rushed.  I mean, they had the option in, but scrapped it because too many people were reloading their games going for the perfect play through.  It means they made it and cut it because they felt like it was a detriment to the overall story. 

I am not saying that I think that DA2 wasnt rushed though, I jsut dont see it here.  Just looking at those dungeons is pretty good evidence...

[Fennel]

[accidental double posting, I'm very sorry >_< ]

Modifié par Fennel, 15 mars 2011 - 09:33 .

[Cajeb]

RosaAquafire wrote...

Why would Orsino not being involved make the end choice better? I thought it was great. The templars are the obvious "evil," but the mages are just as twisted. I LIKED that they were evenly matched. 90% of the templars were corrupt and powertripping. 90% of the mages were ammoral and weak. That's the whole point.

If Orsino were actually a swell guy, and Meredith were a crazy crusader, what would the right choice have been? Orsino, obviously. Why side with the possessed, lyrium-crazed jailer when the conservative little scholar wants your help? But turn the little scholar into an ammoral scientist who found it easy to see innocents die when he didn't have to look into their eyes, well, NOW it's a choice.

The Templars actually seemed reasonable except for Meredith wanting to kill every mage. So you have a whole faction of good people led by a crazy and a whole faction of evil blood mages and abominations led by a crazy  who also happened to kill your mom...

[WhiteKnyght]

Fennel wrote...

The worst offender, by far, is the battle against Orsino in Act 3, when you choose mage. This is not only pointless story-wise, at this point the game also stops even pretending that choices matter: The players sees directly that its all the same and the choice wasn't a choice after all. The entire illusion of choice unravels.

Well  thats how the Qunari think, isn't it? They are strong believers in fate and a person's role and that there is no choice fighting against it.

No matter how you play it Hawke is the person who ushers in a lot of change in the world.

[Sanguinerin]

David Gaider wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I think this is necessary, otherwise it would be easy for a contemporary individual to side with the freedom of the mages by default, as modern Western sensibilities would more or less dictate.

This is absolutely true. One need only glance at your average templar vs. mage thread (previous to DA2 coming out, in particular) to see that most people fall on the side of the mages almost by default.

The problem is that I support the Chantry and would support the templars if Meredith wasn't so incredibly keen on every mage's ultimate demise. Yes, magic can be dangerous. Yes, blood magic can be terrible. Despite that, and despite how Dragon Age II portrays just about every single mage, not every mage is a blood mage bent on destroying everyone with blood and demons and destruction. Sure, we don't get to see their good side very well in the game, but I still see it as true. The persecution of every mage because of the actions of a few (or... as DAII only seems to show us... the many?) doesn't condemn every single mage. That's why I would choose the mages over the templars anyway. Even if a mage killed my mother and Orsino helped, those other random mages we never get to see didn't do it.

I'm not reading into anything that you didn't already state. (Edit: At least I'm honestly not trying to, but I may have become a little too passionate in this discussion.) You said that the option to save her was present until so many people figured it was the right choice and went back to change their stories. It was there and then cut out because it was viewed as the right decision. Just because testers went back on their saves, doesn't mean others like me wouldn't have waited until their next playthrough to do things differently. That's what seems to be upsetting me. I like to see how each decision plays out. They generally seemed to have a different outcome in Origins. Here, that doesn't feel or seem as apparent. It all leads to the same thing anyway, so why even try to play differently?

Modifié par HallowedWarden, 15 mars 2011 - 09:41 .

[Brockololly]

I don't mind the lack of a "Save everyone!" option, but it would be nice if in more quests, you still had an option or a choice in how it turns out. Like I said before with Leandra- have an option to save her in Act 2, but maybe doing so results in the Blood Mage getting away to screw over Hawke later in Act 2 or Act 3, maybe in an even worse way that would still get the point across in having blood magic personally affect Hawke.


Or take New Vegas and Vault 34's quest with the NCR, Hard Luck Blues- you're tasked with initially fixing an irrigation setup for some sharecroppers so they don't starve in the Mojave Wasteland. So you need to shut down a reactor thats irradiating their crops. Yet once you get in Vault 34 to shut down the reactor and help the sharecroppers, you realize that a bunch of people are trapped underwater- shutting down the reactor helps the sharecroppers but kills the trapped people. But rerouting power to the trapped people lets them escape, but the Sharecroppers get screwed. Its a lose-lose scenario really- and its GREAT. ME1's Bring Down the Sky was sort of similar, and those sort of scenarios are excellent in RPGs, as you're given a choice in how things shake out, even if its that you're trapped between a rock and a hard place.



And I think those sorts of quests would work well in a framed narrative or at least in giving you some delayed consequences. DA2 had some of that, but just as an example, take the one quest with the Magister and his son in Act 1 I think. You're given the choice to kill the nutty son who is being sheltered by the Magister father. So I struggled with that choice but eventually had Fenris kill him, thinking though that the Magister father was going to come back and screw over Hawke down the road. But (maybe I'm wrong?) thats the last you hear of the Magister. Just thought that could have been a nice chance for another sort of delayed consequence with your actions logically coming back to bite you in the ass.

Modifié par Brockololly, 15 mars 2011 - 09:39 .

[Shepard Lives]

That quest had me in tears. It's the first time in my life I cry for a game. I suspect I will cry again when I get around to it in my second playthrough.

So no, I wouldn't want an option to save her. I'm fine with killing Leandra, what bothers me is the disappearance of the sibling in Act 2 and 3.

You've been going on for months about the "family dynamics" and "Hawke is not alone", you build up this really awesome sibling relationship throughout act 1... and then you put Bethany and li'l Carver on a bus until the endgame? Lame.

Do you have anything to say about this, Mr. Gaider? I don't mean to sound confrontational, I just wish to hear your thoughts.