91 réponses à ce sujet

[Icy Magebane]

Tleining wrote...

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.

I remember that now.  A talk with Alistair at the camp, right?  Well look, that's one conversation between friends (or w/e), and I guess I misunderstood what you meant.  I'll just leave it at that.

[Dark Specie]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
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...

*sigh* . Yes, WITHIN the single game of DAO, but I was thinking about more long-term than that!

Look, what part of "wanting to feel like we made a difference/impact" or "Wanting to change things for the better or worse" don't you understand?

[jfp2004]

I felt like that a little, but like others have said, it was that way in Origins as well. I don't mind the fact that the bulk of the story was railroaded, but the minor events that happened DID irk me a bit. Mostly, the fate of the second sibling and the fate of Hawke's mother. No matter what approach you take or what you do or don't do, their fates are sealed. I wish there would have been a better alternative even if it was harder than what's in place now or was hidden or something like that.

[Dark Specie]

jfp2004 wrote...

I felt like that a little, but like others have said, it was that way in Origins as well. I don't mind the fact that the bulk of the story was railroaded, but the minor events that happened DID irk me a bit. Mostly, the fate of the second sibling and the fate of Hawke's mother. No matter what approach you take or what you do or don't do, their fates are sealed. I wish there would have been a better alternative even if it was harder than what's in place now or was hidden or something like that.

I have a feeling that if this had been the case, then those who whinned about DAO offering "too many" third choices would have raised their voices again... *sigh*

Modifié par Dark Specie, 16 mars 2011 - 12:43 .

[Nialos]

I think, as was touched on earlier, they did kind of buckle under the 'choices' of Origins. And in the end? Nothing really changed for me (and I don't mean from a story angle). They seem to have a very clear path for the story and where they want to take it. This eventually means having to ignore the illusion of choice and 'railroad' the story.

Does this bother me? It did at first. It felt like they were taking away my right to choose. But they haven't. I still get to choose what happens up until the ending, I still get to react completely differently than another person's Hawke. That's what is important to me.

In the end? It allows for a more 'cohesive' path for the overall storyline. There's no having to grasp at stray strands to accommodate every single choice and fit it into the arc. There's no 'ignoring' someone's personal journey. Whether or not this leads to stronger storytellng, however, remains to be seen.

Just to make it clear, I'm talking about impact in regards to transitioning the story from one game to the next.

[Enorats]

Its true that the quests in DA:O were structurally the same. However, our choices did matter. It wasn't an illusion of choice in DA:O.

If DA:O had an illusion of choice, then we wouldn't have been able to change things. Supporting Harrowmont would have led to Behlen still taking the crown. We could have given the crown to Harrowmont and a cutscene would have taken place in which Behlen killed him, took it, and threw us out of town. Thats an illusion of choice, and thats what DA2 does. Over, and over, and over.

There are a handful of very minor side quests in DA2 that actually allow you to change things. Feynriel or the elven girl become a guard were good examples. However, such things are very hard to notice and didn't really lead anywhere.

If DA2 had been constructed like DA:O, we would have been able to become Viscount. We could have sided with the Qunari. We could have found a peaceful resolution to the mage/templar problem. People we had eliminated as a threat would not come back to haunt us years later, against all odds and sense. We could have stopped Anders from blowing up the Chantry. Finally.. we would have had an interesting story that we actually cared about instead of being stuck wondering why on Earth I'm actually accepting the next quest instead of settling down to enjoy my fortune in some other city that isn't a magnet for warring factions.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dark Specie wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
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...

*sigh* . Yes, WITHIN the single game of DAO, but I was thinking about more long-term than that!

Look, what part of "wanting to feel like we made a difference/impact" or "Wanting to change things for the better or worse" don't you understand?

All of it. I disagree that we didn't get what mattered.

I found far more choice-relevance in DA2 than in DA1. There might have been fewer grand world-shattering differences, like which bum is on the Dwarven Throne, but that didn't even matter in the context of Origins. Who you did favors for, or didn't kill, had a great deal more sway on the narrative of DA2.

Did you help Anders? Then the Chantry explosion is something you yourself are in part culpable for. Did you send him away, like I did, years earlier? Than Anders ominous return carried an entirely different weight on the story. While that choice doesn't make a nice dramatic exportable decision flag to be bugged (or ignorred) in DA3, it certainly had far more effect in this game than a cameo in DA3 would have improved that game.

Because that's pretty much what these 'long-term' decisions mean: cameos in another game, not relevance in the present one. Feeling guilty because I killed the blood mage who was hunting the White Lilly killer, only for the White Lilly killer to kill Mother, mattered far more to the overall story than a thirty-second cameo that probably wouldn't have occured. Likewise, doing a favor for the corrupt magistrate protecting his son, and hearing later that he intervened on my family's behalf after the Templars found Bethany, was exactly the sort of 'consequence' we should be looking for.

Dragon Age 2 certainly does have it's exportable big decisions that can affect 'the long term': did you restore Flemeth? Bartrand's fate? Does the Arishock live? Did Anders live?  Which character quests did you do, and how? And, of course, who did the Champion side with?

Awakening had more and greater cameos than Origins ever did, and it also lacked the 'long term big choices.'

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Dragon Age 2 certainly does have it's exportable big decisions that can affect 'the long term': did you restore Flemeth?

LOL Wasn't that a primary quest that you had to do though? I can't recall.

It would be hilarious if Flemeth's masterplan was foiled because Hawke forgot about the amulet.

[Dean_the_Young]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Dragon Age 2 certainly does have it's exportable big decisions that can affect 'the long term': did you restore Flemeth?

LOL Wasn't that a primary quest that you had to do though? I can't recall.

It would be hilarious if Flemeth's masterplan was foiled because Hawke forgot about the amulet.

I actually don't know: I sort of assumed, because I only really did it on accident. (Ooh, look! New area! Wonder what I can do there!)

If it isn't, I'll freely drop that example.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 16 mars 2011 - 01:46 .

[Nialos]

I can't really think of any reason why you'd -need- to do that quest, other than to pick up Merrill (which is all it really triggers). But, yeah, it might be a primary.

[Dark Specie]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Did you help Anders? Then the Chantry explosion is something you yourself are in part culpable for. Did you send him away, like I did, years earlier? Than Anders ominous return carried an entirely different weight on the story. While that choice doesn't make a nice dramatic exportable decision flag to be bugged (or ignorred) in DA3, it certainly had far more effect in this game than a cameo in DA3 would have improved that game.

Because that's pretty much what these 'long-term' decisions mean: cameos in another game, not relevance in the present one. Feeling guilty because I killed the blood mage who was hunting the White Lilly killer, only for the White Lilly killer to kill Mother, mattered far more to the overall story than a thirty-second cameo that probably wouldn't have occured. Likewise, doing a favor for the corrupt magistrate protecting his son, and hearing later that he intervened on my family's behalf after the Templars found Bethany, was exactly the sort of 'consequence' we should be looking for.

What you speak of is IMO more about flexibility in-game, not direct consequence of choice - because no matter what we choose, the result is the same. You may not see it this way, as it seems to me that you only care that the game gives somw token attention to your choice (like, if you spare the blood amge who hunts th ekiller you mention, he accompanies you), but doesn't actually affect the outcome itself.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
and it also lacked the 'long term big choices.'

Hah! Then what do you call the Spare or Kill the Architect choice?

Modifié par Dark Specie, 16 mars 2011 - 01:53 .

[Nialos]

Useless, for now. It's bugged. But, no, I didn't really feel an impact from sparing or killing the Architect. There's a small blurb from the ending, but in the grand scheme? *shrug*

Modifié par Nialos, 16 mars 2011 - 01:57 .

[TheRevanchist]

Enorats wrote...

The ending to origins was different every time I played through it. Yes, the Archdemon died. How he died could change, though the "real" ending is assumed to be the one involving Morrigan (which DA2 didn't even bother to conclude.. not unlike Morrigan's DLC).

The ending movie itself could also change drastically to reflect the player's decisions.

The problem here is that we don't get the option to actually choose anything. In origins we could choose between many different options (as Icy magebane just pointed out with regards to the Dalish) and each of those options led to unique branches in the ending of the game. DA2 makes absolutely no effort to do this, and instead removes any semblance of choice.

Often, DA2 is so good at removing choice that it doesn't even make sense. The entire questline involving Grace and Keran is a great example. No matter what you do, the outcome is identical. Dozens of variables, many of which SHOULD logically lead down different paths.. but don't. Heck, we don't even get the option to support them. We kill them on sight, because.. well, apparently Hawke liked Meredith that day?

There is no "real" ending...I'm sick of this "OGB is canon" crap...it's not...it never will be...accept it.

[TheRevanchist]

Nialos wrote...

I can't really think of any reason why you'd -need- to do that quest, other than to pick up Merrill (which is all it really triggers). But, yeah, it might be a primary.

Because it's immposible to advance the story without doing ALL the "Main Quests"

[Icy Magebane]

Nialos wrote...

Useless, for now. It's bugged. But, no, I didn't really feel an impact from sparing or killing the Architect. There's a small blurb from the ending, but in the grand scheme? *shrug*

See, this is what I just don't get.  If there is no immediate effect, in the form of playable game content, then it didn't matter?  You just allowed a talking darkspawn to carry out some kind of plan, and that doesn't have in impact on the world?  Bah...

Look, as I keep saying, if this series was like ME from the start, then the sequel would have shown us everything that resulted from those choices.  Instead, they move the game to Kirkwall and just give us a bunch of inane cameos.  Seriously, how in the hell did all those people wind up in Kirkwall of all places?  That's too much of a coincidence.  It was easier to move the location and then cherry-pick specific choices to remind us of what went on in Ferelden.  That's the only reason that people can't seem to accept that what the Warden did there had a huge impact on the nation.  Bait and switch.

[Nialos]

That's the thing, though. That effect? There really was none. Even in DA2, he gets a -very- brief mention and the world continues on as it always has. I never said it had to have an immediate reaction, but there's still a very small window where it'd be nice. In the end, these choices will manifest in later games. For now? They're simply building blocks on that grand basis of choices with no real impact. Yet.

[Dark Specie]

Nialos wrote...

Useless, for now. It's bugged. But, no, I didn't really feel an impact from sparing or killing the Architect. There's a small blurb from the ending, but in the grand scheme? *shrug*

Oh, just think about it! The Darkspaen and their Blights are possibly the greatest threat of all to tHedas! Mages and Templars may revolt, the Qunari may invade and so forth... But none of these factions are interested in destroying/utterly ruining the world! The Architect may well represent the only possibility of stopping that threat without too many sacrifies - and peace with the Darkspawn. On the other hand, one have to keep in mind that he was responsible for not just one but TWO major disasters: the Blight and the Mother... And at worst, his Disciples represents the possibility of minor blights/invasions to the surface. And who's to say that his next experiment won't become as botched as the previous ones have been...?

Granted, it's all about choices that may never bear aný fruit, and yet they give the impression of having had an impact/effect on the world's future...

Modifié par Dark Specie, 16 mars 2011 - 02:13 .

[Medhia Nox]

It's okay - according to Determinism, you only have an illusion of choice in the real world too.

[Nialos]

Dark Specie wrote...

Nialos wrote...

Useless, for now. It's bugged. But, no, I didn't really feel an impact from sparing or killing the Architect. There's a small blurb from the ending, but in the grand scheme? *shrug*

Oh, just think about it! The Darkspaen and their Blights are possibly the greatest threat of all to tHedas! Mages and Templars may revolt, the Qunari may invade and so forth... But none of these factions are interested in destroying/utterly ruining the world! The Architect may well represent the only possibility of stopping that threat without too many sacrifies - and peace with the Darkspawn. On the other hand, one have to keep in mind that he was responsible for not just one but TWO major disasters: th eBlight and the Mother... And at worst, his Disciples represents the possibility of minor blights/invasions to the surface. And who's to say that his next experiment won't become as botched as the previous ones have been...?

Oh, I'm aware of the ramifications. I think what people want is to -see- these ramifications. Not speculate.

[AlexXIV]

I am saying it everytime such threads turn up. It is probably the short development time. While I understand that you can't have much main quest choices in a sequel that imports decisions and will export decisions to the next sequel, if find the lack of impact of choices in the smaller and side quests rather irritating. It's not about not wanting to give us a choice or about the narrative. It is, simply, about not having enough time.

[Icy Magebane]

@Nialos:  I agree to an extent.  The problem is that DA2 doesn't have the kind of decisions that can be influenced in order to alter the narritive of subsequent games.  The way it's designed, almost every outcome is inevitable, and thus they are free to tell whatever story they have in mind without player input.  This is what I find lacking in the new direction they've taken.  There was the possibility of creating alternate realities, a concept that I absolutely love in any type of medium, and now ME is pretty much the only game left that offers it (actually, I take that back... there are a few games like that... New Vegas and possibly Skyrim, among others).

All I'm saying is that this is a step backwards in the evolution of the genre.  This would have been acceptable if ME and DA:O had never happened, but they touched upon a brilliant game design that they now seem to have abandoned.  Only time will tell if any of this is true, of course...  I'll at least admit that perhaps they have surprises in store that we just haven't come to realize.

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 16 mars 2011 - 02:21 .

[jfp2004]

Dark Specie wrote...

jfp2004 wrote...

I felt like that a little, but like others have said, it was that way in Origins as well. I don't mind the fact that the bulk of the story was railroaded, but the minor events that happened DID irk me a bit. Mostly, the fate of the second sibling and the fate of Hawke's mother. No matter what approach you take or what you do or don't do, their fates are sealed. I wish there would have been a better alternative even if it was harder than what's in place now or was hidden or something like that.

I have a feeling that if this had been the case, then those who whinned about DAO offering "too many" third choices would have raised their voices again... *sigh*

Most likely. I kind of understand the complaints regarding it, but on the other hand, it leaves everyone free to take the choice they think is most appropriate. You can always ignore a choice and take the one that's the most "story appropriate" in your eyes after all.

[Nialos]

ME differs in that, in the end, you still have a very set ending: you do this or that. With Origins, there could have been this, this, this, or that. I think it's really just a problem of having -too much- to keep track of in terms of continuity.

I'd like to be wrong - I'd like it if they could handle every single choice a player made. But I don't think they can just yet. Not when they have to balance so many things besides the story alongside development.

[Dark Specie]

Nialos wrote...
Oh, I'm aware of the ramifications. I think what people want is to -see- these ramifications. Not speculate.

See my edit above; I quite agree and yet this is something I want to see in RPG's: decisions with possibly great or horrible consequences in their wake. Even if we do not see them immediately, i want to feel that as long as the franchise goes on, we MAY be shownt he consequences of them.

To put it in a metaphor: If I'm offered the choice to eat with chopsticks, fork and knife or a spoon, then I'd like my choice of the above to have an effect on which meal I'll get served. If I'm served the same meal no matter which I choose, then the choice didn't matter much (other than that it may be harder to eat soup with a fork & spoon for once  ). Not the best metaphor, but I'm hungry so what the heck...

[Icy Magebane]

Nialos wrote...

ME differs in that, in the end, you still have a very set ending: you do this or that. With Origins, there could have been this, this, this, or that. I think it's really just a problem of having -too much- to keep track of in terms of continuity.

I'd like to be wrong - I'd like it if they could handle every single choice a player made. But I don't think they can just yet. Not when they have to balance so many things besides the story alongside development.

Well, I understand the limits that Bioware faces, and that's pretty much the only reason I'm willing to let this slide.  Still, it could have been awesome with all the branching paths...