191 réponses à ce sujet

[The Lesser Evil]

It's hard to grasp the point that you're trying to make here, OP.

- You get the chance to make Isabela pay by handing her over to the Qunari Arishok if she returns.
- You get the chance to kill Anders for what he did after he blows up the Chantry.
- Even if you don't leave your sibling behind to be taken by/join the Templars, they won't die if Anders is in your group.

[Tainan7509]

The only two person i like are Bethany and Varric. But i do like the story development. The Qunari, Templars and Mages are already having problem in the kirkwall for a long time. Your character is just happend to be the very key trigger with your companion in this entire mess. They will eventually go for war no matter what. In addition, not every companion has to agree what you do and follow your order or choice. This is perhaps the beauty of the entire story itself because if a hero can make things happen on his or her will, then it is meaningless just like you go from point a choice to point b ending with your plan and everything is under control. And it will be very boring. Bioware try to set up many different things that players couldn't control and maybe this is what they believe the true story should be like.

Overall i love the story and i hope to see Hawke continue his adventure in DA3.

[Rafe34]

Lithuasil wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...


Does Hawke? Or Shephard?

None of my favorite characters from DAO ARE human, by the way. But I'm forced to be human in DA2, (and obviously, ME, but the story would hardly make as much sense from an Asari Shephard's standpoint).

There are multiple times in Origins where I certainly felt that way, (that the Warden was cracking)- again Dwarven Noble Origin, for example.

Just for an example of RPing- right before you're about to leave, you have like 6 different options of how to respond to someone pleading with you to tell them you did not do a crime, that you either did, or did not do, depending on how you played your Origin. It's not as varied as PnP, surely, because that's not possible. But they are far more than merely Paragon/Loghain. It's like, trying to be a bit generic, since you said you haven't played Noble origin, and though you probably know what happens, I hate accidentially spoiling things for people- 

1) Yes, I did, and I'm proud of doing it.
2) (Lie) (Persuade) No I didn't.
3) Insult, and thus refuse to answer.
4) Simply refuse to answer.
5) Say that he's going to get taken down just like you were.
6) Yes, and I deserve to be punished for it.

(My Noble did do what they were accusing her of- the options change slightly if you did not.)

Merely Paragon/Loghain would be like just having options 6 and 1, in my case. Are there other things I can think of to say? Sure. Is that possible to do in an electronic setting? No, so I can hardly fault Origins for not doing it.

What you're pointing out are limitations with a non-PnP RP aspect- where the character can literally say ANYTHING. I would disagree that they NEVER crack, though, sure it is rare. But I can certainly RP inside of DAO beyond merely the two extremes. (For another example, the Daelish elf talking with your LI and Alistair, (if he isn't your LI), after Tamlin re-appears.)

Don't worry, I played all the origins (best part of the game by far). I'm well aware of the limitations - I just didn't feel them as badly in DA2 as I did in Origins. (Excluding the last two quests in the third act).
We're always going to sit on railroads in videogames - even the elder scrolls titles didn't manage to think of everything. The difference is, Hawke, and the Wardens during their origins, get railroaded by circumstance. Their options are limited because their options are limited by circumstance.
The Warden, once free from their origin, isn't limited by circumstance, she's limited by the writers, and you feel that at every corner, since all your decisions have to lead to defeating the generic evil (An archdemon that looks like an undead dragon... I mean, please) in the most blandly heroic way possible.
It's the same in PnP - I can perfectly live with being put in a situation where my options are limited. I can't however live with the Dm pretending I can do what ever I want, as long as I stay on the stories tracks, and every other actions just fails or is deemed impossible without explanation. Because that's, even if my actual influence might be bigger, no longer roleplaying, it's reading a book.

So you would say you cannot roleplay while playing a computer game.

I would say the twist at the end, with the Wardens possibly dying, and Morrigan's ritual/whether or not you accept it, gives a heck of a lot more depth to the option than I originally thought was going to be there.

You didn't feel them as badly, I would conjecture, because the writers only had to deal with a standard human rags to riches story. With the standard Bioware twist coming in the form of Anders blowing the Chantry to hell, and thus sending the city you've been saving the last six years to hell.

There was no need to worry about how different people might react to your Warden being a Dwarf commoner or noble, or a city elf, or a daelish, or a mage, or a human noble. 

Again, though, my problem with DA2 was not the story, I thought it was good. It was the inability to roleplay, first, being forced into playing a human. I was simply attached to Hawke and along for the ride, not truly being in there. I have Mass Effect for that, and it works great. There was no reason to bring ME into DA. The combat system, the inane syncing of different animations, the ridiculous reuse of maps, all broke my immersion, something that you DONT want to do in an RPG. I felt like the party should be asking whether we'd been here before. (Because we had. Many times.)

[Lithuasil]

Rafe34 wrote...



So you would say you cannot roleplay while playing a computer game.

I would say the twist at the end, with the Wardens possibly dying, and Morrigan's ritual/whether or not you accept it, gives a heck of a lot more depth to the option than I originally thought was going to be there.

You didn't feel them as badly, I would conjecture, because the writers only had to deal with a standard human rags to riches story. With the standard Bioware twist coming in the form of Anders blowing the Chantry to hell, and thus sending the city you've been saving the last six years to hell.

There was no need to worry about how different people might react to your Warden being a Dwarf commoner or noble, or a city elf, or a daelish, or a mage, or a human noble. 

Again, though, my problem with DA2 was not the story, I thought it was good. It was the inability to roleplay, first, being forced into playing a human. I was simply attached to Hawke and along for the ride, not truly being in there. I have Mass Effect for that, and it works great. There was no reason to bring ME into DA. The combat system, the inane syncing of different animations, the ridiculous reuse of maps, all broke my immersion, something that you DONT want to do in an RPG. I felt like the party should be asking whether we'd been here before. (Because we had. Many times.)

You can roleplay in videogames, you just need to be given either a suitable slate, or enough freedom to do so. The warden, ham handedly forced on a quest no sane person would ever undertake (imho) is no such slate. Hawke is. Being forced into a single origin, if it's one that suits the story I don't have a problem with that.

I personally didn't mind the maps too much for a number of reasons. I'll give you the combat though - what Dragon age needs is a mix between Dark Messiah and Mount And blade combat, with ramped up magic, and added risk for using magic openly.

[Oneiropolos]

Can people please stop saying Fenris was created to appeal to Twilight fangirls. A friend actually gave me a shirt "I Edward...Rochester. Winning hearts through Brooding since 1847." Darcy from Pride and Prejudice wasn't a barrel of sunshine either. Fenris is just one in a long line of brooding love interests. Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice were marked in polls just recently as the two most legendary romance stories ever. Both have sexy, but brooding, leading males. They're also my favorite books since I read them in highschool. As far as being 'pretty', well, Genji started by being as beautiful as a woman in Tale of Genji, marked as the first novel ever actually written. Just because they were used recently for awful, awful books doesn't mean these concepts aren't tried and true when it comes to appealing to females. It'd be like saying Isabella has a large chest because of Baywatch. I have no idea if that played a factor. But quite a few men do, in fact, like a woman's chest. It's cliche because it's true. 

Frankly, if I could have rescued Awakening!Anders and Nathaniel.. even Sigrun from there...you'd have characters that had a lot of potential to be awesome and I'd love to have seen more from. I don't think DA2 really did much to get you invested in the average companion. It wasn't like DA:O, I'll give everyone that. And Merrill and Isabella really do come across as shallow compared to Morrigan and Shale. Why did I pick Shale for against Merrill? Because they're both kinda quirky, odd characters that don't seem to 'get' a lot of things. Morrigan and Isabella can both just come across as witches, but I think Morrigan does a much better job of being honestly vulnerable and looking good at the end.

The men, well, I adored Alistair and Zevran. I don't even know where to begin with them. But I also did love the playthrough with Bethany and I expected to be annoyed by Varric and I love him so very, very much. I'm sorry I didn't hop on the Varric for LI bandwagon before the game. I had no idea his sense of humor was going to be so sexy! Normally I wouldn't consider a dwarf but.. Varric .

Modifié par Oneiropolos, 18 mars 2011 - 01:18 .

[Ashera]

BingoParadox wrote...
My choice, after Anders plays terrorist and pushes the *WAR* button, would be to kill him and then turn to Aveline and say "You know what, I spoke with the Ferelden King the other day. He seems like an OK fellow. What do you say we hop a boat back home and leave these sick idiots to kill each other off as they are so obviously hell-bent on doing?"

OMG yes. My Hawke wanted to take his Elf and his Dwarf and leave the rest of them all to it. Heck, Alistair almost begged him to return anyway. Actually, I kind of wonder if that is why he vanished at the end; maybe he just went back to Ferelden, having become thoroughly disgusted with his adopted homeland. I hope we'll find out.

[Rafe34]

Lithuasil wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...



So you would say you cannot roleplay while playing a computer game.

I would say the twist at the end, with the Wardens possibly dying, and Morrigan's ritual/whether or not you accept it, gives a heck of a lot more depth to the option than I originally thought was going to be there.

You didn't feel them as badly, I would conjecture, because the writers only had to deal with a standard human rags to riches story. With the standard Bioware twist coming in the form of Anders blowing the Chantry to hell, and thus sending the city you've been saving the last six years to hell.

There was no need to worry about how different people might react to your Warden being a Dwarf commoner or noble, or a city elf, or a daelish, or a mage, or a human noble. 

Again, though, my problem with DA2 was not the story, I thought it was good. It was the inability to roleplay, first, being forced into playing a human. I was simply attached to Hawke and along for the ride, not truly being in there. I have Mass Effect for that, and it works great. There was no reason to bring ME into DA. The combat system, the inane syncing of different animations, the ridiculous reuse of maps, all broke my immersion, something that you DONT want to do in an RPG. I felt like the party should be asking whether we'd been here before. (Because we had. Many times.)

You can roleplay in videogames, you just need to be given either a suitable slate, or enough freedom to do so. The warden, ham handedly forced on a quest no sane person would ever undertake (imho) is no such slate. Hawke is. Being forced into a single origin, if it's one that suits the story I don't have a problem with that.

I personally didn't mind the maps too much for a number of reasons. I'll give you the combat though - what Dragon age needs is a mix between Dark Messiah and Mount And blade combat, with ramped up magic, and added risk for using magic openly.

Hell yes about using magic openly. That was the single greatest immersion breaking thing. I almost can't even play through DA2 as a mage. Especially after dueling the Arishok as a mage- everyone in the city would have known I was an apostate, and Merideth did nothing to me? Hell, I can use Blood Magic openly, and Merideth does nothing to me.

Even if you're not a mage, I thought they missed what could have been a fantastic scene with Merrill being discovered by the Templars, and you having to either A) let her be taken, knowing she will be killed or made tranquil due to blood magic, (one could argue she deserves it), or fighting to save her.

It would have added a lot to the Merrill romance, for one thing.

Anders completely avoiding discovery for six years despite him not being in hiding AT ALL, also  was hard to digest.

It just completely broke the immersion to the point where I don't think it ever came back. From that point on, it was just me playing Hawke, not me being in Hawke's shoes.

I never really thought about the Warden being forced, anymore than the Champion was forced to go to Kirkwall. If you're a mage, that decision makes no sense. All my decisions didn't matter in the end, the city still went to war. In Origins, we knew who we were going to fight at the end, it was the journey along the way that made it memorable. In DA2 it felt like it didn't matter what I did, at all.

Not even really sure why.

Modifié par Rafe34, 18 mars 2011 - 01:27 .

[DrGulag]

Rafe34 :

So you would say you cannot roleplay while playing a computer game.

I would say the twist at the end, with the Wardens possibly dying, and Morrigan's ritual/whether or not you accept it, gives a heck of a lot more depth to the option than I originally thought was going to be there.

You didn't feel them as badly, I would conjecture, because the writers only had to deal with a standard human rags to riches story. With the standard Bioware twist coming in the form of Anders blowing the Chantry to hell, and thus sending the city you've been saving the last six years to hell.

There was no need to worry about how different people might react to your Warden being a Dwarf commoner or noble, or a city elf, or a daelish, or a mage, or a human noble.

Again, though, my problem with DA2 was not the story, I thought it was good. It was the inability to roleplay, first, being forced into playing a human. I was simply attached to Hawke and along for the ride, not truly being in there. I have Mass Effect for that, and it works great. There was no reason to bring ME into DA. The combat system, the inane syncing of different animations, the ridiculous reuse of maps, all broke my immersion, something that you DONT want to do in an RPG. I felt like the party should be asking whether we'd been here before. (Because we had. Many times.)

Agree 100%

This game is way too linear for my liking and the options are limited right in the beginning.

Voicing the characters was a mistake since you can only play a human. Using the dialogue wheel was even bigger mistake, because you cant roleplay properly if dont know what you are about to say. And if you cant make meaningful choices throughout the game, why even have the chance to say anything? Just let the game do the talking for you.

[Lithuasil]

Rafe34 wrote...


I never really thought about the Warden being forced, anymore than the Champion was forced to go to Kirkwall. If you're a mage, that decision makes no sense. All my decisions didn't matter in the end, the city still went to war. In Origins, we knew who we were going to fight at the end, it was the journey along the way that made it memorable. In DA2 it felt like it didn't matter what I did, at all.

Not even really sure why.

Going to the only place where you still have family left (and thereby the only place where you have a little better chance then thousands of other refugees) does make sense to me.

And aside from two story quests in the third act, I really liked the story - heroes change the world without fail. Humans can try, can struggle, but will likely fail. The fact that things came crashing down despite your best efforts made the ending in DAII a thousand times more memorable, then the ending of origins, which I could predict before the intro had finished. They could've orchestrated the third act, the way of getting there, a little less ham fisted, but I'd have a hard time coming up with a better ending for DAII. Sure it was a massive sucker punch, but that made it memorable (kind of like me turning off the game and being mad for half an hour because the templars took my sister, until I understood why this was necessary to happen here, from a writers point of view, and that me having this big cold stone in my gut just meant it worked)

[Rafe34]

DrGulag wrote...

Rafe34 :

So you would say you cannot roleplay while playing a computer game.

I would say the twist at the end, with the Wardens possibly dying, and Morrigan's ritual/whether or not you accept it, gives a heck of a lot more depth to the option than I originally thought was going to be there.

You didn't feel them as badly, I would conjecture, because the writers only had to deal with a standard human rags to riches story. With the standard Bioware twist coming in the form of Anders blowing the Chantry to hell, and thus sending the city you've been saving the last six years to hell.

There was no need to worry about how different people might react to your Warden being a Dwarf commoner or noble, or a city elf, or a daelish, or a mage, or a human noble.

Again, though, my problem with DA2 was not the story, I thought it was good. It was the inability to roleplay, first, being forced into playing a human. I was simply attached to Hawke and along for the ride, not truly being in there. I have Mass Effect for that, and it works great. There was no reason to bring ME into DA. The combat system, the inane syncing of different animations, the ridiculous reuse of maps, all broke my immersion, something that you DONT want to do in an RPG. I felt like the party should be asking whether we'd been here before. (Because we had. Many times.)

Agree 100%

This game is way too linear for my liking and the options are limited right in the beginning.

Voicing the characters was a mistake since you can only play a human. Using the dialogue wheel was even bigger mistake, because you cant roleplay properly if dont know what you are about to say. And if you cant make meaningful choices throughout the game, why even have the chance to say anything? Just let the game do the talking for you.

Voicing the character was a mistake, not because you can then only play a human, but because it cuts down on roleplay options.

After all, the Asari, Turian, Volus, Quarian, Geth, (Legion), Krogan, Qunari, Dwarven, and Elvhen are all voiced by human actors, (and so are all the other races I'm sure I forgot).

They would merely have had to get a lot of different voice actors for the Warden/Hawke.

The problem is then having 6-7 options to respond to everything just takes way too much time.

[Medhia Nox]

You're all mistaken - Hawke is part of Isabela and Ander's story.

[Rafe34]

Lithuasil wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...


I never really thought about the Warden being forced, anymore than the Champion was forced to go to Kirkwall. If you're a mage, that decision makes no sense. All my decisions didn't matter in the end, the city still went to war. In Origins, we knew who we were going to fight at the end, it was the journey along the way that made it memorable. In DA2 it felt like it didn't matter what I did, at all.

Not even really sure why.

Going to the only place where you still have family left (and thereby the only place where you have a little better chance then thousands of other refugees) does make sense to me.

And aside from two story quests in the third act, I really liked the story - heroes change the world without fail. Humans can try, can struggle, but will likely fail. The fact that things came crashing down despite your best efforts made the ending in DAII a thousand times more memorable, then the ending of origins, which I could predict before the intro had finished. They could've orchestrated the third act, the way of getting there, a little less ham fisted, but I'd have a hard time coming up with a better ending for DAII. Sure it was a massive sucker punch, but that made it memorable (kind of like me turning off the game and being mad for half an hour because the templars took my sister, until I understood why this was necessary to happen here, from a writers point of view, and that me having this big cold stone in my gut just meant it worked)

Except, the city is FULL of Templars.

Why the heck would you take Bethany/go there yourself, to a city that is full of Templars?

Like I said, the ending in DA:O, we knew who we were fighting. It was the journey that was memorable. Although, the US ending, despite it being obvious, yes, etc., was still ridiculously good, IMO.

So, I play through all of DA2 and I can barely roleplay in it, just to get a memorable ending. 40+ hours of gameplay for 30min of awesome ending. (Though, from the mage side, I'd completely disagree. The ending made little-to-no sense. Orcino is just an idiot.)

DA:O had the standard hero ending, (with a rather dark twist if you accept Morrigan's ritual), which doesn't make it bad, I must point out, but you went through 80+ hours of roleplaying goodness to get there. Which game, therefore, brings more enjoyment?

Modifié par Rafe34, 18 mars 2011 - 01:49 .

[Rafe34]

Medhia Nox wrote...

You're all mistaken - Hawke is part of Isabela and Ander's story.

You laugh, but I did feel this way. Except with Varric, not Isabela and Anders.

Except, we really are part of Varric's story, ().

[AlexXIV]

Rafe34 wrote...

DrGulag wrote...

Rafe34 :

So you would say you cannot roleplay while playing a computer game.

I would say the twist at the end, with the Wardens possibly dying, and Morrigan's ritual/whether or not you accept it, gives a heck of a lot more depth to the option than I originally thought was going to be there.

You didn't feel them as badly, I would conjecture, because the writers only had to deal with a standard human rags to riches story. With the standard Bioware twist coming in the form of Anders blowing the Chantry to hell, and thus sending the city you've been saving the last six years to hell.

There was no need to worry about how different people might react to your Warden being a Dwarf commoner or noble, or a city elf, or a daelish, or a mage, or a human noble.

Again, though, my problem with DA2 was not the story, I thought it was good. It was the inability to roleplay, first, being forced into playing a human. I was simply attached to Hawke and along for the ride, not truly being in there. I have Mass Effect for that, and it works great. There was no reason to bring ME into DA. The combat system, the inane syncing of different animations, the ridiculous reuse of maps, all broke my immersion, something that you DONT want to do in an RPG. I felt like the party should be asking whether we'd been here before. (Because we had. Many times.)

Agree 100%

This game is way too linear for my liking and the options are limited right in the beginning.

Voicing the characters was a mistake since you can only play a human. Using the dialogue wheel was even bigger mistake, because you cant roleplay properly if dont know what you are about to say. And if you cant make meaningful choices throughout the game, why even have the chance to say anything? Just let the game do the talking for you.

Voicing the character was a mistake, not because you can then only play a human, but because it cuts down on roleplay options.

After all, the Asari, Turian, Volus, Quarian, Geth, (Legion), Krogan, Qunari, Dwarven, and Elvhen are all voiced by human actors, (and so are all the other races I'm sure I forgot).

They would merely have had to get a lot of different voice actors for the Warden/Hawke.

The problem is then having 6-7 options to respond to everything just takes way too much time.

Well of these 6-7 options you had many were useless because they led to the same answers. I prefer to have less choices that matter to having more choices which are fake.

[DrGulag]

nd aside from two story quests in the third act, I really liked the story - heroes change the world without fail. Humans can try, can struggle, but will likely fail. The fact that things came crashing down despite your best efforts made the ending in DAII a thousand times more memorable, then the ending of origins, which I could predict before the intro had finished. They could've orchestrated the third act, the way of getting there, a little less ham fisted, but I'd have a hard time coming up with a better ending for DAII. Sure it was a massive sucker punch, but that made it memorable (kind of like me turning off the game and being mad for half an hour because the templars took my sister, until I understood why this was necessary to happen here, from a writers point of view, and that me having this big cold stone in my gut just meant it worked)

The problem isn't this particular ending but that we have no means to make a difference. I think it's simply laziness from Bioware. They rushed this game and this is the result.

Instead of depth they went for the shock factor without giving us options. Kotor, Jade Empire, Mass Effect and Origins had meaningful choices.

Uncharted had a very memorable ending but this is supposed to be Bioware RPG.

Why not have 4 outcomes instead of 1 (it really is one outcome no matter what you choose)?

Well of these 6-7 options you had many were useless because they led to
the same answers. I prefer to have less choices that matter to having
more choices which are fake.

Are you kidding me? 

DA2 had one outcome. You kill Meredith and Orsino. The Circle of Magi rebell and that's that.

Compare that to Origins epilogue.

Modifié par DrGulag, 18 mars 2011 - 02:00 .

[Rafe34]

AlexXIV wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

DrGulag wrote...

Rafe34 :

So you would say you cannot roleplay while playing a computer game.

I would say the twist at the end, with the Wardens possibly dying, and Morrigan's ritual/whether or not you accept it, gives a heck of a lot more depth to the option than I originally thought was going to be there.

You didn't feel them as badly, I would conjecture, because the writers only had to deal with a standard human rags to riches story. With the standard Bioware twist coming in the form of Anders blowing the Chantry to hell, and thus sending the city you've been saving the last six years to hell.

There was no need to worry about how different people might react to your Warden being a Dwarf commoner or noble, or a city elf, or a daelish, or a mage, or a human noble.

Again, though, my problem with DA2 was not the story, I thought it was good. It was the inability to roleplay, first, being forced into playing a human. I was simply attached to Hawke and along for the ride, not truly being in there. I have Mass Effect for that, and it works great. There was no reason to bring ME into DA. The combat system, the inane syncing of different animations, the ridiculous reuse of maps, all broke my immersion, something that you DONT want to do in an RPG. I felt like the party should be asking whether we'd been here before. (Because we had. Many times.)

Agree 100%

This game is way too linear for my liking and the options are limited right in the beginning.

Voicing the characters was a mistake since you can only play a human. Using the dialogue wheel was even bigger mistake, because you cant roleplay properly if dont know what you are about to say. And if you cant make meaningful choices throughout the game, why even have the chance to say anything? Just let the game do the talking for you.

Voicing the character was a mistake, not because you can then only play a human, but because it cuts down on roleplay options.

After all, the Asari, Turian, Volus, Quarian, Geth, (Legion), Krogan, Qunari, Dwarven, and Elvhen are all voiced by human actors, (and so are all the other races I'm sure I forgot).

They would merely have had to get a lot of different voice actors for the Warden/Hawke.

The problem is then having 6-7 options to respond to everything just takes way too much time.

Well of these 6-7 options you had many were useless because they led to the same answers. I prefer to have less choices that matter to having more choices which are fake.

Um. No? They led to different answers. The conversations changed, they may get to the same place in the end, but they do that with both the convo wheel and in DA:O. (Generally, there were only 3 ways a companion could react, get mad, approve, or stay neutral. That's really the only 3 ways someone CAN react though. Of course, in DAO you did have something more like get really mad, get mad, stay neutral, approve, highly approve in the companion's answers.)

Just for example, the 6 answers in the DN origin, (yes I know Im using this one a lot, it's the one I just played, so sue me. ), all lead to 6 different responses. Or at least 5 do, I assume the 6th leads to a different one as well.

[Rafe34]

DrGulag wrote...

nd aside from two story quests in the third act, I really liked the story - heroes change the world without fail. Humans can try, can struggle, but will likely fail. The fact that things came crashing down despite your best efforts made the ending in DAII a thousand times more memorable, then the ending of origins, which I could predict before the intro had finished. They could've orchestrated the third act, the way of getting there, a little less ham fisted, but I'd have a hard time coming up with a better ending for DAII. Sure it was a massive sucker punch, but that made it memorable (kind of like me turning off the game and being mad for half an hour because the templars took my sister, until I understood why this was necessary to happen here, from a writers point of view, and that me having this big cold stone in my gut just meant it worked)

The problem isn't this particular ending but that we have no means to make a difference. I think it's simply laziness from Bioware. They rushed this game and this is the result.

Instead of depth they went for the shock factor without giving us options like they have done in their past games (Kotor, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Origins etc).

Uncharted had a very memorable ending but this is supposed to be Bioware RPG.

Why not have 4 outcomes instead of 1 (it really is one outcome no matter what you choose)?

Don't you hit on KotOR. I keel you!

(KotOR had 3 endings, by the way, not one. Heck, JE had 3 endings. What are you talking about as regards those two?)

Modifié par Rafe34, 18 mars 2011 - 01:54 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Rafe34 - actually, I'm not laughing at all (except in a bitter "jokes on me" sort of way)

Anders and Isabela are the only two that cause real change in this game - and I get to watch them.

As for Varric - he's too much awesome for me to care. I wanted to play him instead of Hawke.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 18 mars 2011 - 01:55 .

[DrGulag]

Don't you hit on KotOR. I keel you!

(KotOR had 3 endings, by the way, not one. Heck, JE had 3 endings. What are you talking about as regards those two?)

I think you misunderstood me (have to edit that message to make it clearer lol). I used them as examples of very good RPG's that Bioware has produced in the past. Those games had choices that DA2 lacked completely.

Modifié par DrGulag, 18 mars 2011 - 01:59 .

[Rafe34]

DrGulag wrote...

Are you kidding me? 

DA2 had one outcome. You kill Meredith and Orsino. The Circle of Magi rebell and that's that.

Compare that to Origins epilogue.

Which leads me to think DA3 will either be about Hawke or be about a 3rd character.

Which is actually okay with me, if its a 3rd character. I really don't want to play Hawke again. DA:O stands alone- the problem was making a sequel to it. It doesn't need one, it's too hard to do given the variety of choices that happened at the end and during the game.

Which brings me to a totally different point. I noticed one of the flags in DA2 was whether or not you saved Connor. Both of my imports I have used so far I did save him. What, if anything, happens in DA2 if you either gave him to the demon or killed him? (I found nothing related to that in-game if you saved him.)

Totally different subject, slightly more OT: I think one of the other reasons that I liked DAO's characters more than DA2's was that characters could turn on you, (to the point of trying to kill you), before the big final battle, (Zevran, Leliana, Wynne).

[Rafe34]

DrGulag wrote...

Don't you hit on KotOR. I keel you!

(KotOR had 3 endings, by the way, not one. Heck, JE had 3 endings. What are you talking about as regards those two?)

I think you misunderstood me (have to edit that message to make it clearer lol). I used them as examples of very good RPG's that Bioware has produced in the past. Those games had choices that DA2 lacked completely.

Ah, I did misunderstand you, thought you were saying BW just went for shock value in those games.

Thank goodness. I thought I was going to have to do very bad things to you. We're good.

Modifié par Rafe34, 18 mars 2011 - 02:01 .

[Lithuasil]

Rafe34 wrote...

Except, the city is FULL of Templars.

Why the heck would you take Bethany/go there yourself, to a city that is full of Templars?

Like I said, the ending in DA:O, we knew who we were fighting. It was the journey that was memorable. Although, the US ending, despite it being obvious, yes, etc., was still ridiculously good, IMO.

So, I play through all of DA2 and I can barely roleplay in it, just to get a memorable ending. 40+ hours of gameplay for 30min of awesome ending. (Though, from the mage side, I'd completely disagree. The ending made little-to-no sense. Orcino is just an idiot.)

DA:O had the standard hero ending, (with a rather dark twist if you accept Morrigan's ritual), which doesn't make it bad, I must point out, but you went through 80+ hours of roleplaying goodness to get there. Which game, therefore, brings more enjoyment?

While I'd agree on Orsino being... well the guy looks like gargamel, what did we expect?
To me, Da2 was a lot more fun, simply because I cared - I tried to care, when my human nobles family died in Origins, I tried to care when the circle was wiped, but I'm the only one who does, because the game, in all it's massiveness, didn't properly support so many variables. Da2 on the other hand, had dozens of occasions where I was emotionally moved by onscreen action. The scene after my mother died, and Merill came in, an inept, akward, naive character trying their best to emotionally support her lover, that scene alone brought me a thousand times closer to Hawke, then I've ever been to any of my Wardens.

Of course you're right, in a perfect world, I'd like a game with actual freedom to roleplay - but since we have to pick our poison, I'd much rather die of rushed out third acts, and taste the sweetness of actual human drama on the way

[rumination888]

BingoParadox wrote...
I mean, let's total it up:
There's a brother and sister killed by darkspawn...
A mother killed by an insane mage...
An uncle who stole mom's inhertance and left the family destitute...
A girlfriend willing to watch half a city burn before she owns up to what she's done...
Another potential girlfriend so wrapped up in a demon's BS she almost got her entire village killed...
A
best friend who uses you to collect parts for a bomb (since it's pretty
obvious he had no intention of getting rid of
Justice/Vengeance/whatever), and then uses you as a distraction while he
plants it...
And the war you just spent six years trying to do something about happening no matter what you do.
The overall story line is so depressing, I can't believe it. And nothing you do in the game can change a single bit of it.

My
choice, after Anders plays terrorist and pushes the *WAR* button, would
be to kill him and then turn to Aveline and say "You know what, I spoke
with the Ferelden King the other day. He seems like an OK fellow. What
do you say we hop a boat back home and leave these sick idiots to kill
each other off as they are so obviously hell-bent on doing?"

Maybe I'm delving too deeply into this, but... Anders tells you that the only way to seperate him and Justice is via death.

When he destroys the chantry and you choose to kill him, Anders accomplishes two goals:
He fulfills what Justice wants - vengeance upon the chantry.
He fulfills what Anders wants - seperation from Justice.

I'm sure the devs wanted the player to be so offended that they'd kill Anders... all to make the story more bittersweet in the end. And that is exactly what the majority did.

[Rafe34]

Shavon wrote...

I think all of the characters are awesome, well written, have depth, and reasons for being horrible, or wonderful. Just like the ME2 characters, we have a diverse group with different points of view. You can choose to pursue friendship or rivalry with them, save them from their own fate, or leave them in the dust.

Loving or hating a character, either response is strong, and is just a sign that Bw did well again.

Varric has no reason for his awesomeness.

I agree that nearly all of the characters are great, I just like DAO's more, (Merrill does not strike me as being well-written, but maybe that's because I wasn't given the option to slap her upside the face for her insane fancy with demons and blood-magic.)