95 réponses à ce sujet

[Moondoggie]

Well not so much the lack of choices but the lack of them having any impact whatsoever on anything. Like no matter how you handle the situation with the Arishock you have to kill him and no matter how you handle the situation with the murder suspect your mother always gets killed. I guess they were really excited about these plot points and wanted to force them  upon you, These are just some examples and there's a lot more situations where the story is completely set in stone and your "choices" are just roundabout ways of getting the same result.

Seems a step back in replayability from DAO where to use an example from that the situation with the Dalish and the Warewolves you could handle it in one of three ways, Kill witherfang and the Warewolves and get Zathrian the heart end the curse in the Dalish and you'll get Dalish troops against the Blight, You could force Zathrian to end the curse,Cure the Warewolves and the Dalish, The Dalish have a new Keeper and you get Dalish troops. Or the third option if you have enough cohersion you can convince the Warewolves to slaughter the Dalish in revenge and you get Warewolves for your army.

Three choices with different outcomes which adds to the replayability because you think "I wonder what happens when i do it this way"

As much as i've enjoyed playing DA2 i'm not feeling the enthusiasm for the idea of replaying the game and that for me is the single big letdown about the game you can only play this story out one way. It's a story that's set in stone and you can't change anything whatsoever.

[AlexXIV]

Everyone who played the game at least twice must have noticed. Unless they picked the exactly same choices in both playthroughs.

[Tleining]

uh, what happens if you let the Arishok take Isabela?

Also, you might want to take a look at the other quests. Feynriel and Magisters Son, Support Templars or Mages. There are a lot of choices which have some influence in later Acts.

[Tleining]

@ xnoxiousx
rhetorical question, you don't have to fight the Arishok

[Dokarqt]

Moondoggie wrote...

Well not so much the lack of choices but the lack of them having any impact whatsoever on anything. Like no matter how you handle the situation with the Arishock you have to kill him and no matter how you handle the situation with the murder suspect your mother always gets killed.

Yes, yes and yes. The game is very railroaded, the first time you play through it you feel like you have alot of options to impact the story so atleast bioware did a good job of providing the illusion of influence. None of the DA:O elements of having your choices and decisions actually meaningfully impact the story are there. A shame since bioware is capable of so much better.

[Clonedzero]

you mean like my choice in DA:O of picking the templars over the mages that has pretty much absolutely 0 effect on the rest of the game? awesome choices like that? you know how the only real difference is change the unit type you get to summon in the end battle and epilogue slides? choices with real depth to them? like picking werewolves over dalish elves? you know choices that really change thing you know?

oh wait...

[Kesica]

Da 2 is total disappointment in my book, maybe the da story should just stop here.

[Clonedzero]

or do you mean choices of how you handle quests in say maybe the first act of a story then coming back and haunting you in later acts of a story? maybe that'd be cool. like if you let a guy live he shows up later to either help you in some way or even just send you something simple like a cameo letter or maybe fights you later on or something. you know, like what happens in dragon age 2 where when you make a choice in an earlier act it'll have a ripple effect later on. right?

[Everwarden]

Tleining wrote...

@ xnoxiousx
rhetorical question, you don't have to fight the Arishok

The thrust of the original post is still spot on, though. You almost always have to fight the Arishok, and the following scenes make no sense at all with the one choice you can make.

"Yup. Go ahead and take the lady. No skin off my back." 
Arishok drags Isabela off.
The people: "..ooh. ahh." 
Meredith: "Well, it looks like we have a new champion!"

 "Champion" fits if you kill the Arishok in single combat, doesn't fit quite so much if your group kills him, and doesn't fit at all if you give Isabela over to him. 

[Clonedzero]

Everwarden wrote...

Tleining wrote...

@ xnoxiousx
rhetorical question, you don't have to fight the Arishok

The thrust of the original post is still spot on, though. You almost always have to fight the Arishok, and the following scenes make no sense at all with the one choice you can make.

"Yup. Go ahead and take the lady. No skin off my back." 
Arishok drags Isabela off.
The people: "..ooh. ahh." 
Meredith: "Well, it looks like we have a new champion!"

 "Champion" fits if you kill the Arishok in single combat, doesn't fit quite so much if your group kills him, and doesn't fit at all if you give Isabela over to him. 

hero of fereldan doesnt really fit if you have alistair take the mortal blow. he's be the hero not you. but thats waht they still call you....

if you want to nitpick and find flaws in the story or anything like that go ahead, but for everyone you pick from DA2 i can pick one from DA:O. nitpicking flaws is easy because everygame has them. doesnt mean they're not good.

[Medet]

I think what bothered me the most as far as choices went was that most quests had a dialogue option that was something along the lines of, well, no I don't want to do your stupid quest. To which the quest giver would reply indignantly, my quest is not stupid! and you will do it like it or not! nyanyanyanyanya. nya.

I would have preferred not having the option to turn down the quest in favor of that.


I'm actually fine with the story having set outcomes, its hard to tell a dramatic story when you give the player too much choice.

[Nerevar-as]

Clonedzero wrote...


hero of fereldan doesnt really fit if you have alistair take the mortal blow. he's be the hero not you. but thats waht they still call you....

if you want to nitpick and find flaws in the story or anything like that go ahead, but for everyone you pick from DA2 i can pick one from DA:O. nitpicking flaws is easy because everygame has them. doesnt mean they're not good.

The PC GW was still the leader of the party, it is not just a matter of who kills what. In my DA2 game so far the CoK should be Aveline, as she takes quite a beating and holds her ground to prevent the waves of enemies from running over the rest of the party in most fights.

[Clonedzero]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...


hero of fereldan doesnt really fit if you have alistair take the mortal blow. he's be the hero not you. but thats waht they still call you....

if you want to nitpick and find flaws in the story or anything like that go ahead, but for everyone you pick from DA2 i can pick one from DA:O. nitpicking flaws is easy because everygame has them. doesnt mean they're not good.

The PC GW was still the leader of the party, it is not just a matter of who kills what. In my DA2 game so far the CoK should be Aveline, as she takes quite a beating and holds her ground to prevent the waves of enemies from running over the rest of the party in most fights.

right, but no one knows or cares about the details of the journey in DA:O, they only care about the actual person who killed the archdemon and stopped the blight, that person is the hero. not the dude that organized it. if a fireman rushes into a building and saves a little girl that guy is a hero, his boss isnt the hero though.

im just saying its not perfect in either case. alistair can easily be the hero of fereldan and not you, though the game always says its you because you're the player so you have the be the special one. players always feel like they need to be the hero though so even if alistair is more deserving of the title such as in my example, its gotta be the player warden so they feel special.

[dreman9999]

Dokarqt wrote...

Moondoggie wrote...

Well not so much the lack of choices but the lack of them having any impact whatsoever on anything. Like no matter how you handle the situation with the Arishock you have to kill him and no matter how you handle the situation with the murder suspect your mother always gets killed.

Yes, yes and yes. The game is very railroaded, the first time you play through it you feel like you have alot of options to impact the story so atleast bioware did a good job of providing the illusion of influence. None of the DA:O elements of having your choices and decisions actually meaningfully impact the story are there. A shame since bioware is capable of so much better.

No, no, and no......The game has alot verity. Espeiacal with who have at the end with you and who lives and dies. Even with the missions. Especail if you save a certin blood mage only to have her kidnap your brother at the end.

[Clonedzero]

like i know that i killed a blood mage in act one (the hooker) and if i had let her live she would have told me about those books in act 2 you can destroy to summon that special demon. since i killed her, she never told me about those books, so i never knew about them till after i beat the game and started looking at the forums.

[Jangocat]

Medet wrote...

I'm actually fine with the story having set outcomes, its hard to tell a dramatic story when you give the player too much choice.

What? If I remember correctly, in DA my fem wardon had the choice to let Allister die and take the throne, get him to marry the queen, marry him, get him to sleep with Morrigan to save everyone, or goe die myself. There were many different endings to that story and many twists along the way.

It just takes time and effort. All of biowares privious titles were less linier. In KOTOR there were 4 totally different stories playing male/female lights/darkside and that was an epic dramatic story. ME had a lot of different choices and endings as did DAO.

Don't get me wrong, I do love this game, I just wish it was less linier. But your premise that it's hard to tell a dramatic story if the player is given too many choices is wrong. It just takes more resources.

[Dangerfoot]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dokarqt wrote...

Moondoggie wrote...

Well not so much the lack of choices but the lack of them having any impact whatsoever on anything. Like no matter how you handle the situation with the Arishock you have to kill him and no matter how you handle the situation with the murder suspect your mother always gets killed.

Yes, yes and yes. The game is very railroaded, the first time you play through it you feel like you have alot of options to impact the story so atleast bioware did a good job of providing the illusion of influence. None of the DA:O elements of having your choices and decisions actually meaningfully impact the story are there. A shame since bioware is capable of so much better.

No, no, and no......The game has alot verity. Espeiacal with who have at the end with you and who lives and dies. Even with the missions. Especail if you save a certin blood mage only to have her kidnap your brother at the end.

Not really.

That mage? If you spare her and lie for her to escape, spare her and kill the templars, or spare her and turn her in, she will always kidnap your sibling.

Wow, what a huge varriation. OP is right, nothing you do ever has any noticable effect on anything. The game always has the same ending, the city never changes, only tiny little sidequests are different at all.

I'm the most important person in *the Dragon Age universe*? All I did was exist while a set of predestined events unfolded around me in the same way 3 times now.

Modifié par Dangerfoot, 17 mars 2011 - 04:14 .

[dreman9999]

Dangerfoot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dokarqt wrote...

Moondoggie wrote...

Well not so much the lack of choices but the lack of them having any impact whatsoever on anything. Like no matter how you handle the situation with the Arishock you have to kill him and no matter how you handle the situation with the murder suspect your mother always gets killed.

Yes, yes and yes. The game is very railroaded, the first time you play through it you feel like you have alot of options to impact the story so atleast bioware did a good job of providing the illusion of influence. None of the DA:O elements of having your choices and decisions actually meaningfully impact the story are there. A shame since bioware is capable of so much better.

No, no, and no......The game has alot verity. Espeiacal with who have at the end with you and who lives and dies. Even with the missions. Especail if you save a certin blood mage only to have her kidnap your brother at the end.

Not really.

That mage? If you spare her and lie for her to escape, spare her and kill the templars, or spare her and turn her in, she will always kidnap your sibling.

Wow, what a huge varriation. OP is right, nothing you do ever has any noticable effect on anything. The game always has the same ending, the city never changes, only tiny little sidequests are different at all.

I'm the most important person in *the Dragon Age universe*? All I did was exist while a set of predestined events unfolded around me in the same way 3 times now.

You can kill her.
Edit:I also how Hawke is the most important person because he inspired great change with the cirle/mageup rising and the turning of the tempalers.

Modifié par dreman9999, 17 mars 2011 - 04:32 .

[Dangerfoot]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dangerfoot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No, no, and no......The game has alot verity. Espeiacal with who have at the end with you and who lives and dies. Even with the missions. Especail if you save a certin blood mage only to have her kidnap your brother at the end.

Not really.

That mage? If you spare her and lie for her to escape, spare her and kill the templars, or spare her and turn her in, she will always kidnap your sibling.

Wow, what a huge varriation. OP is right, nothing you do ever has any noticable effect on anything. The game always has the same ending, the city never changes, only tiny little sidequests are different at all.

I'm the most important person in *the Dragon Age universe*? All I did was exist while a set of predestined events unfolded around me in the same way 3 times now.

You can kill her.

Which has what effect other than removing an unimportant quest?

[AlexXIV]

Dangerfoot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dangerfoot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No, no, and no......The game has alot verity. Espeiacal with who have at the end with you and who lives and dies. Even with the missions. Especail if you save a certin blood mage only to have her kidnap your brother at the end.

Not really.

That mage? If you spare her and lie for her to escape, spare her and kill the templars, or spare her and turn her in, she will always kidnap your sibling.

Wow, what a huge varriation. OP is right, nothing you do ever has any noticable effect on anything. The game always has the same ending, the city never changes, only tiny little sidequests are different at all.

I'm the most important person in *the Dragon Age universe*? All I did was exist while a set of predestined events unfolded around me in the same way 3 times now.

You can kill her.

Which has what effect other than removing an unimportant quest?

I tried to kill her but couldn't. Do you need a special companion with you for it?

Modifié par AlexXIV, 17 mars 2011 - 04:35 .

[Everwarden]

Clonedzero wrote...
hero of fereldan doesnt really fit if you have alistair take the mortal blow. he's be the hero not you. but thats waht they still call you....

if you want to nitpick and find flaws in the story or anything like that go ahead, but for everyone you pick from DA2 i can pick one from DA:O. nitpicking flaws is easy because everygame has them. doesnt mean they're not good.

Being called Hero of Ferelden after the fact is a flaw of DA2 and Awakening, not Origins. But the 'every game has flaws' argument is meaningless. Every movie and every book also have flaws. Empire Strikes Back had flaws, that does not mean it can be said to be equal to Episode I (which is perhaps the only sequel let-down I can think of worse than Origins to DA2). 

[dreman9999]

Dangerfoot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Dangerfoot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No, no, and no......The game has alot verity. Espeiacal with who have at the end with you and who lives and dies. Even with the missions. Especail if you save a certin blood mage only to have her kidnap your brother at the end.

Not really.

That mage? If you spare her and lie for her to escape, spare her and kill the templars, or spare her and turn her in, she will always kidnap your sibling.

Wow, what a huge varriation. OP is right, nothing you do ever has any noticable effect on anything. The game always has the same ending, the city never changes, only tiny little sidequests are different at all.

I'm the most important person in *the Dragon Age universe*? All I did was exist while a set of predestined events unfolded around me in the same way 3 times now.

You can kill her.

Which has what effect other than removing an unimportant quest?

Which add to the ideal ofthe veraity. What you do in act 1 effect missions you do in act 2 and 3 so on. Heck, you sibling can become grey wardens, Arosko can hate you guts and just try to kill you on sight but there some time you can change just like in life. Did anyone complain that their no veraity in DA:O due to not being able to help the archdemon?  The blight was and un avoide able thing, like the uprisings in the game.