91 réponses à ce sujet

[MKDAWUSS]

The choices in DAO mostly existed in the sidequests.

[Tleining]

Icy Magebane wrote...

@Tleining: But those are only dialogue options... you still have no control over the story or the events that take place in the game...

uh, your Companions aren't part of the Story? Depending on your choices, on how you act towards them, they have different behaviour.
Or look at Feynriel. He either ends up Tranquil, Abomination or Tevinter Mage. That Girl from the Magisters Son Quest can become a Guard.
I don't know what great choice-consequence you saw in Origins. There were a lot of small things in both games. Only in Origins you had those consequences at the end of the game. In DA2 you get the results during gameplay.

[CitizenSnips]

Gonna have to agree. Among many other things, I'm hearing Leliana is alive regardless of whether your warden killed her in Origins or not. This game is much more about the combat for me than the story.

[Enorats]

Group Theory..

That's a great example, and one I felt many times throughout the story.

By the time the city was under attack at the end of Act II I was ready to beg the Wardens to go with them. Whatever important quest they were on had to be more interesting than saving Kirkwall from the Qunari. Screw it all, let it burn.

[KAAurious]

Icy Magebane wrote...

@KAAurious... the outcome of every quest you just described is different based on your decisons. Behlen and Harrowmont don't rule Orzamarr in the same way. The Dalish storyline is forever altered by your hand, and the same is true for the Circle. If you are that worried about party members, blame the approval system. That isn't a reflection of the amount of choices and their impact on the story.

They don't rule them in the same way. Yet you never really get to experience the results of your choices. And that's what you are all complaining about. You make a choice in DA2 and you get to see the results of your said choices, of which you say that there is no difference. In DA: O you make decisions and yet you never get to really experience what happens. You just get to experience the immediate disappointments. (Or not)

At best, you experience your decisions by having small cameos at the very end. Are there golems? No. Dwarves instead. Werewolves? Sure.

The best example of us experiencing a decision in DA:O is in Awakening with the cameo at the very beginning.

[MKDAWUSS]

The weird thing is I forgot what most of the choices I had made in DA2. All I more or less remember was who I romanced and who I sided with at the end.

[KAAurious]

mushoops86anjyl wrote...

Gonna have to agree. Among many other things, I'm hearing Leliana is alive regardless of whether your warden killed her in Origins or not. This game is much more about the combat for me than the story.

Hah. Seriously? I could see the whole "Handing Anders over" in Awakening. But that's kind of sad. Even still, I think the general goal was to show how much she had changed in the time which had elapsed. Perhaps they assumed too many people would actually stick to a "Hero of Ferelden"-esque playthrough. Still, that would be a complaint more levied towards the save transfer, not the actual plot.

[TJPags]

errant_knight wrote...

We got choices. We just failed each and every time. I'm not surprised Hawke disappeared, probably with the applicable Cartman quote.

Yup.

After hearing that story, Cassandra shouldn't have to wonder why Hawke vanished - it should be obvious.

[Enorats]

Its true that we didn't necessarily see changes in the world as we played. But we did know what we had done, and saw that reflected at the end of the game. This was especially true of the closing cinematic.

DA2 doesn't do this at all. You make choices, and the game disregards them. For example, at one point Varric asks you if you want a business, title, family, or to go into politics. Does it matter? Not in the slightest. Business doesn't allow you to explore the Mines farther, family doesn't stop your mother from dying, politics doesn't allow you to become Viscount, and title.. well.. we do get that. Guess Hawke chose title when I wasn't looking.

Does Bethany becoming a Warden and going off on some important quest and completely altering her personality allow her to fight off a couple templars? Nope. She let them take her hostage like a meek little kitten because.. apostates don't fight templars. This goes against everything we learned about the relationship of the Templars, Circle, and Wardens in DA:O. Bethany should have resisted in this scenario, but the game chose to ignore our choices and break its own story.

[Icy Magebane]

I don't know... I mean, it's true what Tleining was saying about some of the quests... how some citizens' lives can be altered depending on what you do. However, the major events are completely out of your control, and that is what I miss from DA:O. Yes, it's true that you never see Behlen rule, but if DA2 had stuck to the plot of DA:O, you would have. Instead, they chose to take the game to a different location, far removed from Ferelden so that most of what happened there will end up being unimportant to whatever story they are trying to tell us.

And honestly, I just don't see how it's about dwarves or golems. For me, that choice was about allowing the dwarves to continue an unethical magical practice, attempt to impose some kind of rules to the use of the Anvil, eliminate the threat of Branka's madness, avenge her house, or whatever. Maybe my imagination is just too active, but I saw it as far more than just what kind of soldiers I'd eventually take into Denerim.

[Dark Specie]

Lithuasil wrote...

The whole thing feels somewhat like parts of the design team knew they needed a specific ending for da3 to work, but the other parts weren't in on the joke.

Maybe not for DA 3 specifially, but for all possible FUTURE Dragon age titles. After all, as long as a franchise proves successful, it's likely to be continued. And unlike Mass Effect, which is narrowed down to three titles (so far anyway) within which most choices can reasonably be made to have some effect, the same can't be said for a longer franchise, alas. Therefore I can understand if they feel that they want to narrow things down by limiting the player's choice to make things easier for themselves later on. I can understand it - but I can't approve of it  

KAAurious wrote...
You pick Bhelen or Harrowmont, yet the quests and everything are identical for the most part.

That's an overstatement and you know it. One is a ruthless, radical reformer and the other's a honourable, diehard traditionalist. The potential for what effect either's rule willh ave on the dwarves in the long term is possibly enormous, especially if Bhelen takes the throne. And that's what Dragon Age did well - it may well have been an illision, but it DID give us the impression that we could affect and change things for the better or worse.  Dragon Age 2 however (especially the third arc), feels more like it's one big  Nice Job Breaking It Hero though, that we're unfortunately railroaded into, perhaps partly because they felt that they wanted to emphrasise the "Dark Fantasy" part...

Oh well, Flemeth DID say that she didn't envy us...

Modifié par Dark Specie, 15 mars 2011 - 11:55 .

[fluorine7]

I thought we already discussed this here....

http://social.biowar...index/6564767/1

[RPGrogue]

Just want to say... origins did it too

[MKDAWUSS]

errant_knight wrote...

We got choices. We just failed each and every time. I'm not surprised Hawke disappeared, probably with the applicable Cartman quote.

There were a few successful outcomes.

One problem was, was that the consequences of failure really never were established. Most of the time it honestly felt like mission success. Only a few times did it honestly feel like you genuinely failed.

[Lithuasil]

Dark Specie wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

The whole thing feels somewhat like parts of the design team knew they needed a specific ending for da3 to work, but the other parts weren't in on the joke.

Maybe not for DA 3 specifially, but for all possible FUTURE Dragon age titles. After all, as long as a franchise proves successful, it's likely to be continued. And unlike Mass Effect, which is narrowed down to three titles (so far anyway) within which most choices can reasonably be made to have some effect, the same can't be said for a longer franchise, alas. Therefore I can understand if they feel that they want to narrow things down by limiting the player's choice to make things easier for themselves later on. I can understand it - but I can't approve of it  

As mentioned - I can perfectly well approve of creating a storyarc across multiple games. They should just adapt to that. When the desired outcome is mage-uprising, why not give us the options of 
a) Supporting Anders
b)Organizing a Coup against Meredith with the help of the kirkwall nobles
c)Organizing an uprising from the inside (perhaps as apostate hawke, dragged to the gallows after the second act).

The results would be completely the same, but we'd feel like we had some say in the matter. As it is, siding with the templars feels as if origins would've given you the option to side with the archdemon.

[Tleining]

@ Enorats
yes, and in DA2 we get the consequences from the Letters, or talking to the people we helped.

In Origins, your Warden can comment on what you would like to do once the Blight is over. But nothing ever comes of it, it's wishful thinking. What you would like to do once the Viscount and the City won't need you helping out ever other second.

Wardens don't get involved in Politics, the Templars are the Power in Kirkwall. Also: What is she supposed to do against Blood Magic and people who can keep her from using Magic?

Modifié par Tleining, 16 mars 2011 - 12:08 .

[Cajeb]

DA:O's epilogue at least made us believe we had an effect. DA2 makes the player feel irrelevant.

[Dean_the_Young]

Lithuasil wrote...

As mentioned - I can perfectly well approve of creating a storyarc across multiple games. They should just adapt to that. When the desired outcome is mage-uprising, why not give us the options of 
a) Supporting Anders

Until he acts, Anders doesn't want your support any more than he acts.

After he acts, you're left with the immediate choice pressed by Meredith: help the Templars, or be crushed by them.

b)Organizing a Coup against Meredith with the help of the kirkwall nobles

Which nobles would want this?

More relevantly, how is this fundamentally different from pursuing the Viscount's office yourself? Unless you entirely avoided Anders' actions, you'd be right back where you started: with or against Meredith.

c)Organizing an uprising from the inside (perhaps as apostate hawke, dragged to the gallows after the second act).

There was a Templar conspiracy from the inside. You could choose to try and support it.

It blew up for different reasons, however.

The results would be completely the same, but we'd feel like we had some say in the matter. As it is, siding with the templars feels as if origins would've given you the option to side with the archdemon.

Except you did have opportunities to pursue: they generally just failed. Not all presented options will succed (like, say, any non-noble trying to become ruler of Ferelden), but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Dark Specie]

Enorats wrote...
This goes against everything we learned about the relationship of the Templars, Circle, and Wardens in DA:O. Bethany should have resisted in this scenario, but the game chose to ignore our choices and break its own story.

Funny how the word  "apostate" is so often used in the game but never outright "maleficar", indeed

And how Origins and so forth made Blood Magic seem like an art that was supposedly very rare outside of the Tevinter Imperium, but here it seems like everyone and their grandmother were capable of using it...

*sigh*. It's regrettable that they apparently couldn't decide on what they wanted for their world the first time around, which meant so many changes that creates this kind of dissonance...

[Icy Magebane]

Tleining wrote...

@ Enorats
yes, and in DA2 we get the consequences from the Letters, or talking to the people we helped.

In Origins, your Warden can comment on what you would like to do once the Blight is over. But nothing ever comes of it, it's wishful thinking. What you would like to do once the Viscount and the City won't need you helping out ever other second.

Wardens don't get involved in Politics, the Templars are the Power in Kirkwall. Also: What is she supposed to do against Blood Magic and people who can keep her from using Magic?

Well that's not really true...  my canon Warden installed an unhardened Alistair as King and ruled Ferelden as Chancellor.  That's exactly what I said I was going to do at the end and that's what happenned.  He was still doing that when all the DLC started pouring in and he kept getting called away to hunt golems and witches.  I'm sure that other decisions also matter, but keep in mind that a) it's the end of the game, and a hell of a lot of those corronation flags were broken when they shipped the game, some of them never got patched.

What your Warden chose to do would have been relevant had DA2 taken place in Ferelden.

[Alanosborn1991]

Yea Dragon Age 2 doesnt have an epilogue, its just Varric telling how no matter what Hawke disappears which is stupid. But at least Lady Hawke got to be with Anders.

I think the romances are the only things that matter because you could be pro Templar then side with Mages at end or Pro Mages and side with Templars it doesnt even matter.

Its like Mass Effect 2 where it only ends 2 ways Keep/Destroy base

[Dean_the_Young]

Dark Specie wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

The whole thing feels somewhat like parts of the design team knew they needed a specific ending for da3 to work, but the other parts weren't in on the joke.

Maybe not for DA 3 specifially, but for all possible FUTURE Dragon age titles. After all, as long as a franchise proves successful, it's likely to be continued. And unlike Mass Effect, which is narrowed down to three titles (so far anyway) within which most choices can reasonably be made to have some effect, the same can't be said for a longer franchise, alas. Therefore I can understand if they feel that they want to narrow things down by limiting the player's choice to make things easier for themselves later on. I can understand it - but I can't approve of it  

KAAurious wrote...
You pick Bhelen or Harrowmont, yet the quests and everything are identical for the most part.

That's an overstatement and you know it. One is a ruthless, radical reformer and the other's a honourable, diehard traditionalist. The potential for what effect either's rule willh ave on the dwarves in the long term is possibly enormous, especially if Bhelen takes the throne. And that's what Dragon Age did well - it may well have been an illision, but it DID give us the impression that we could affect and change things for the better or worse.  Dragon Age 2 however (especially the third arc), feels more like it's one big  Nice Job Breaking It Hero though, that we're unfortunately railroaded into, perhaps partly because they felt that they wanted to emphrasise the "Dark Fantasy" part...

Oh well, Flemeth DID say that she didn't envy us...

From a story structure standpoint, the two pretty much are identical.

Do tasks to prove your worth which will involve maps shared regardless. Receive same story mission to the Anvil. Go through same Deep Roads arc. Find Branka. Presented identical moral delimma, get Paragon crown regardless. Give Crown to ruler of choice, regardless of who you did prior trust quests for. Receive dwarf army in Denerim. Get epilogue slide. Who does this cover? Either.

What really changed? Who said what lines. Functionally, they are the same. Structurally, they are the same. You get to the same point regardless. All that changes is the narrative context when you do get there... and that does changes in DA2 as well.

[Cajeb]

Yes, yes we get it ultimately almost all choices in video games are an ilusion.The problem is DA2 made many of us aware of this illusion

[Tleining]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Well that's not really true...  my canon Warden installed an unhardened Alistair as King and ruled Ferelden as Chancellor.  That's exactly what I said I was going to do at the end and that's what happenned.  He was still doing that when all the DLC started pouring in and he kept getting called away to hunt golems and witches.  I'm sure that other decisions also matter, but keep in mind that a) it's the end of the game, and a hell of a lot of those corronation flags were broken when they shipped the game, some of them never got patched.

What your Warden chose to do would have been relevant had DA2 taken place in Ferelden.

uhm, the dialogue i mean happened earlier in the game. It was somewhere along the lines of staying with the Wardens, travelling the world or not yet knowing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Cajeb wrote...

Yes, yes we get it ultimately almost all choices in video games are an ilusion.The problem is DA2 made many of us aware of this illusion

Then don't metagame.