113 réponses à ce sujet

[88mphSlayer]

i eventually got the side that i wanted anyways by siding with the templars and becoming viscount by gaining the trust of the moderate templars after killing meredith

i wish there was a way not to kill orsino and meredith tho, and it'd be fun if there was a 3rd option where you just run away (perhaps losing a few friends on the way out like Fenris and Aveline and losing your status as champion)

mostly tho you're just picking which side to fight on in the current battle... to go neutral would be pretty tricky, like going neutral in the middle of a real warzone all it means is being more vulnerable, in the end i enjoyed having to pick a side but wish there was more than one ending to the whole orsino-meredith personal conflict

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 14 avril 2011 - 01:54 .

[Rifneno]

88mphSlayer wrote...

i wish there was a way not to kill orsino and meredith tho

What?  They've both been driven mad (Meredith by the idol, Orsino by the Kirkwall Insanity Vortex™) and are incredibly powerful.  It's not a very good idea to leave complete lunatics with super powers free to roam and cause havoc.  I can see wanting to spare the templars and the mages.  There's good and innocent people on both sides.  Their leaders, however, need to die.

[morbusswg]

Once Bethany is taken to the circle (or that a-hole Carver goes Templar) and my mother killed, what exactly am I staying in Kirkwall for? I'm not Viscount, I'm just some guy with a title and a butt-load of coin. I would have left after my mom died for Ferelden. Or, I would have snatched Bethany when the fighting started, fought my way to the docks, and left with my Companions on a commandeered ship, piloted by Isabella.

"Stay and help us".... sorry, who are you again?

[Gongsun Zan]

I don't get why people are saying that Anders blew up the middle ground.

He blew up the Chantry. It was an act of terrorism. Nowhere does it follow that the only two immediate outcomes are: kill all Mages, or let all the Mages go.

This is like saying: a Mexican blew up a courthouse in America, because he is unhappy with immigration laws. Therefore we must either kill all Mexicans, or let all Mexicans into America without any form of border control. (No offense to Mexicans, I'm just using a random example here)

IF Anders had say, blown up a wall in the gallows, allowing all the mages to escape, I can see how he might have been said to blow up the middle ground, but he didn't.

Essentially, without a third option, the final decision doesn't matter. No matter who you support, Anders gets the Mage/Templar war he wants.

By not letting you take a moderate approach, the game forces you to let the terrorist win.

Well done, game. Nothing like making a player feel his actions were all for nothing.

Modifié par Gongsun Zan, 14 avril 2011 - 02:20 .

[Avissel]

Vicious wrote...

Because no Bioware game ever includes a 'third way' of ending the game.


If you want an 'f-- everyone' choice, buy your games from Obsidian.

You know they only have ONE game with that option right?


Anyway "protecting the people from both sides" isn't really even possible. It's Hawkes participation in the fight that brings about any conclusion, Leaveing the Mages and the Templars to fight amonst themselves would have left the city as rubble.

Modifié par Avissel, 14 avril 2011 - 02:25 .

[TheAwesomologist]

Gongsun Zan wrote...

I don't get why people are saying that Anders blew up the middle ground.

He blew up the Chantry. It was an act of terrorism. Nowhere does it follow that the only two immediate outcomes are: kill all Mages, or let all the Mages go.

This is like saying: a Mexican blew up a courthouse in America, because he is unhappy with immigration laws. Therefore we must either kill all Mexicans, or let all Mexicans into America without any form of border control. (No offense to Mexicans, I'm just using a random example here)

IF Anders had say, blown up a wall in the gallows, allowing all the mages to escape, I can see how he might have been said to blow up the middle ground, but he didn't.

Essentially, without a third option, the final decision doesn't matter. No matter who you support, Anders gets the Mage/Templar war he wants.

By not letting you take a moderate approach, the game forces you to let the terrorist win.

Well done, game. Nothing like making a player feel his actions were all for nothing.

Thats the biggest problem with DA2. Look every RPG usually has only 1 ending, and thats some big boss you gotta take out. No matter what decisions you make in the game you have to fight this guy/gal/thing. It's the choices we make leading up to that battle that gives the game the illusion of choice.
In DA:O we had several choices that affected the story of the game but in the end didn't really affect the end battle.
- Choose your Origin
- Save the Tower or Annul the Tower
- Side with the Dalish or the Werewolves  (or deal with the real problem)
- Keep or destroy the Urn
- Save or doom Connor and his mom
- Side with Belen or Harrowmont
- Keep or destroy the Anvil
- Sleep with Morrigan and live but create a god-baby or die.

In the end none of those choices matter because we still have to fight with a dragon atop Fort Drakon. But DA:O does an excellent job at making you feel like you made meaningful decisions along the way. Each time I played the game, even though the end battle was always the same, the story felt different. While some decisions leaned towards "good" or "evil" the whole game left morality in your hands. It's a grey world.

DA2 doesn't do that. We get some decisions, but they mostly pertain to our companions and there only affect is wether they stay with or leave you. Nothing we do really affects Kirkwall that isn't already scripted.
- No matter what we're going to the deep roads. The only decision there is will you bring your surviving sibling and Anders.
- No matter what you're going to deal with the Arishok. The only choice is if Isabella even comes back and if so maybe you hand her over.
- No matter what Anders will blow up the Chantry.
- No matter who you side with you still have to fight Orsino and Meredith and no one is grateful for your help. Orsino turning on you is so poorly handled it's mind boggling. Meredith is never given enough time to develop for us to even care for this obviously crazy b*tch.
- You either flee or become viscount, either way you disappear in 3 years.

Now there are some cool decisions when it comes to your companions and their stories. I don't think many people complain about those choices. But they never feel like they matter when it comes to Kirkwall. Hell we probably change Starkhaven more than we do Kirkwall just by Friend/Rivalry with Sebastian and then killing or letting Anders go AND WE NEVER GO TO STARKHAVEN!

DA2 isn't a grey world. It's very black or white. There is barely any illusion of choice in DA2. Thats were most folks are upset with the story. An option at the end to help Aveline and the guards protect the people then go save your sibling or someone important which still results in having to fight abominations, templars, Orsino, and Meredith would have helped make it feel like your Hawke actually has choices. Or perhaps the writers could come up with another option. Maybe even clean up the quests so that the final choosing sides decision doesn't feel like you've been completely railroaded.

[Gongsun Zan]

The third way would have been upholding the status quo. Dispose of Meredith and her fanatics, and all the blood mages who want their war.

It's not like Hawke doesn't have the backing of the city guard. Plus you've got people like the Knight-Captain who aren't looking for mass genocide. It makes Hawke someone who actually takes action, as opposed to just a really skilled fighter who got dragged reluctantly into a stupid conflict.

[88mphSlayer]

Rifneno wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

i wish there was a way not to kill orsino and meredith tho

What?  They've both been driven mad (Meredith by the idol, Orsino by the Kirkwall Insanity Vortex™) and are incredibly powerful.  It's not a very good idea to leave complete lunatics with super powers free to roam and cause havoc.  I can see wanting to spare the templars and the mages.  There's good and innocent people on both sides.  Their leaders, however, need to die.

yeah but i think it would've been more interesting and added to replayability if you didn't have to do both boss fights regardless of which side you take... can't we just stab them in the back when they aren't looking? or maybe throw them in prison or something? or if we had a proper act 4 that delt with the lyrium idol we get to fight them there instead of both at the same time in act 3? i dunno just ideas

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 14 avril 2011 - 04:15 .

[FedericoV]

Little Old Woman wrote...

Side with the fascist Templars or side with the lunatic Mages, how about a third option where we can quickly just run around Kirkwall saying our goodbyes in the style of Randy Marsh, "See Ya!".

EDIT: Thanks to whoever moved from non-spoilers, navigation error on my behalf.

A third way would have been the right choice considering that they have decided that we have to fight both parties no matter what.

[Mark B]

88mphSlayer wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

i wish there was a way not to kill orsino and meredith tho

What?  They've both been driven mad (Meredith by the idol, Orsino by the Kirkwall Insanity Vortex™) and are incredibly powerful.  It's not a very good idea to leave complete lunatics with super powers free to roam and cause havoc.  I can see wanting to spare the templars and the mages.  There's good and innocent people on both sides.  Their leaders, however, need to die.

yeah but i think it would've been more interesting and added to replayability if you didn't have to do both boss fights regardless of which side you take... can't we just stab them in the back when they aren't looking? or maybe throw them in prison or something? or if we had a proper act 4 that delt with the lyrium idol we get to fight them there instead of both at the same time in act 3? i dunno just ideas

Agree about the idol, especially given the big "the Champion must have known" "If they'd known they wouldn't have..." bit with Varric.  Turns out the idol really isn't that significant in the remaining events of DA2, so the ominous tones used seem a little misleading.
As regards Meredith, she was a loon before acquiring the idol and Bertrands description of her backs this up. You'd probably have had to put her down anyway, just it would have been a little bit easier without the the decorative street furniture attacking you.

[Dean_the_Young]

There was a third way. Hawke could outright go 'I want nothing to do with your squabble.'

At which point Meredith laughed in your face and reframed the argument: whether you were with the mages or not, if you weren't with her she would kill you.

Third Ways matter when someone accepts them. When they don't, they're irrelevant.

[Schattenkeil]

I remember there was a third way in The Witcher. If you refused to take sides everyone was your enemy. It wasn't pretty, but while in the witcher I really couldn't side with anyone, every choice would have meant betraying my believes.

But what be the alternative... The game tells you, alright, your stay out of the conflict. No final fight. You win. Game over.

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 14 avril 2011 - 04:52 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Not picking a side wouldn't work narrative-wise: now, in the inevitable expansion or sequel, there will be talk of/people will recognise you as "Hawke, the Champion of Kirkwall, who sided with the [insert faction here]". If you decided to just walk away, Hawke would really have no further story value or relevance.

That being said, it would have been preferable if you were able to use your contacts (mainly Aveline and the nobles) to amass an army to oppose the Templars and Mages both.

[_Aine_]

Schattenkeil wrote...

But what be the alternative... The game tells you, alright, your stay out of the conflict. No final fight. You win. Game over.

Not necessarily. Just because you try to negotiate an ending doesn't mean the two sides listen to you. They can still fight and you get involved to save someone, or they both simply attack you because they perceive your lack of support as a betrayal.  The problem with *choosing* a side in this game in particular is that you really aren't forced down a path in the first place. You are always, kind of anyway, helping both sides.  Whether they like you, and you them, or not.   

Loyalties in RL are harder to sit the fence on.  And usually, when you do, it is the one who tries to mediate that gets a kick in the ass from both sides anyway. 

Still, I wish there was a way to change the course of events in this game so there was some variation to the ending other than your state of mind.  Ah well, one for the wishing star.

[Mark B]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Not picking a side wouldn't work narrative-wise: now, in the inevitable expansion or sequel, there will be talk of/people will recognise you as "Hawke, the Champion of Kirkwall, who sided with the [insert faction here]". If you decided to just walk away, Hawke would really have no further story value or relevance.

That being said, it would have been preferable if you were able to use your contacts (mainly Aveline and the nobles) to amass an army to oppose the Templars and Mages both.

Not suggesting walking away; instead siding with the city against 2 groups intent on causing havoc.  As you say, raise a militia and restrict the fighting between the 2 sides to areas away from the population, then mop the survivors up.

As regards being recognised in later expansions, I'm not sure being known as the man who sided with the mages (or templars) but had actually killed lots of them and hacked up their leader really works to instil confidence, do you?
Not sure I'll have allies rushing to be by my side once that tale gets about.

Modifié par Mark B, 14 avril 2011 - 05:26 .

[88mphSlayer]

Schattenkeil wrote...

I remember there was a third way in The Witcher. If you refused to take sides everyone was your enemy. It wasn't pretty, but while in the witcher I really couldn't side with anyone, every choice would have meant betraying my believes.

But what be the alternative... The game tells you, alright, your stay out of the conflict. No final fight. You win. Game over.

hard to imagine that you would "win", if you decided to run away i doubt Aveline would agree to that - she has to protect her guards so she would end up in combat anyways, Fenris would have likely fought the mages as well, Merril probably would've joined the mages, who knows about Varric/Isabella, if you put Bethany in the circle she probably would've died in battle at some point, it's unlikely you would keep your status as champion and the family estate likely would get ransacked

either way, horrible ending if you run, and by the time Anders blows up the chantry there's really no time to raise a militia - that should've been done when the Qunari became a threat if there was ever a time to do it

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 14 avril 2011 - 05:52 .

[_Aine_]

Well, they could have changed WHO actually blew up the chantry. It could have been different depending on your choices in the game. Convince Anders that Justice is a frig-up and he doesn't do it, but then some radical whack-nut IN the Chantry does as a set-up, or it is schemed by some renegade mage you helped escape in Act 1. Get enough rep with the Qunari by turning over the book or Isabella and they don't die, they come back to assist in some way ( probably not physically, but still) If they made every choice make one side closer and the other side further, it could change your endings, kind of like the friendship/rivalry path with companions, but this time with choices. Appeal to the common folk, get Aveline to use the Guard as the third side etc.

There were many options that *could* have been done. But the reality is, they weren't. Fun to ponder, but it won't undo what is done. I do wonder if there was a toolset whether it could be tinkered with. But, it seems as though they may not release one ( more a fear than a belief with justification though) so it is likely a moot point, that.

Modifié par shantisands, 14 avril 2011 - 06:34 .

[TheAwesomologist]

88mphSlayer wrote...

Schattenkeil wrote...

I remember there was a third way in The Witcher. If you refused to take sides everyone was your enemy. It wasn't pretty, but while in the witcher I really couldn't side with anyone, every choice would have meant betraying my believes.

But what be the alternative... The game tells you, alright, your stay out of the conflict. No final fight. You win. Game over.

hard to imagine that you would "win", if you decided to run away i doubt Aveline would agree to that - she has to protect her guards so she would end up in combat anyways, Fenris would have likely fought the mages as well, Merril probably would've joined the mages, who knows about Varric/Isabella, if you put Bethany in the circle she probably would've died in battle at some point, it's unlikely you would keep your status as champion and the family estate likely would get ransacked

either way, horrible ending if you run, and by the time Anders blows up the chantry there's really no time to raise a militia - that should've been done when the Qunari became a threat if there was ever a time to do it

I don't think anyone's asking for a "Hawke just goes home and waits it out" ending. Just when Meredith asks you say "I could care less which of you lunatics kills each other first, I'm off to protect the people of my city. Then you still run around Lowtown and the docks (maybe add a Hightown section). Fight off abominations ransacking the city, fight off gangs and looters, fight off templars going after mages who are just running for their lives (a way to save your sister or Alain perhaps). Then make your way to the Gallows were a distraught Orsino turns to blood magic. You kill him. Then face Meredith. You become Viscount (support from Nobles and the people as opposed to the Templars) or flee afterwards (maybe because the templars are still strong enough under Cullen or other quest options).

There, all I did was change a few combat scenarios and some dialog.

[88mphSlayer]

TheAwesomologist wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

Schattenkeil wrote...

I remember there was a third way in The Witcher. If you refused to take sides everyone was your enemy. It wasn't pretty, but while in the witcher I really couldn't side with anyone, every choice would have meant betraying my believes.

But what be the alternative... The game tells you, alright, your stay out of the conflict. No final fight. You win. Game over.

hard to imagine that you would "win", if you decided to run away i doubt Aveline would agree to that - she has to protect her guards so she would end up in combat anyways, Fenris would have likely fought the mages as well, Merril probably would've joined the mages, who knows about Varric/Isabella, if you put Bethany in the circle she probably would've died in battle at some point, it's unlikely you would keep your status as champion and the family estate likely would get ransacked

either way, horrible ending if you run, and by the time Anders blows up the chantry there's really no time to raise a militia - that should've been done when the Qunari became a threat if there was ever a time to do it

I don't think anyone's asking for a "Hawke just goes home and waits it out" ending. Just when Meredith asks you say "I could care less which of you lunatics kills each other first, I'm off to protect the people of my city. Then you still run around Lowtown and the docks (maybe add a Hightown section). Fight off abominations ransacking the city, fight off gangs and looters, fight off templars going after mages who are just running for their lives (a way to save your sister or Alain perhaps). Then make your way to the Gallows were a distraught Orsino turns to blood magic. You kill him. Then face Meredith. You become Viscount (support from Nobles and the people as opposed to the Templars) or flee afterwards (maybe because the templars are still strong enough under Cullen or other quest options).

There, all I did was change a few combat scenarios and some dialog.

as nice as that would be it would basically destroy the point of having the other options if the player gets to have their cake and eat it too, there would be no moral dilemma at the end of the day, like if there was a 3rd option at the end of DAO where you can live and not have to deal with the repercussions of an old god baby - who would ever martyr themselves?

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 14 avril 2011 - 06:53 .

[Mark B]

TheAwesomologist wrote...

There, all I did was change a few combat scenarios and some dialog.

And you managed to justify killing all the people you have to kill anyway.

It's not that hard to see how a third option would work, as TheAwesomologist says nobody is advocating some a "third way" in the sense of some middle ground/neutrality thing.  I think the general consensus would be a third way where you actually declared that you're against both sides and act like it rather than picking a side then killing them anyway.  So "Kill 'em all and let the maker sort them out" rather than "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

[Dark Specie]

Avissel wrote...
Anyway "protecting the people from both sides" isn't really even possible. It's Hawkes participation in the fight that brings about any conclusion, Leaveing the Mages and the Templars to fight amonst themselves would have left the city as rubble.

No, him/her taking part in the conflict doesn't change anything; whether the mages or the Templars win, the mage still opts to rise in rebellion against the Templars all over Thedas, so Hawke opting to flee Kirkwall or setting out to put both sides down wouldn't have changed anything either; the circles all around would still have risen in rebellion so they might as well have given us those choices since the outcome would still have been the same, with the exception for Varric saying afterwards "And so, the Champion decided to flee Kirkwall. We heard alter that the city was reduced to rubble in the aftermath of the conflict and both Meredith and Orsino having perished in the struggle..." or "And so, Hawke defeated both the Tempalrs and the mages. Kirkwall suffered in the fires of that night, but was spared the greater suffering than Meredith's insanity or Orsino's forbidden magic would undubtedly have let loose upon it...". Bah...

[Mark B]

88mphSlayer wrote...

as nice as that would be it would basically destroy the point of having the other options if the player gets to have their cake and eat it too, there would be no moral dilemma at the end of the day, like if there was a 3rd option at the end of DAO where you can live and not have to deal with the repercussions of an old god baby - who would ever martyr themselves?

What "other" options are you referring to? I didn't notice any.
There is no moral dilemma. Side with scumbag (A) or scumbag ( the outcome is essentialy the same.

EDIT:
PS: Your suggesting that not being forced to side with one group of nuts against another (and you are forced to kill your chosen ally) is having my cake and eating it too?  Hell yeah I want cake!
PPS. The cake is a lie!

Modifié par Mark B, 14 avril 2011 - 07:09 .

[88mphSlayer]

Mark B wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

as nice as that would be it would basically destroy the point of having the other options if the player gets to have their cake and eat it too, there would be no moral dilemma at the end of the day, like if there was a 3rd option at the end of DAO where you can live and not have to deal with the repercussions of an old god baby - who would ever martyr themselves?

What "other" options are you referring to? I didn't notice any.
There is no moral dilemma. Side with scumbag (A) or scumbag ( the outcome is essentialy the same.

which is itself a flaw, as there should be two different outcomes

i don't think it's necessary to build a 3rd "everybody's happy" option if the entire scenario is flawed to begin with, like slapping a bandaid on a headwound what's the point? at that point it'd be better to just ditch the entire scenario and come up with something else to end the game with

[TheAwesomologist]

88mphSlayer wrote...

as nice as that would be it would basically destroy the point of having the other options if the player gets to have their cake and eat it too, there would be no moral dilemma at the end of the day, like if there was a 3rd option at the end of DAO where you can live and not have to deal with the repercussions of an old god baby - who would ever martyr themselves?

There's barely any moral dilemma anyways. It's just what brand of inexplicable crazy do you want to side with? No matter what Anders destroys the Chantry (murder knife time), and you have to fight Orsino then Meredith after wading through abominations, mages, and templars.

You can still have Fenris wanting you to side with the Templars, Merrill and Anders wanting you to side with the Mages, Isabella wants to high tail it to the docks and the hell out, Varric and Aveline want you to save Kirkwall, and Sebastian just wants to cry.

Perhaps not choosing a side means Bethany dies if she's in the chantry or Carver dies if he's with the Templars. Perhaps other companions can die, because you did not choose a side. Now there's a choice! We've spent the whole game really building relationships. Our interaction with the city and people of Kirkwall is purely reactionary. Hawke is only along for the ride for events that will take place anyways. It's all about the perception of choice, DA2 doesn't offer any in a meaningful way in Act 3.

[Fruit of the Doom]

Rovay wrote...

Wish there was an option to side with the Arishok and the Qunari. I'd happily help them 'convert' Kirkwall. With cannons.

Neoconservative diplomacy!

Modifié par Fruit of the Doom, 14 avril 2011 - 07:14 .