69 réponses à ce sujet

[Inujade]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

In Origins you got to determine the fate of the Urn of Sacred Ashes, the Anvil of the Void, and the rulers of Orzammar and Fereldan. In DA2 you can't even determine the fate of your own family members.

That's only true of your mother. You determine one sibling's fate by your class choice, and the other can end up a grey warden/ a templar/ a circle mage/ dead.

[Wittand25]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

One of the things I noticed in Dragon Age 2 is no matter your choice things always seem to pretty much turn out the same. At first it seems like you're making choices that will matter, but the more you play it the more it becomes clear that those choices don't mean anything because practically everything will turn out exactly the same regardless. I get that they're trying to tell a specific story, but it'd have been nice to actually feel like I'm doing something, that my choices are actually important.

What you do in act one affects even what kind of quest are available in Acts two and three (e.g. if the templar recruit capured by bloodmages is not allowed back into the order you do get different sidequests than if you you do convince Cullen to allow him back).
Hawke hasw little influence on the main story but that is true for every story heavy game and has been true for all other Bioware games in the past too so I do not actually get why people complain this time so much.

[Mahtisonni]

In Origins you had good ending and you could talk to your companions whenever you wanted.
Also you can very often choose to kill a certain annoying guy if you make the correct decisions.

You can't kill sandal though, but that's only because the warden knows that sandal will kill him should he try.

Dragon age 2 feels like Dragon Age awakening with better combat and crappier ending.
On the ending of Dragon Age Origins and Dragon age Awakening they always told what happened to pretty much every people you interacted with.

On the ending on Dragon age 2 is just a cliffhanger where the consequences of your actions go unnoticed with the exception of the last choice.

Modifié par Mahtisonni, 21 mars 2011 - 08:53 .

[Pandaman102]

Wittand25 wrote...

What you do in act one affects even what kind of quest are available in Acts two and three (e.g. if the templar recruit capured by bloodmages is not allowed back into the order you do get different sidequests than if you you do convince Cullen to allow him back).
Hawke hasw little influence on the main story but that is true for every story heavy game and has been true for all other Bioware games in the past too so I do not actually get why people complain this time so much.

In Origins it was unavoidable you had to kill the Archdemon, however there were "little" changes you could make, like the Dark Ritual, choosing Loghain's fate, choosing Alistair's fate, choosing who becomes ruler, freeing the mages, elevating the city elves, granting land to the Dalish, how the Templars treat the mages, the Dalish's future interactions with humans, etc.

In DA2 it was unavoidable you had to kill Meredith and the First Enchanter, and the "little" changes were... if you picked the correct side to become viscount and which (if any) of the love interests sticks with you.

The scope of the game may have shrunk to one city, but the level of influence you have on that single city's events does not shrink accordingly. It all but vanishes.

[AngelicMachinery]

Since the game seems to always end the same, my choices are always based on which will cause more quests or give me more gold.

[MaglorArcanist]

mushoops86anjyl wrote...

Well you can choose to support the mages and end up fighting Orsino and Meredith with no story resolution or you can choose to support the templars and end up fighting Orsino and Meredith with no story resolution.

Oh wait...

Sad ending is sad.
And after this when you waith for start of a damm act 4 to close something... surprise the game end!
More sad.

[Mahtisonni]

The sort of choices you get on Dragon age Origins:
1. Who gets to be to rule over their kingdoms/factions after you're done.
2. Life and death of your party members! You can to my knowledge be the only member of your party to survive the events of Dragon Age Origins.
3. Wether or not some side characters live happily.
Pretty much the only thing you can't choose is wether or not to kill the arch demon because he will rape your **** if you leave him alone. That and you will get recruited to Grey Wardens.

This is the sort of choices you get in Dragon Age 2
1. Angry response, Calm response and mocking response with same outcome 80% of the time.
2. Choose to kill some people yourself or wait till some other people kills them or till they attack you directly so you have to kill them.
3. Wether or not some characters live happily afterwards.
Things you can't choose in Dragon Age 2
Your mother will die, one of your siblings will die, other one of your siblings will leave, Qunari will attack, Peatrice will get killed by qunari, viscounts son will die, viscount will die, Orsino will use blood magic even though you can kill 8 templars with one swing of a sword, Meredith will go insane, Hawke will run away. Also you can't choose when to talk to your companions or what sort of wardrobe they wear.

Modifié par Mahtisonni, 21 mars 2011 - 09:10 .

[Ealos]

In a way I quite liked the lack of influence in some cases - that slightly desperate sense of the world sliding into insanity and not being able to change it, however hard you try, was nice. The storm was coming, and be as nice as you liked, you weren't going to change that.
I also understand that for all the plotlines to coincide there are certain main quests which are required, and also that they might not be spelled out as in origins. However, I would have liked to have been presented with no choice, or a heavy hint/reason that I should accept these options. For example, I meet a dwarf wanting my help getting hold of blackpowder. For this he will pay me, as for any other sidequest. He doesn't, say, point out the potential use in a deep roads expedition as particular incentive. Thus I can think "I don't want you to have blackpowder/annoy the Qunari" and say no. AND THUS ACQUIRE THE QUEST?!?! Similarly with Sarebaas, there is no particular reason to do it and the option to refuse and no difference overall. Why?

[harzamir]

During my first playthrough I felt like my choices actually made a difference and had some meaning, and was almost visioning how I'm going to do things differently with next character. And when I had beat the game and started a new one. I had thought my Hawke to be different than the last one, but the only real chance was the tone of his voice. Some extra corpses here and there but nothing major.
I did enjoy the game very much, but the replay value is almost non-existent since it always plays out pretty much the same way. I remember beating Origins over ten times and everytime it felt a little different.

[Pandaman102]

Ealos wrote...

In a way I quite liked the lack of influence in some cases - that slightly desperate sense of the world sliding into insanity and not being able to change it, however hard you try, was nice. The storm was coming, and be as nice as you liked, you weren't going to change that.

I can understand the plot quests not being very flexible, but for a game about rising to power and influencing a city, I would've liked to have some sort of influence on the city. Did my rise to power become any more difficult if I ****** off that magister? No. Does refusing to pay Dougal the extra 100 gold bring unwanted legal and social attention to your family? No. Does doubling the pay of the Ferelden miners improve their lot (less Fereldens in Darktown, more people in Lowtown, something along those lines)? No. Does taking over the Bone Pit mines give you a chance to increase your wealth and thereby influence? No.

The storm may have been inevitable, but virtually nothing else you did had any impact on the city either. All you get for spending time on side quests are more side quests with their repetitive dungeons and wave-after-wave of enemies.

Edit: Oh, and a particularly irritating example: does letting that one Orlesian noble who was hunting the White Lily murderer go save your mother? No. Was there even a point to doing that particular sidequest beyond making your character feel like an utter idiot at the end?

Modifié par Pandaman102, 21 mars 2011 - 10:41 .

[Gadarr]

AlexXIV wrote...
Same is with other quests and factions. For example I helped the elves where I could. I killed the son of that kirkwall noble, forgot the name/title. The father of the girl says at least one who lets elves have justice and kirkwall and you never hear of it again.

This really makes me wonder how many people just sort of "skipped" through the game... Actually, you DO hear from this elven girl, not only once, but twice. Even once in person, not just via mail.

There are many, many little stories in the game that have different outcomes. Most of those don't hit you on the head though, so if you never look left or right, you might miss them. And I guess it also depends on the characters in your group. Meeting the elven girl might only trigger if Aveline is with you, for instance. I don't know.

[Pandaman102]

Gadarr wrote...

This really makes me wonder how many people just sort of "skipped" through the game... Actually, you DO hear from this elven girl, not only once, but twice. Even once in person, not just via mail.

There are many, many little stories in the game that have different outcomes. Most of those don't hit you on the head though, so if you never look left or right, you might miss them. And I guess it also depends on the characters in your group. Meeting the elven girl might only trigger if Aveline is with you, for instance. I don't know.

Only if you go into the alienage with Aveline in your party.

[Wittand25]

Mahtisonni wrote...
Your mother will die, one of your siblings will die, other one of your siblings will leave, Qunari will attack, Peatrice will get killed by qunari, viscounts son will die, viscount will die, Orsino will use blood magic even though you can kill 8 templars with one swing of a sword, Meredith will go insane, Hawke will run away. Also you can't choose when to talk to your companions or what sort of wardrobe they wear.

DA:O you cannot refuse to do finish even a single one of the treaties. You cannot simply kill Eamon and replace him with Teagan even if this is the most sensible solution to the Redcliff problem. There is no peaceful resolution to the Elf/Werewolf problem or the dwarf problem and there is no way to side with Uldred even again that would make sense in the setting since even an abomination would want the blight stopped and he would need help to get out of the tower himself. You cannot avoid a fight at the Landsmeet even if you collect tons of evidence and kiss every noble´s backside, Morrigan will leave you no matter what you do ...  .
Really DA:O is exactly as linear and limiting as DA2. The only difference is that in DA2 you for yourself the consequences of your actions during the game (which sidequest are available, who of the NPCs is present, what solutions to quest are available (e.g without having a intense relationship with Isabela one possible solution to the Quanari problem becomes impossible, if you loose her as companion for act three you also loose access to an unique crafting resource)). In DA:O you simply got an epilouge listing consequences of your actions, while in game short of the final fight none of them really mattered or had any effect.

[Ealos]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Ealos wrote...

In a way I quite liked the lack of influence in some cases - that slightly desperate sense of the world sliding into insanity and not being able to change it, however hard you try, was nice. The storm was coming, and be as nice as you liked, you weren't going to change that.

I can understand the plot quests not being very flexible, but for a game about rising to power and influencing a city, I would've liked to have some sort of influence on the city. Did my rise to power become any more difficult if I ****** off that magister? No. Does refusing to pay Dougal the extra 100 gold bring unwanted legal and social attention to your family? No. Does doubling the pay of the Ferelden miners improve their lot (less Fereldens in Darktown, more people in Lowtown, something along those lines)? No. Does taking over the Bone Pit mines give you a chance to increase your wealth and thereby influence? No.

The storm may have been inevitable, but virtually nothing else you did had any impact on the city either. All you get for spending time on side quests are more side quests with their repetitive dungeons and wave-after-wave of enemies.

Edit: Oh, and a particularly irritating example: does letting that one Orlesian noble who was hunting the White Lily murderer go save your mother? No. Was there even a point to doing that particular sidequest beyond making your character feel like an utter idiot at the end?

Very true - I totally agree, was just meaning the overall oh no, war is coming inevitability. It is definitely true that for a game which was marketed with "how exactly did the champion rise to power? Who would call him the champion?" there is no option. Even after Varric asking you in game "so, what do you want to do next" giving you the options of politics, title and business, not one of them has any effect. It is pretty disappointing in that respect.

[Augustei]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

One of the things I noticed in Dragon Age 2 is no matter your choice things always seem to pretty much turn out the same. At first it seems like you're making choices that will matter, but the more you play it the more it becomes clear that those choices don't mean anything because practically everything will turn out exactly the same regardless. I get that they're trying to tell a specific story, but it'd have been nice to actually feel like I'm doing something, that my choices are actually important.

Yeah this is the primary reason why Origins was better than Dragon Age II.. At least for me.

I was fine with everything else pretty much, People complained about many things and tbh those things didn't annoy me at all really. But This! The lack of choice really bothered me greatly

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 21 mars 2011 - 10:59 .

[sevalaricgirl]

I agree with this 100%. There were choices in Origins that the warden could make that would change things. I'd love to hand Isabela over to the Qunari, but you don't have the choice of getting the relic and giving it back to them or even handing her over. There were many things that bugged me about the game but the lack of choice was the biggest one and the lack of dialogue options was the other one.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 21 mars 2011 - 11:01 .

[nicethugbert]

Inujade wrote...

I actually have a feeling this was sort of the point. I mean, aside from the Warden, who actually has complete power over the fate of a whole country? Or a whole religious institution?

I think the way it was set up had a lot to do with the whole "struggle against destiny/embrace destiny" thing. Considering Bioware is a game that strives above all else to deliver story-based games, I wouldn't be surprised if they suppressed the choice mechanic to get that certain point across.

This!  Plus, what about the Arishok's choice?  Meredith's choice?  If someone is hellebent on mugging you, what choice do you have?  What would the story be if you could pursuade the NPC's to join you?  Is that any different from choosing from the options in the dialog wheel?  If a game is a story then what choices can you possibly have?  There is no choice in reading a novel other than choosing to read it or not.  The story is fixed.

Tsarapihelas wrote...

You misled yourself, OP. Listen
closely to Flemeth's narration in the first trailer released for the
game. The entire premise of the game is laid out for you.

And this!  Flemeth can never make up her mind if it's destiny or chance, she says when she first appears to Hawke.  Later , on Sunder Mountainn, she says that the world will fall into the abyss and not to hesitate to jump in.  Plus, there was the convo with the Saarebas Ketojan.  He stated the first choice anybody makes is the choice to live or die.  Flemeth gives you the choice to live or die when she agrees to rescue you in exchange for a favor.

I suspect DA2 was a self-reflecting commentary on story telling via RPGs.  It also wouldn't surprise me if some of the companion's personailties are inspired by the fans and anti-fans of these games.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 21 mars 2011 - 11:21 .

[Pandaman102]

nicethugbert wrote...

This!  Plus, what about the Arishok's choice?  Meredith's choice?  If someone is hellebent on mugging you, what choice do you have?  What would the story be if you could pursuade the NPC's to join you?  Is that any different from choosing from the options in the dialog wheel?  If a game is a story then what choices can you possibly have?  There is no choice in reading a novel other than choosing to read it or not.  The story is fixed.

Except we didn't buy a book. We bought a game in the RPG genre, there's a certain degree of expectations both from the medium and the genre itself.

nicethugbert wrote...

I suspect DA2 was a self-reflecting commentary on story telling via RPGs.  It also wouldn't surprise me if some of the companion's personailties are inspired by the fans and anti-fans of these games.

Perhaps that would have been an easier pill to swallow if they hadn't charged premium EA prices.

[Bmeszaros]

I've said it in other threads on the board that for anybody else that watched the "Rise to Power" Trailer, along with the dev diaries, that it was conveyed that it was an Interactive Framed Narrative.

I found the "Interactive" part to be sorely lacking. I understand if they ultimately want to force you to the overarking theme of a showdown between Mages and Templars, but I thought the way they handled the final act, which was essentially the same no matter who you sided with, was a poor way to begin the climax of the story.

[NKKKK]

INB4 Snarky Graider post

[Wynne]

Arppis wrote...

Sometimes no matter how much you try, you can't prevent horrible things from happening. But yeah, I wish there was some variation on the outcome in the end.

Yeah, I wish the same.

I like having control over at least a few things. As much as some people have wailed about "Dragon Effect," I actually found myself wishing, a number of times, for a Paragon or Renegade Interrupt. Those are intensely satisfying. I like having the choice as to whether my character would quickly act to save someone or just simply walk away and not care, or whether they would punch a guy through a window rather than allow them to parade their douchebaggery all over the place for five minutes while the player may be just sitting there and staring, annoyed. Yeah, I know, you can skip dialogue, but in game your character is just listening all that time even if you're playing the impatient, aggressive type, which doesn't entirely make sense. Give me more "Bann Vaughan talks about how elves aren't sentient beings or anything; I ensure he never has the chance to hurt an elf ever again" options any day.

And I mean, (rant here) why couldn't you warn your MOTHER, of all people, about the serial MURDERER targeting WOMEN HER AGE in Kirkwall, where you both live?! If it was my mom, I sure as hell would have said something because that immediately hit home. If you could have CHOSEN that sort of thing, and thus determined anything about what happens to her... *sighs and shakes head* Why couldn't they make the lily killer a quest in Act 1, really hard to complete properly and forcing the player to be clever, then if you didn't complete that quest your Mom dies in Act 2 or 3? That would have felt like it mattered. I mean, chasing that killer was one of the most interesting quests in the game, IMO. To have it be deeper would have been awesome.

I don't really like how some of this was done. No matter how you treat Anders, he does the same thing. No matter how you treat Orsino, he still makes things worse, makes a horrifically stupid decision despite seeming so reasonable and decent. It's frustrating. Side with the mages, with the templars--it's only different in slight flavor, the endgame is still almost precisely the same. Not that it was better in DAO, the endgame wasn't much affected there either except in terms of a few companions being there or not, and all you got was a choice of who comes along and whether to be evil or nice.

I just think this series overall could use more solid, bold outcomes in terms of player choice. It would be a tremendous breath of fresh air. I know it's a lot of work, a lot of resources, but it adds so much to replays.

At least you have great relationship choices (friendship vs. rivalry, and not getting close to someone at times has actual consequences), and some decisions about what happens to your siblings, their ultimate destinies. That, I loved. But it would be nice if we had some more major or at least deeply emotional quests have truly different potential outcomes. That's what makes a thing feel like an RPG, to me. Choice. The sense of being someone different during different playthroughs. The sense of having affected Kirkwall, at least, if not all of Thedas. This series could use more of that. It's already better with the different attitudes Hawke can have which have a visible and interesting effect on the protagonist's personality over time, but it needs more depth of choice. Maybe I'll notice more depth on subsequent playthroughs, but so far a lot seems superficial.

I know it's hard to do, and that it could be argued real life is like that, you never get to affect much, but this is a game; you're supposed to be playing somebody influential, generally. It's just frustrating when you feel like the choices you make aren't significant in the long run.

Modifié par Wynne, 21 mars 2011 - 01:22 .

[Mahtisonni]

If someone is hellebent on mugging you, what choice do you have?

+50 cunning lvl 4 coercion [Persuade]?

Modifié par Mahtisonni, 21 mars 2011 - 01:24 .

[Celtic Latino]

Inujade wrote...

Here's the thing, though; everyone keeps saying they want to have choices that 'matter.' But what is the difference between a choice that matters and one that doesn't? It's very abstract.

My Hawke was a sarcastic mage with no qualms with breaking the law. She romanced Isabella and so fought to save her life against the Arishok. To me, it wasn't so much that I ended up fighting both Orsino and Meredith, it was that I chose to stand with the mages. It wasn't that I dueled the Arishok, it was why. It helped define Hawke, and this is Hawke's story. The choice itself 'mattered', not the outcome.

Take a different Hawke, with different motives, different romance, and you've got a different story.

And it's good to remember that every Warden had to go get the same three treaties and fight the same Archdemon. The Warden also didn't have the option to say, "Man, I really wanna kill that guy!" anytime she wanted, either.

This. 

Baldur's Gate II you were a Bhaal-spawn no matter what. KOTOR you were Revan no matter what. Dragon Age: Origins you became a Grey Warden and had to fight the Archdemon no matter what. In the Mass Effect series you have to save humanity no matter what. The point is you're telling the character's story in those games. 

If anything Dragon Age II has been more flexible in the amount of choices because you have a much more personal, much more involved character. You aren't telling the story of Dragon Age II. You're telling the story of who Hawke is and what he/she does and stands for. You have three distinct personalities that can really change the narrative of the game experience, you have three classes that make for very different experiences, the romances develop over a period of time instead of just selecting the right dialogue options and having a small cutscene. 

There's always the illusion of choice, even in Dragon Age II. Because this isn't a game where you can do 'whatever you want'. It's not a sandbox game. Games like the Elder Scrolls or even Fallout series (3 and New Vegas, specifically) are more games where you have those choices. Games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect are games with specific stories where you as the player define their personality and the choices they made along the way. 

[Celtic Latino]

Wittand25 wrote...

Mahtisonni wrote...
Your mother will die, one of your siblings will die, other one of your siblings will leave, Qunari will attack, Peatrice will get killed by qunari, viscounts son will die, viscount will die, Orsino will use blood magic even though you can kill 8 templars with one swing of a sword, Meredith will go insane, Hawke will run away. Also you can't choose when to talk to your companions or what sort of wardrobe they wear.

DA:O you cannot refuse to do finish even a single one of the treaties. You cannot simply kill Eamon and replace him with Teagan even if this is the most sensible solution to the Redcliff problem. There is no peaceful resolution to the Elf/Werewolf problem or the dwarf problem and there is no way to side with Uldred even again that would make sense in the setting since even an abomination would want the blight stopped and he would need help to get out of the tower himself. You cannot avoid a fight at the Landsmeet even if you collect tons of evidence and kiss every noble´s backside, Morrigan will leave you no matter what you do ...  .
Really DA:O is exactly as linear and limiting as DA2. The only difference is that in DA2 you for yourself the consequences of your actions during the game (which sidequest are available, who of the NPCs is present, what solutions to quest are available (e.g without having a intense relationship with Isabela one possible solution to the Quanari problem becomes impossible, if you loose her as companion for act three you also loose access to an unique crafting resource)). In DA:O you simply got an epilouge listing consequences of your actions, while in game short of the final fight none of them really mattered or had any effect.

My thoughts exactly. 

[nicethugbert]

Mahtisonni wrote...

If someone is hellebent on mugging you, what choice do you have?

+50 cunning lvl 4 coercion [Persuade]?

So, what you guys are complaining about is that you don't have the choice and outcome you want.  How is that different from other games?  How is that different from life?