206 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Vandicus wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Can you name a "big decision" in Origins that required complex thought? It all seemed pretty basic to me. Be good and save everybody, or don't. Black and white, good and evil. Choosing between an obvious choice of good and an equally obvious evil choice is not complex and does not require much thought.

Connor (despite the get out clause), the dwarven leader and the anvil. None of them are good versus evil decisions.

Psshh. You mention yourself that Connor has a get out clause. Harrowmant is a traditionalist and incompetent. Bhelen is tyrannical, but advances dwarven society. Sure Bhelen assassinates people, but Dwarven nobles do that all the time. Simple choice between competent and incompetent.  The anvil is totally unnecessary to keep. Keeping it is obviously the evil thing to do, and the benefit for keeping it is golems.

Obviously you know only half of it and you make decisions without thinking them through. I am not explaining it all because it would derail from the topic and ... there are at least 4 possible endings depending what you do with the paragon crown and the anvil. But from the way you judge things I guess you killed Loghain and think it is the only good and proper choice?

[Ziggeh]

Vandicus wrote...

Psshh. You mention yourself that Connor has a get out clause. Harrowmant is a traditionalist and incompetent. Bhelen is tyrannical, but advances dwarven society. Sure Bhelen assassinates people, but Dwarven nobles do that all the time. Simple choice between competent and incompetent.  The anvil is totally unnecessary to keep. Keeping it is obviously the evil thing to do, and the benefit for keeping it is golems.

Unwarranted reductionism makes it less complex, yes.

As Alex said, this has been discussed at length a number of times and this doesn't need a derail. The fact that they have been discussed at length a number of times kind of proves my point.

Myabe we'll be discussing the intricate complexities of executing your only healing capable companion at length and I will be proved wrong in time. We'll see.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 20 mars 2011 - 07:07 .

[Vandicus]

AlexXIV wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Can you name a "big decision" in Origins that required complex thought? It all seemed pretty basic to me. Be good and save everybody, or don't. Black and white, good and evil. Choosing between an obvious choice of good and an equally obvious evil choice is not complex and does not require much thought.

Connor (despite the get out clause), the dwarven leader and the anvil. None of them are good versus evil decisions.

Psshh. You mention yourself that Connor has a get out clause. Harrowmant is a traditionalist and incompetent. Bhelen is tyrannical, but advances dwarven society. Sure Bhelen assassinates people, but Dwarven nobles do that all the time. Simple choice between competent and incompetent.  The anvil is totally unnecessary to keep. Keeping it is obviously the evil thing to do, and the benefit for keeping it is golems.

Obviously you know only half of it and you make decisions without thinking them through. I am not explaining it all because it would derail from the topic and ... there are at least 4 possible endings depending what you do with the paragon crown and the anvil. But from the way you judge things I guess you killed Loghain and think it is the only good and proper choice?

Ah yes, 4 possible epilogue endings that have no impact on me whatsoever. Bhelen is clearly superior to Harrowmant. I concede that it wasn't as blanket good vs evil as the Urn and the rest of DA:O, but Bhelen is still the better ruler but evil(hell there have been multiple threads about how people liked/disliked that the evil choice was better) and Harrowmant is honorable but inept.

Loghain's death/recruitment is really meh. Doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Recruiting him T's off Alistair. Only matters if in that run through the player wanted a relationship with Alistair afterwards. To me Loghain was mentally sick, no real benefit or disadvantage in either choice. So far, choosing to spare him/kill him is only relevant to the companion characters, he never does anything else, even in the epilogue.

Also,
Seriously wtf, trying to turn this into a flame thread?

[AlexXIV]

Vandicus wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Can you name a "big decision" in Origins that required complex thought? It all seemed pretty basic to me. Be good and save everybody, or don't. Black and white, good and evil. Choosing between an obvious choice of good and an equally obvious evil choice is not complex and does not require much thought.

Connor (despite the get out clause), the dwarven leader and the anvil. None of them are good versus evil decisions.

Psshh. You mention yourself that Connor has a get out clause. Harrowmant is a traditionalist and incompetent. Bhelen is tyrannical, but advances dwarven society. Sure Bhelen assassinates people, but Dwarven nobles do that all the time. Simple choice between competent and incompetent.  The anvil is totally unnecessary to keep. Keeping it is obviously the evil thing to do, and the benefit for keeping it is golems.

Obviously you know only half of it and you make decisions without thinking them through. I am not explaining it all because it would derail from the topic and ... there are at least 4 possible endings depending what you do with the paragon crown and the anvil. But from the way you judge things I guess you killed Loghain and think it is the only good and proper choice?

Ah yes, 4 possible epilogue endings that have no impact on me whatsoever. Bhelen is clearly superior to Harrowmant. I concede that it wasn't as blanket good vs evil as the Urn and the rest of DA:O, but Bhelen is still the better ruler but evil(hell there have been multiple threads about how people liked/disliked that the evil choice was better) and Harrowmant is honorable but inept.

Loghain's death/recruitment is really meh. Doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Recruiting him T's off Alistair. Only matters if in that run through the player wanted a relationship with Alistair afterwards. To me Loghain was mentally sick, no real benefit or disadvantage in either choice. So far, choosing to spare him/kill him is only relevant to the companion characters, he never does anything else, even in the epilogue.

Also,
Seriously wtf, trying to turn this into a flame thread?

No, I am only saying, and that's the last thing, if you think Bhelen should rule, then killing Branka is unneccessary and keeping the anvil the proper choice. Of course my opinon must not be yours, I could discuss this for a very long time and many arguments, but not here.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 20 mars 2011 - 07:12 .

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...
Lol, well I usually play a good RPG 5-6 times. But I can't watch the same movie or read the same book twice short after. Some months later maybe or half a year. Guess people are different.

I once watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas three times in a row.

But yes, I understand that the available diversity within an rpg is one measure of it's strength. It's just not one I'm able to evaluate well myself. That said, I feel one of the main themes of the plot was impotence in the face of events, something that I felt it didn't sell well, leaving you with just the impotence, rather than the tragedy of it.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 20 mars 2011 - 07:27 .

[Apollo Starflare]

MortalEngines wrote...

This definitely sums up the feelings I've had for the game. Fantastic story, let down by unpolished and rushed mechanics. People beat up the game for not feeling as 'epic' as Origins, but I love that, I'm tired of having the "started as nothing but became a hero!" story line.

I mean, I love my Warden, but I feel much more closer to Hawke. When I'm playing the Warden, I feel like some story book hero but when I play Hawke I feel like a PERSON.

This and the OP sum up my feelings quite well, I agree.

[Raoune]

I found it absolutely heartbreaking. I remember playing a game of DA:O where I thought "how few companions can I have at the end of this game?" and with my first playthrough of DA2 I repeated that, but by just playing it honestly.

If you're playing as a Hawke who wants to provide for loved ones, have fun and not get too serious about life, but then gets dragged in to the horrors of it all, it really is awfully upsetting.

[Karagoe]

I CANT' read this much atm gawwwwd I'm missing a contact lense.. Make posts in 3 word sentences so I know wtf is going on! WHERE ARE YOU YOU WONDERFUL THING THAT MAKES ME SEE!

[Skyplant]

Looking forward to DA3, since they've begun work on it apparently.

[Lisa_H]

I agree with the OP. I think the story of DA2 was very refreshing. I loved DAO too, but the story was very cliché even if it was done well. DA2 felt like breath of fresh air

[Mongerty2]

Really, DA2 followed almost exactly the example set up by ME2. It was a darker, more character focused game that seems to heavily lean on whatever happens in DA 3 to validate the story. The classic "middle" tale that just seems to have the aspiration of setting the table.

I enjoyed it, and forced myself to play Origins again just to get a different import (loved the game, don't get me wrong. The Deep Roads and Elven stories just drag out soooo much). It really is up to Bioware to make DA2 a better story by making DA3 take a step back to the "Epic" quest that relies at least a little on DA2's story.

(Ooops, didn't see that this was a zombie thread, still, 3 months isn't THAT bad.)

Modifié par Mongerty2, 26 juin 2011 - 07:50 .

[sphinxess]

Lots of digging around in those 3 month old threads

[csfteeeer]

i'm going to follow this guy...

Cause i wanna see how much more is he going to Kiss DA2's A**.


Oh and btw, there is NOTHING in DA2 that can come even REMOTELY close to Baldur's Gate.

Modifié par csfteeeer, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:13 .

[nuclearpengu1nn]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Great Scott, look at the time!



Sorry, couldn't help myself. I've been itching to use that picture for a while.

[dragonflight288]

I like the game.

[Foolsfolly]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I like the game.

It's not a bad game. It's no where near BioWare's best nor one of its best. But it's certainly not a bad game. Just alright.

Ending's complete bullocks though.

[erynnar]

In before the lock! Yeah, three stories, not one. And *points and runs in terror* ZOMBIE THREAD!!!! RUN!!!!

[LobselVith8]

Vandicus wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Can you name a "big decision" in Origins that required complex thought? It all seemed pretty basic to me. Be good and save everybody, or don't. Black and white, good and evil. Choosing between an obvious choice of good and an equally obvious evil choice is not complex and does not require much thought.

Connor (despite the get out clause), the dwarven leader and the anvil. None of them are good versus evil decisions.

Psshh. You mention yourself that Connor has a get out clause. Harrowmant is a traditionalist and incompetent. Bhelen is tyrannical, but advances dwarven society. Sure Bhelen assassinates people, but Dwarven nobles do that all the time. Simple choice between competent and incompetent.  The anvil is totally unnecessary to keep. Keeping it is obviously the evil thing to do, and the benefit for keeping it is golems.

Why is sparing the Anvil "obviously evil"? The golems provided a hundred years of peace to the dwarven people and the golems beat back the first Archdemon. Had Caridin not kept the golems from the dwarven kingdoms because he disliked how his invention was being used, perhaps the dwarven civilization wouldn't have fallen, with people being eaten alive and women being violated. I think Caridin's decision to keep the Anvil from his people could be seen as evil, considering what transpired to them at the hands of the darkspawn. The Anvil can mean the difference between the continued survival of the dwarven people or their inevitable defeat at the hands of the darkspawn.

[TEWR]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Can you name a "big decision" in Origins that required complex thought? It all seemed pretty basic to me. Be good and save everybody, or don't. Black and white, good and evil. Choosing between an obvious choice of good and an equally obvious evil choice is not complex and does not require much thought.

Connor (despite the get out clause), the dwarven leader and the anvil. None of them are good versus evil decisions.

Psshh. You mention yourself that Connor has a get out clause. Harrowmant is a traditionalist and incompetent. Bhelen is tyrannical, but advances dwarven society. Sure Bhelen assassinates people, but Dwarven nobles do that all the time. Simple choice between competent and incompetent.  The anvil is totally unnecessary to keep. Keeping it is obviously the evil thing to do, and the benefit for keeping it is golems.

Why is sparing the Anvil "obviously evil"? The golems provided a hundred years of peace to the dwarven people and the golems beat back the first Archdemon. Had Caridin not kept the golems from the dwarven kingdoms because he disliked how his invention was being used, perhaps the dwarven civilization wouldn't have fallen, with people being eaten alive and women being violated. I think Caridin's decision to keep the Anvil from his people could be seen as evil, considering what transpired to them at the hands of the darkspawn. The Anvil can mean the difference between the continued survival of the dwarven people or their inevitable defeat at the hands of the darkspawn.

Agreed. And considering Shale might possibly become a dwarf again, that means the Anvil isn't evil if that happens.
 

But the dwarves should definitely know about the ability to reverse golems back into dwarves. Especially since we could've given a tracing of the tablet to the Shaperate which is proof that golems are made from dwarves. So it'll be known to almost all of the populus of Orzammar.

[Foolsfolly]

Golems are not obviously evil.

It's morally gray. When your race faces complete annihilation before the darkspawn, you take measures that might have once seemed too far. Orzammar stands because of golems. Without those hardy constructs the dwarves would be gone, which means an entire army and culture wiped out. Which would drastically have changed the outcome of the Fifth Blight and the Battle of Vigil's Keep against the Mother's forces.

Golems secured the future and saved lives in the long run.

It's a perfect example of well done morality in the game. Dwarves are sacrificed for the greater good.

The only problem is, damn do we kill a lot of golems in the Deep Roads over the course of this series. You'd think Orzammar would have a program to collect golems to defend their borders.

[erynnar]

I always wondered about that too Fools, I hated killing all those golems when they might have been used in Orzammar to defend and beat back the darkspawn. We kill even more in DA2. I wanted a quest to find a way to fix them so they weren't running mad and could volunteer to stay golems and help fight the good fight or find a way to make them dwarves again.

[Cody]

Tsk tsk tsk

Modifié par CodyMelch, 02 juillet 2011 - 05:44 .

[Chuvvy]

I like that I don't find biowares "darkest" story dark at all. That either says something about bioware, or me.