125 réponses à ce sujet

[Noatz]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Again, I know this is Bioware's style.

Again, I think DA2 does a worse job of it.

Then you've chosen the wrong example to try and argue this point.

What you want in DA2: "To be able to shout RAAGHH DIE BLOOD MAGE at Merril"

What you should also want in Origins roleplaying a similar character: "To be able to shout RAAGHH DIE WITCH OF THE WILDS at Morrigan"

[MColes]

StingingVelvet wrote...

MColes wrote...

In Dragon Age: Origins you could roleplay that scene a lot better, either leaving her or killing her or something.

That's only an illusion.  You just notice this, because it disagrees with what you wanted to do.  Both games were like this, and they always have been.  Name a single BioWare game and I can tell you something similar.  But in this case, fact is, SHE had to perform the ritual on Flemeth's amulet.

You could kill Zevran and leave Sten to die.  You can probably reject other companions, though I didn't personally.  Even when you could not they presented the illusion of choice better in DAO, which I have said countless times in this thread.  I know Bioware games are not like Fallout games, the choices are not as impacting on the world and game, but the illusion was done better in DAO.  In DA2 I feel how railroaded it is.

You can also not recruit Isabela, leave Fenris to deal with whatever on his own, Kill Anders for his actions, choose one of 3 different ways for your sibling to leave/die, and you can pretty much have any companion but Varric leave you for your choices in the story.   Zevren and Sten have zero baring on the overall story, that's why they're expendable. 

Notice how you have to take Alistair, and Morrigan? Same thing, you're just grasping at straws in your argument.  Both games have it, thats the problem with a stronger narrative.  In the Bethesda games, the narrative involving companions is much less strong, and the games are designed to be so you can go anywhere and kill anything randomly.  They work for what they are, but never EVER have I considered their stories on par with BioWare games.  I play those for the open world freedom they give.   Games are all guilty of the illusion of choice, it's a game.  The only place you get real choice, is in real life.

[MKDAWUSS]

Capeo wrote...

There was no real choice in DAO. I can't understand how people keep arguing that there were so many choices that effected the game. The outcome is the same, the choices just revolve around who is there at the end and that's it. It's all window dressing with no consequence.

You did get to make an impact on those non-choices. Like who got to lead who. Sure, things started to more or less head to a common reset point in the epilogue, but you did get to make an impact on a few corners of society, even if briefly.

[MKDAWUSS]

MColes wrote...

Notice how you have to take Alistair, and Morrigan? Same thing, you're just grasping at straws in your argument.  Both games have it, thats the problem with a stronger narrative.  In the Bethesda games, the narrative involving companions is much less strong, and the games are designed to be so you can go anywhere and kill anything randomly.  They work for what they are, but never EVER have I considered their stories on par with BioWare games.  I play those for the open world freedom they give.   Games are all guilty of the illusion of choice, it's a game.  The only place you get real choice, is in real life.

I have plenty of meaningul choices in sports games

And the AI creates its own storylines all by itself.

[LobselVith8]

StingingVelvet wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Why is Merrill a "dumb bimbo"? I never got that impression from her in DA2. Merrill''s willing to leave behind everyone and everything that she knows for a culture she's completely unfamiliar with, in the attempt to restore a piece of her people's history. Despite everything that it's costing her, she never waivers. She knows the risks that are involved, and she's willing to gamble her life on the slim chance that restoring the Eluvian and dealing with the demon will give her people back a piece of their lost culture, even though there's a high chance that it'll end in failure.

From a chantry point of view she's a "dumb bimbo" for thinking anything justified blood magic and working with demons.

From the Chantry POV, all Dalish mages are apostates, and she's maleficar for being a blood mage, not a "dumb bimbo."

[MColes]

MKDAWUSS wrote...

MColes wrote...

Notice how you have to take Alistair, and Morrigan? Same thing, you're just grasping at straws in your argument.  Both games have it, thats the problem with a stronger narrative.  In the Bethesda games, the narrative involving companions is much less strong, and the games are designed to be so you can go anywhere and kill anything randomly.  They work for what they are, but never EVER have I considered their stories on par with BioWare games.  I play those for the open world freedom they give.   Games are all guilty of the illusion of choice, it's a game.  The only place you get real choice, is in real life.

I have plenty of meaningul choices in sports games

And the AI creates its own storylines all by itself.

Yea, but I can't choose to do something else.  What if Im playing NHL 2011, and I decide I want to start using my hocky stick like a sword and beat everyone, including my team.  yo wtf, denied my choice!

[MColes]

LobselVith8 wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Why is Merrill a "dumb bimbo"? I never got that impression from her in DA2. Merrill''s willing to leave behind everyone and everything that she knows for a culture she's completely unfamiliar with, in the attempt to restore a piece of her people's history. Despite everything that it's costing her, she never waivers. She knows the risks that are involved, and she's willing to gamble her life on the slim chance that restoring the Eluvian and dealing with the demon will give her people back a piece of their lost culture, even though there's a high chance that it'll end in failure.

From a chantry point of view she's a "dumb bimbo" for thinking anything justified blood magic and working with demons.

From the Chantry POV, all Dalish mages are apostates, and she's maleficar for being a blood mage, not a "dumb bimbo."

Dumb yes, bimbo no.  Merrill will even admit she's stupid for her actions later on, and she is niave, even amongst the Dalish.  She THINKS she knows the risks involved, she's arrogant in reality, even if she doesn't come across as it.  She's supremely confident that what she is doing it right, even if it effects the lives of others, who don't want anything to do with it.  And then she was wrong.  Everything she felt strong and passionate about, throwing all her effort behind and KNOWING within her, was wrong.  It was a pride demon, feeding off her PRIDE.  Her folly costs Marethari her life, and who knows what other reprocussions down the road. 

[Arppis]

StingingVelvet wrote...

The Big Nothing wrote...

There were some things lacking in DA 2, but overall, I'm satisfied; it feels like now that they have the mechanics worked out, they can focus more on the story/choices.

I don't think that's really an excuse since the previous game in the series got both right already.

No, mechanics sucked. Especialy combat. Now it's much better.

[Nyaore]

Noatz wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Again, I know this is Bioware's style.

Again, I think DA2 does a worse job of it.

Then you've chosen the wrong example to try and argue this point.

What you want in DA2: "To be able to shout RAAGHH DIE BLOOD MAGE at Merril"

What you should also want in Origins roleplaying a similar character: "To be able to shout RAAGHH DIE WITCH OF THE WILDS at Morrigan"

Or even do the same at Alistair if you're a Templar fearing, or all around Chantry hating, mage.

[LobselVith8]

MColes wrote...

Dumb yes, bimbo no.  Merrill will even admit she's stupid for her actions later on, and she is niave, even amongst the Dalish. 

I respectfully disagree. I don't think her actions were dumb. I thought they were misguided, and I didn't think her life was worth risking for the knowledge to restore the Eluvian, but she clearly thought her efforts would benefit her people, and was willing to lay down her life on the slim chance that she could restore an ancient elven device that murdered two of her friends. You can tell that their deaths still haunt her when she reveals that she thought she saw one of them the other day, and I can see how she juggles the loss of their lives with restoring a part of her people's history.
 

MColes wrote...

She THINKS she knows the risks involved, she's arrogant in reality, even if she doesn't come across as it. 

She knows the risks involved, and is willing to die for the slim chance that her risk might benefit her people. She asks Hawke to kill her if she becomes an abomination, which she knows is likely based on her dialogue with Aveline. She's not ignorant of the risks involved, she's fully aware of how dangerous this is, and she wants to do it because the premise behind the Dalish are all about restoring the lost knowledge of their people.

MColes wrote...

She's supremely confident that what she is doing it right, even if it effects the lives of others, who don't want anything to do with it. 

She was exiled from the clan, and the only person's life at risk when she goes to see Audacity is her own. Hawke is there to kill her if things go wrong, and she knows the risks involved. It's not her fault the Keeper loved her like a daughter and sacrificed her own life without Merrill's consent.

MColes wrote...

And then she was wrong. 

Being wrong doesn't make her dumb. And we have no idea what would have happened between Merrill and Audacity because the Keeper stepped in and made a decision. She kept her clan there for years when she should've left years ago, as Merrill points out.

MColes wrote...

Everything she felt strong and passionate about, throwing all her effort behind and KNOWING within her, was wrong.  It was a pride demon, feeding off her PRIDE.  Her folly costs Marethari her life, and who knows what other reprocussions down the road. 

I saw no pride in her willingness to put down her life for restoring the Eluvian; it's no different than the sacrifice others make for the benefit of society. Merrill put her life in danger because she thought the risks would benefit the Dalish people, and if it didn't, the only person who lost their life was Merrill. I see no pride in being willing to die for knowledge. There's also nothing to indicate the Pride Demon was even feeding off of her as you suggest.

[StingingVelvet]

MColes wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

MColes wrote...

In Dragon Age: Origins you could roleplay that scene a lot better, either leaving her or killing her or something.

That's only an illusion.  You just notice this, because it disagrees with what you wanted to do.  Both games were like this, and they always have been.  Name a single BioWare game and I can tell you something similar.  But in this case, fact is, SHE had to perform the ritual on Flemeth's amulet.

You could kill Zevran and leave Sten to die.  You can probably reject other companions, though I didn't personally.  Even when you could not they presented the illusion of choice better in DAO, which I have said countless times in this thread.  I know Bioware games are not like Fallout games, the choices are not as impacting on the world and game, but the illusion was done better in DAO.  In DA2 I feel how railroaded it is.

You can also not recruit Isabela, leave Fenris to deal with whatever on his own, Kill Anders for his actions, choose one of 3 different ways for your sibling to leave/die, and you can pretty much have any companion but Varric leave you for your choices in the story.   Zevren and Sten have zero baring on the overall story, that's why they're expendable. 

Notice how you have to take Alistair, and Morrigan? Same thing, you're just grasping at straws in your argument.  Both games have it, thats the problem with a stronger narrative.  In the Bethesda games, the narrative involving companions is much less strong, and the games are designed to be so you can go anywhere and kill anything randomly.  They work for what they are, but never EVER have I considered their stories on par with BioWare games.  I play those for the open world freedom they give.   Games are all guilty of the illusion of choice, it's a game.  The only place you get real choice, is in real life.

I don't know how else I can say this: YES, both games are the same.  However DAO did a better job at making me feel like I could make the choices I wanted.  I have said this like 10 times now in this thread and my templar thread.  I know what Bioware games are like, I know the choice and change limitations are there because they are so narrative-focused.  I am saying DAO presented this better than DA2.

[StingingVelvet]

Arppis wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

The Big Nothing wrote...

There were some things lacking in DA 2, but overall, I'm satisfied; it feels like now that they have the mechanics worked out, they can focus more on the story/choices.

I don't think that's really an excuse since the previous game in the series got both right already.

No, mechanics sucked. Especialy combat. Now it's much better.

Maybe on Xbox, I wouldn't know, but not on PC.

[Everwarden]

The Big Nothing wrote...
 it feels like now that they have the mechanics worked out, they can focus more on the story/choices.

The mechanics have also been largely panned. Bring back the style of Origins. 

[boraxalmighty]

Ill be honest with you guys. My problem with this game is that there is too much choice. This game has a very specific direction that all the extra options throw certain points of the story off and diminish the storytelling. Don't know if it would be a better game that way but the story would be much more solid with consistency. Glitches and recycled dungeons aside everything else was very well done.

[WidowMaker9394]

Good job delivering the amulet if you kill the Dalish's First. You need her to repay your debt to Flemeth, whether you want it or not.

[Helen0rz]

Zing Freelancer wrote...

I had to face palm for five minutes and then scream "WHAT THE **** AM I FIGHTING FOR?" to my monitor when Orsino turned to blood magic...

Now thinking of playing for the second time with a warrior Hawke makes me irc, I dont want to be stuck with Anders as healer again!

I did that with Anders and THEN Orsino...but it is implied the Orsino has...dabbed into blood magic. he never put it to use but he was interested. In Quentin's place you see that note about the books he gets from a Circle friend O.

focoe wrote...

in DA:O if you side with the dalish, they join you in the final fight, and if u didnt you get the werewolves. no matter what you decide in DA2, all you end up is fighting blood mages, even when you side with them. and you have to kill the top mage and templar no matter what

look we all know that its not real life.  we know they have to guide us down to a certain limited number of endings.  but, hey could have easily given us diplomatic and peaceful options to talk down that mage or templar from being that nuts.  they could have left in the fight sequence and come up with something  creative to keep it in there, like the idol she holds uses her image to fight everyone even though shes surrendered.

and this is when I think 'The Champion of Kirkwall' is downplayed by 'The Hero of Fereldan'.

DA2, just a big city in crisis...kinda like Denerim was to have a lake with the Circle in it and go from there. You saved a city, a big costal city but that's it. Throughout the game I tried to find what's Hawke's purpose, small town boy/girl from a family of apostate trying to survive in the midst of a crisis and came out on top? Looking at the hero of Fereldan it seems like we have a bigger purpose doesn't it? Fereldan's a nation that's under seige and we must rally everyone, unify them to fight against the darkspawn. 

DA:O is just way more epic than DA2.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Why is Merrill a "dumb bimbo"? I never got that impression from her in DA2. Merrill''s willing to leave behind everyone and everything that she knows for a culture she's completely unfamiliar with, in the attempt to restore a piece of her people's history. Despite everything that it's costing her, she never waivers.

I wonder about that too.  I didn't get that impression from DA:O at all about her.

[Helen0rz]

StingingVelvet wrote...

DA2 disappointed me in the area of choice and playing a character the way I want to, as in him/her having a personality and my decisions in the game being based on that personality.  I think the Merril introduction is a great example why.

Merril wants to open a magic door and so she uses blood magic to summon a demon to do so.  Now, her personal beliefs aside this is a pretty ****g HUGE deal in the world of Dragon Age.  A pro-chantry templar sort of player should want to kill her outright, or at least subdue her.  An Anders-like mage supporter who views evil mages as the reason all mages are hated and feared should certainly want to stop her or leave her or something.  Blood mages are found throughout the game are are always treated as evil characters to be stopped, abominations waiting to happen.

So... what are your potential responses to Merril?

"No problem" or "hey you're naughty but let's keep going."

Is it just me or is that lazy design?  In Dragon Age: Origins you could roleplay that scene a lot better, either leaving her or killing her or something.  In DA2 the whole game feels much more on rails and there is nothing I can do there but shrug my shoulders and move on.  For someone roleplaying a templar or something it must be absolutely infuriating.

I felt like there were moments like this all through the game, though this one is a great and easy to understand example.  Thoughts?

I didn't give her the dagger in the end in both play through. the outcome was the same anyways!

[Vandicus]

Helen0rz wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

DA2 disappointed me in the area of choice and playing a character the way I want to, as in him/her having a personality and my decisions in the game being based on that personality.  I think the Merril introduction is a great example why.

Merril wants to open a magic door and so she uses blood magic to summon a demon to do so.  Now, her personal beliefs aside this is a pretty ****g HUGE deal in the world of Dragon Age.  A pro-chantry templar sort of player should want to kill her outright, or at least subdue her.  An Anders-like mage supporter who views evil mages as the reason all mages are hated and feared should certainly want to stop her or leave her or something.  Blood mages are found throughout the game are are always treated as evil characters to be stopped, abominations waiting to happen.

So... what are your potential responses to Merril?

"No problem" or "hey you're naughty but let's keep going."

Is it just me or is that lazy design?  In Dragon Age: Origins you could roleplay that scene a lot better, either leaving her or killing her or something.  In DA2 the whole game feels much more on rails and there is nothing I can do there but shrug my shoulders and move on.  For someone roleplaying a templar or something it must be absolutely infuriating.

I felt like there were moments like this all through the game, though this one is a great and easy to understand example.  Thoughts?

I didn't give her the dagger in the end in both play through. the outcome was the same anyways!

So, I'm curious, which result did you get both playthroughs? Seriously, there's more than one, so you'll need to be more specific.

[Emanipation]

well just finished my playthrooo, n i gotto say...DA:O was game of the year.. DA2 is **** of the year..Kirkwall all the time...now waitin for Skyrim n Kingdoms of Amalur....

[Blacklash93]

You needed her for the ritual.

Killing someone at the slightest display of doing something dangerous or looked down upon is just as unrealistic.

And Merrill is not evil. Blood magic does not make you evil.

[StingingVelvet]

Blacklash93 wrote...

You needed her for the ritual.

Killing someone at the slightest display of doing something dangerous or looked down upon is just as unrealistic.

And Merrill is not evil. Blood magic does not make you evil.

Again, templars kill blood mages on sight.  Also, the barrier to Flemmeth is down after she does blood magic, you don't need her anymore.

[Karagoe]

Or is she ..its the sweet quiet ones you have to look out for O____@

[WidowMaker9394]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

You needed her for the ritual.

Killing someone at the slightest display of doing something dangerous or looked down upon is just as unrealistic.

And Merrill is not evil. Blood magic does not make you evil.

Also, the barrier to Flemmeth is down after she does blood magic, you don't need her anymore.

Then how are you supposed to finish the ritual?

Go back to the Dalish and ask for another First because you didn't like the last one? I'm sure they won't be mad for killing her.

[Helen0rz]

Vandicus wrote...

Helen0rz wrote...

I didn't give her the dagger in the end in both play through. the outcome was the same anyways!

So, I'm curious, which result did you get both playthroughs? Seriously, there's more than one, so you'll need to be more specific.

If you refuse to give her the dagger, she's outraged by your action, claiming that you can't keep the clan's relic since you're not even Dalish. By doing that you're adding loads of rivalry point and I've already decided I wasn't going to be her friend. She leaves, go to her house and she'll yell at you some more. She'll say stuff like you and the keeper are treating her as a kid, she knows what she's doing, it's her choice blah blah blah

Later this will happen if you're 100% rivalry, a cutscene will trigger when you go to her place. She'll be crying and she'll say you and the keeper have been right all along, curse the mirror and smash it. From that point on, the mirror frame will be there no glass. however it's strange because this scene triggers either way: Varric will try and convince her to go get some air, you come along and she'll kinda question your motive of why you're checking up on her.

But that quest at Pride's End with the demon no matter what happens, which is stupid if you've already got her to shatter the mirror...

[Sordel]

If you're at the force field, you're already trying to do a quest at the behest of Flemeth, so it's a bit late to grow a conscience. On my "noble Templar" run I resolutely refused Flemeth's help (to no effect) so I could have avoided Merrill completely but for the fact that the quest is part of the main quest and cannot be skipped.

Sure, you can complain about this stuff as a role-player, but there are other quests with so many solutions (e.g. Act of Mercy and Night Terrors) that it seems churlish to complain about the quests that are linear. Merrill isn't even a party member for Long Way Home, so what would be the point of giving you an opportunity to get a +15 Rivalry gain the first time you meet her? There's plenty of time to annoy her later ...