311 réponses à ce sujet

[xandrian29]

TJSolo wrote...

Do you also have trouble reading books and figuring out the tone, inflection of characters there?
How about if I type, "You are talking out of your ass!" Can you figure out the inflection my voice would have if I were to say it?

That's not at all the same thing.  In books, you as a reader have no control over the type of character the protagonist is.  Reading one line of dialogue in books can just as easily be taken out of context as in a game.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not exactly sure why you feel the need to try and insult me.  I'm being nothing but civil here.  I doesn't really hurt my feelings, as much as it apparently does your s, that not everyone agrees with me.

[Lethvienne]

xandrian29 wrote...

The warden certainly had a blank face. I felt his dead eye stare actually took away from the immersion.

I always felt making dialogue choices in DAO was difficult. Not because it had these super profound effects on the narrative, but because there was no way to tell what the Warden's voice inflection was supposed to be until the NPCs reacted to it. This also took me out of the game as I would find myself saving before every dialogue encounter just to make sure I could have the character react the way I wanted him to.

As opposed to a character that says the wrong thing all the time due to the dialogue wheel? Just saying. ^.^

I much prefer the dialogue tree, but that's just me. And if a choice between a character whose race, voice, origin, et cetera has been already chosen for me or a character whose race, origin, voice (et cetera) is my choice, I will choose the latter every time. DA:O just seemed to allow for more freedom, at least that's how I feel about it. Even the developers mention DA:O giving the player more options, more choices. They go on to say that because of this it would have been too difficult to follow up with it, since there had been so very many possibilities. Thus, DA2 and Hawke.

You can argue that both games make you follow the major plotline, but that's a given and not much of a arguement for their similiarities. It wouldn't be much of a RPG if it didn't have some sort of story to follow. However, Origins did give the player more freedom of choice than DA2. And I don't mean more freedom just in that it allowed us to choose our characters' race and origin.

Modifié par Lethvienne, 22 mars 2011 - 05:05 .

[TheMadCat]

xandrian29 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Do you also have trouble reading books and figuring out the tone, inflection of characters there?
How about if I type, "You are talking out of your ass!" Can you figure out the inflection my voice would have if I were to say it?

That's not at all the same thing.  In books, you as a reader have no control over the type of character the protagonist is.  Reading one line of dialogue in books can just as easily be taken out of context as in a game.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not exactly sure why you feel the need to try and insult me.  I'm being nothing but civil here.  I doesn't really hurt my feelings, as much as it apparently does your s, that not everyone agrees with me.

I don't understand how you can feel silent dialogue in a game can be taken out of context but a book can't. Both have foundations, you are aware of the direction the conversation is going and the tone of the words used to compose the sentence so you always have context to build your choice around.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 22 mars 2011 - 05:19 .

[xandrian29]

Lethvienne wrote...

xandrian29 wrote...

The warden certainly had a blank face. I felt his dead eye stare actually took away from the immersion.

I always felt making dialogue choices in DAO was difficult. Not because it had these super profound effects on the narrative, but because there was no way to tell what the Warden's voice inflection was supposed to be until the NPCs reacted to it. This also took me out of the game as I would find myself saving before every dialogue encounter just to make sure I could have the character react the way I wanted him to.

As opposed to a character that says the wrong thing all the time due to the dialogue wheel? Just saying. ^.^

I much prefer the dialogue tree, but that's just me. And if a choice between a character whose race, voice, origin, et cetera has been already chosen for me or a character whose race, origin, voice (et cetera) is my choice, I will choose the latter every time. DA:O just seemed to allow for more freedom, at least that's how I feel about it. Even the developers mention DA;O giving the player more options, more choices. They go on to say that because of this it would have been too difficult to follow up with it, since there had been so very many possibilities. Thus, DA2 and Hawke.

You can argue that both games make you follow the major plotline, but that's a given and not much of a arguement for their similiarities. It wouldn't be much of a RPG if it didn't have some sort of story to follow. However, Origins did give the player more freedom of choice than DA2. And I don't mean more freedom just in that it allowed us to choose our characters' race and origin.

I can respect your opinions on the tree vs. wheel.  I'm not so much pro-wheel as I am pro-inflection cues.  That's something the DA2 wheel did that even the ME wheel did not.  I wouldn't mind the tree as much if it included cues.  For example, if a line was supposed to be said in jest, put (jokingly) after it.  Or if something was said in in a smart-assed sarcastic way, (sarcasm).  So many choices could have been rude or not depending on how you heard it in your head.  But that didn't matter because it was about how Bioware heard it in their heads.

I disagree on the illusion of freedom of choice (beyond the race and background).  But if it's there for you in your gaming experience, I'm glad for you.

[TJSolo]

xandrian29 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Do you also have trouble reading books and figuring out the tone, inflection of characters there?
How about if I type, "You are talking out of your ass!" Can you figure out the inflection my voice would have if I were to say it?

That's not at all the same thing.  In books, you as a reader have no control over the type of character the protagonist is.  Reading one line of dialogue in books can just as easily be taken out of context as in a game.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not exactly sure why you feel the need to try and insult me.  I'm being nothing but civil here.  I doesn't really hurt my feelings, as much as it apparently does your s, that not everyone agrees with me.

I am comparing text to text. Also I am certain a gamer playing a game of DAO is competent enough to keep each line of dialogue from conversations in the context it was meant to be from start to finish.

I am not trying to hurt your feelings, I composed a line of text that has a clear tone to it and asked if you were able to imagine my inflection while saying it.  The Warden has said similarly toned responses to Sten and Alistair after various degrees of prodding. I wanted to see if what you claim is consistent. 

Modifié par TJSolo, 22 mars 2011 - 05:19 .

[MJRick]

Hawke, silent protagonist is dead and outdated to me.

[Malchior the Angel of Fear]

hawke

[Lethvienne]

Illusion? There really is no 'illusion' involved. Origins DID offer more moral choices for the players. Whether or not you feel they made much of a difference is another matter, but I appreciated them.

I would also like to add (not that it really has anything to do with the current discussion) that Dragon Age II felt rushed to me. As though BioWare really didn't take their time with it. After all, look at how quickly it was released after the original. That was a turnoff for me as well.

[xandrian29]

TheMadCat wrote...

xandrian29 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Do you also have trouble reading books and figuring out the tone, inflection of characters there?
How about if I type, "You are talking out of your ass!" Can you figure out the inflection my voice would have if I were to say it?

That's not at all the same thing.  In books, you as a reader have no control over the type of character the protagonist is.  Reading one line of dialogue in books can just as easily be taken out of context as in a game.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not exactly sure why you feel the need to try and insult me.  I'm being nothing but civil here.  I doesn't really hurt my feelings, as much as it apparently does your s, that not everyone agrees with me.

I don't understand how you can feel silent dialogue in a game can be taken out of context but a book can't. Both have foundations, you are aware of the direction the conversation is going and the tone of the words used to compose the sentence so you always have context.

But in DAO, unlike in a book, you the player have much more control over the tone of the convorsation based on what dialogue choices you make.  That's why I said taking a single line of dialogue in a book can be taken out of context.  Without thedialogue and narrative that surrounds the dialogue, any type of voice inflection could be used.  The same can be done with DAO.

The problem lies in that unlike in books, DAO's dialogue is interactive.  When you are given 6 possible choices of something to say, it's quite easy to misinterperet some dialogue until after it's too late.  There are plenty of times when I would try to say something I felt was comforting only to have it apparently not sound to the NPC as I had imagined it being said.  In abook, if the reader makes a mistake like that when reading, the brain corrects it very quickly and all is well again.  That's why dialogue in books are a faulty analogy.

[Darkhour]

xandrian29 wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

The Warden. Fact. There is no room for opinion.

The very storyline of DA2 forces you to do things which defeats the illusion of being your own man. For instance, if you're pro templar you have to help Anders anyway.

How is that any different than the same linear formula being used in DAO?  You still had to do all the main plot quests in that game.  Again, the choices one makes during the quests have little to no effect on the overall story.

Plus, stating your opinion as fact, with no room for discussion, makes me not want to ever listen to your point of view.  Ever.  Now, that's a fact.

World Ending. That's the difference. And even then you had more room to make your own character.

Vs

I want to go treasure hunting. Killing templars, killing mercenaries who did nothing to me if I want to get a character. There is simply no cjoices. No alternatives, where Origins had alternatives. Image if you were forced to side with the Templars in Origins, forced to side with Branka, forced to do the Dark ritual, forced to side with zathrian, etc. That's how DA2 feels most of the time.   

P.S. I could care less if you want to listen to my point. Facts are facts. Deal with it.

[MJRick]

Lethvienne wrote...

Illusion? There really is no 'illusion' involved. Origins DID offer more moral choices for the players. Whether or not you feel they made much of a difference is another matter, but I appreciated them.

I would also like to add (not that it really has anything to do with the current discussion) that Dragon Age II felt rushed to me. As though BioWare really didn't take their time with it. After all, look at how quickly it was released after the original. That was a turnoff for me as well.

Yes origins had more choices most of witch had an easy way out where everyone wins and nothing goes wrong.

[xandrian29]

Lethvienne wrote...

Illusion? There really is no 'illusion' involved. Origins DID offer more moral choices for the players. Whether or not you feel they made much of a difference is another matter, but I appreciated them.

I would also like to add (not that it really has anything to do with the current discussion) that Dragon Age II felt rushed to me. As though BioWare really didn't take their time with it. After all, look at how quickly it was released after the original. That was a turnoff for me as well.

It was released about a year and a half years after the original.  That's pretty standard for sequels that aren't crossing to a new generation of hardware.  Not every game can have a 5 year dev cycle.  Rushed?  Certainly.  But that's the nature of the business. /shrug

Back on topic:

The low impact of moral choices, at least how I percieved them, is exactly why choice is an illusion in the game.  Had moral choices had far mor reaching consequences than who in your camp you got to bang, then I would say the choices matter.

*note  I love DAO.  I'm just trying to make objective arguments rather than subjective ones.  There are enough emotionally charged and pointless posts on these forums.  I'm not at all trying to change your mind.  I'm just enjoying the back and forth. 

[xandrian29]

Darkhour wrote...

xandrian29 wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

The Warden. Fact. There is no room for opinion.

The very storyline of DA2 forces you to do things which defeats the illusion of being your own man. For instance, if you're pro templar you have to help Anders anyway.

How is that any different than the same linear formula being used in DAO?  You still had to do all the main plot quests in that game.  Again, the choices one makes during the quests have little to no effect on the overall story.

Plus, stating your opinion as fact, with no room for discussion, makes me not want to ever listen to your point of view.  Ever.  Now, that's a fact.

World Ending. That's the difference. And even then you had more room to make your own character.

Vs

I want to go treasure hunting. Killing templars, killing mercenaries who did nothing to me if I want to get a character. There is simply no cjoices. No alternatives, where Origins had alternatives. Image if you were forced to side with the Templars in Origins, forced to side with Branka, forced to do the Dark ritual, forced to side with zathrian, etc. That's how DA2 feels most of the time.   

P.S. I could care less if you want to listen to my point. Facts are facts. Deal with it.

World never ends unless you wipe.

You opinion still isn't fact.

[Lethvienne]

MJRick wrote...

Lethvienne wrote...

Illusion? There really is no 'illusion' involved. Origins DID offer more moral choices for the players. Whether or not you feel they made much of a difference is another matter, but I appreciated them.

I would also like to add (not that it really has anything to do with the current discussion) that Dragon Age II felt rushed to me. As though BioWare really didn't take their time with it. After all, look at how quickly it was released after the original. That was a turnoff for me as well.

Yes origins had more choices most of witch had an easy way out where everyone wins and nothing goes wrong.

And DA2 offers more permenant consequences . . . how? Whether or not a player took the 'easy way out' was also their choice. And what you said is not entirely true. I remember when Origins first came out, many people had a lot of difficultly romancing or building up a solid friendship certain characters and would be highly upset when said character left the party forever. Can't get out of that unless you go back to another save. So, no, there weren't always 'easy ways out'. The choices stuck if you let them and didn't go back to an earlier save.

You can't have everything. Origins offered a nice set of moral choices. And if you feel they were easy to fix if the player chose to, well, so? I'm under the impression that most people don't like it when they're forced to stick with a choice they regret or made by mistake, they want to be able to fix it. If the game allows them to do that, again, so? Maybe you're one of the few who doesn't care and would rather the game's choices be set in stone, but many aren't. You could stick by your choices and not fix them. If you wanted. And you could choose to 'fix' them. If you wanted. So, I fail to see the point you're attempting to make. Doesn't change the simple truth that DA:O allowed for more options.

[MJRick]

Lethvienne wrote...

MJRick wrote...

Lethvienne wrote...

Illusion? There really is no 'illusion' involved. Origins DID offer more moral choices for the players. Whether or not you feel they made much of a difference is another matter, but I appreciated them.

I would also like to add (not that it really has anything to do with the current discussion) that Dragon Age II felt rushed to me. As though BioWare really didn't take their time with it. After all, look at how quickly it was released after the original. That was a turnoff for me as well.

Yes origins had more choices most of witch had an easy way out where everyone wins and nothing goes wrong.

And DA2 offers more permenant consequences . . . how? Whether or not a player took the 'easy way out' was also their choice. And what you said is not entirely true. I remember when Origins first came out, many people had a lot of difficultly romancing or building up a solid friendship certain characters and would be highly upset when said character left the party forever. Can't get out of that unless you go back to another save. So, no, there weren't always 'easy ways out'. The choices stuck if you let them and didn't go back to an earlier save.

You can't have everything. Origins offered a nice set of moral choices. And if you feel they were easy to fix if the player chose to, well, so? I'm under the impression that most people don't like it when they're forced to stick with a choice they regret or made by mistake, they want to be able to fix it. If the game allows them to do that, again, so? Maybe you're one of the few who doesn't care and would rather the game's choices be set in stone, but many aren't. You could stick by your choices and not fix them. If you wanted. And you could choose to 'fix' them. If you wanted. So, I fail to see the point you're attempting to make. Doesn't change the simple truth that DA:O allowed for more options.

Never said DA2 is any different, also how was building party relationships even a tiny bit difficult just shower them in the endless gifts and say what they want to hear, mission accomplished.

[TJSolo]

MJRick wrote...

Lethvienne wrote...

Illusion? There really is no 'illusion' involved. Origins DID offer more moral choices for the players. Whether or not you feel they made much of a difference is another matter, but I appreciated them.

I would also like to add (not that it really has anything to do with the current discussion) that Dragon Age II felt rushed to me. As though BioWare really didn't take their time with it. After all, look at how quickly it was released after the original. That was a turnoff for me as well.

Yes origins had more choices most of witch had an easy way out where everyone wins and nothing goes wrong.

Sure, there is a way to prevent most things from going wrong.
I made Behlen and Harrowmount share the thrown.
Branka and Caridan are making Golems out of nugs.
I gave Zarathain lifeward so that I could cure the werewolves and keep him alive.
The whole Grey Warden curse? Bunk. I took out the Arch Demon and no Warden had to die.
Loghain and Alistair are BFFs.

[Lethvienne]

xandrian29 wrote...

Lethvienne wrote...

Illusion? There really is no 'illusion' involved. Origins DID offer more moral choices for the players. Whether or not you feel they made much of a difference is another matter, but I appreciated them.

I would also like to add (not that it really has anything to do with the current discussion) that Dragon Age II felt rushed to me. As though BioWare really didn't take their time with it. After all, look at how quickly it was released after the original. That was a turnoff for me as well.

It was released about a year and a half years after the original.  That's pretty standard for sequels that aren't crossing to a new generation of hardware.  Not every game can have a 5 year dev cycle.  Rushed?  Certainly.  But that's the nature of the business. /shrug

Back on topic:

The low impact of moral choices, at least how I percieved them, is exactly why choice is an illusion in the game.  Had moral choices had far mor reaching consequences than who in your camp you got to bang, then I would say the choices matter.

*note  I love DAO.  I'm just trying to make objective arguments rather than subjective ones.  There are enough emotionally charged and pointless posts on these forums.  I'm not at all trying to change your mind.  I'm just enjoying the back and forth. 

Oh, I don't know. If you chose to side with the Templars the Circle is wiped out. That's not small or an illusion, it changes the landscape. Choosing to side with the werewolves and thus wiping out the Dalish isn't very small, either. Could you finish the game either way? Of course, but it does change how certain things unfold and how certain people respond to you. I liked it.

Nothing is perfect, of course, and DA:O did a pretty good job of giving the players more options without going so over the top that it was impossible, or at least highly difficult, to create endings nd scenarios for every little detail. Those choices, the different playable races, just everything about DA:O and the Warden appealed to me so much more than Hawke did. Course, I'm a nut with a wild imagination who loves to write her own stories. DA:O appealed to my imagination more than DA2.

[MJRick]

TJSolo wrote...

MJRick wrote...

Lethvienne wrote...

Illusion? There really is no 'illusion' involved. Origins DID offer more moral choices for the players. Whether or not you feel they made much of a difference is another matter, but I appreciated them.

I would also like to add (not that it really has anything to do with the current discussion) that Dragon Age II felt rushed to me. As though BioWare really didn't take their time with it. After all, look at how quickly it was released after the original. That was a turnoff for me as well.

Yes origins had more choices most of witch had an easy way out where everyone wins and nothing goes wrong.

Sure, there is a way to prevent most things from going wrong.
I made Behlen and Harrowmount share the thrown.
Branka and Caridan are making Golems out of nugs.
I gave Zarathain lifeward so that I could cure the werewolves and keep him alive.
The whole Grey Warden curse? Bunk. I took out the Arch Demon and no Warden had to die.
Loghain and Alistair are BFFs.

First point is the only point that actually offers a hard choice, the second choosing between some crazy lady and a paragon realy hard call...no, third almost possible but the the guy you talk to all of three times has to die such a shame really, it is possible to keep both loghain and allistair alive with no wardens dying.

[Lethvienne]

MJRick wrote...

Lethvienne wrote...

MJRick wrote...

Lethvienne wrote...

Illusion? There really is no 'illusion' involved. Origins DID offer more moral choices for the players. Whether or not you feel they made much of a difference is another matter, but I appreciated them.

I would also like to add (not that it really has anything to do with the current discussion) that Dragon Age II felt rushed to me. As though BioWare really didn't take their time with it. After all, look at how quickly it was released after the original. That was a turnoff for me as well.

Yes origins had more choices most of witch had an easy way out where everyone wins and nothing goes wrong.

And DA2 offers more permenant consequences . . . how? Whether or not a player took the 'easy way out' was also their choice. And what you said is not entirely true. I remember when Origins first came out, many people had a lot of difficultly romancing or building up a solid friendship certain characters and would be highly upset when said character left the party forever. Can't get out of that unless you go back to another save. So, no, there weren't always 'easy ways out'. The choices stuck if you let them and didn't go back to an earlier save.

You can't have everything. Origins offered a nice set of moral choices. And if you feel they were easy to fix if the player chose to, well, so? I'm under the impression that most people don't like it when they're forced to stick with a choice they regret or made by mistake, they want to be able to fix it. If the game allows them to do that, again, so? Maybe you're one of the few who doesn't care and would rather the game's choices be set in stone, but many aren't. You could stick by your choices and not fix them. If you wanted. And you could choose to 'fix' them. If you wanted. So, I fail to see the point you're attempting to make. Doesn't change the simple truth that DA:O allowed for more options.

Never said DA2 is any different, also how was building party relationships even a tiny bit difficult just shower them in the endless gifts and say what they want to hear, mission accomplished.

For some characters, even if you gave them gifts they didn't form the relationship the player may have wanted. And if you just give them gifts you miss a lot. I never relied on them. And there was one character in particular who would leave if you failed to say the right thing to him at the right time, regards of whether or not you showered him with gifts. You may not have found it difficult, but a lot of people did. So much so that guides were written as to how to get a character to do react a certain way.

Showering your party members with gifts did NOT open up all the possibilties with them. You had to know what to say to them as well.

[Ghozt66]

TJSolo wrote...

MJRick wrote...

Lethvienne wrote...

Illusion? There really is no 'illusion' involved. Origins DID offer more moral choices for the players. Whether or not you feel they made much of a difference is another matter, but I appreciated them.

I would also like to add (not that it really has anything to do with the current discussion) that Dragon Age II felt rushed to me. As though BioWare really didn't take their time with it. After all, look at how quickly it was released after the original. That was a turnoff for me as well.

Yes origins had more choices most of witch had an easy way out where everyone wins and nothing goes wrong.

Sure, there is a way to prevent most things from going wrong.
I made Behlen and Harrowmount share the thrown.
Branka and Caridan are making Golems out of nugs.
I gave Zarathain lifeward so that I could cure the werewolves and keep him alive.
The whole Grey Warden curse? Bunk. I took out the Arch Demon and no Warden had to die.
Loghain and Alistair are BFFs.

lol.....priceless.....all Hawke here

As my man Sandal would quote " I like the shiny"

[MJRick]

Lethvienne wrote...

MJRick wrote...

Lethvienne wrote...

MJRick wrote...

Lethvienne wrote...

Illusion? There really is no 'illusion' involved. Origins DID offer more moral choices for the players. Whether or not you feel they made much of a difference is another matter, but I appreciated them.

I would also like to add (not that it really has anything to do with the current discussion) that Dragon Age II felt rushed to me. As though BioWare really didn't take their time with it. After all, look at how quickly it was released after the original. That was a turnoff for me as well.

Yes origins had more choices most of witch had an easy way out where everyone wins and nothing goes wrong.

And DA2 offers more permenant consequences . . . how? Whether or not a player took the 'easy way out' was also their choice. And what you said is not entirely true. I remember when Origins first came out, many people had a lot of difficultly romancing or building up a solid friendship certain characters and would be highly upset when said character left the party forever. Can't get out of that unless you go back to another save. So, no, there weren't always 'easy ways out'. The choices stuck if you let them and didn't go back to an earlier save.

You can't have everything. Origins offered a nice set of moral choices. And if you feel they were easy to fix if the player chose to, well, so? I'm under the impression that most people don't like it when they're forced to stick with a choice they regret or made by mistake, they want to be able to fix it. If the game allows them to do that, again, so? Maybe you're one of the few who doesn't care and would rather the game's choices be set in stone, but many aren't. You could stick by your choices and not fix them. If you wanted. And you could choose to 'fix' them. If you wanted. So, I fail to see the point you're attempting to make. Doesn't change the simple truth that DA:O allowed for more options.

Never said DA2 is any different, also how was building party relationships even a tiny bit difficult just shower them in the endless gifts and say what they want to hear, mission accomplished.

For some characters, even if you gave them gifts they didn't form the relationship the player may have wanted. And if you just give them gifts you miss a lot. I never relied on them. And there was one character in particular who would leave if you failed to say the right thing to him at the right time, regards of whether or not you showered him with gifts. You may not have found it difficult, but a lot of people did. So much so that guides were written as to how to get a character to do react a certain way.

Showering your party members with gifts did NOT open up all the possibilties with them. You had to know what to say to them as well.

What to say to them? Easy just tell them exactly what they want to hear easy peasy!

[TJSolo]

MJRick wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

MJRick wrote...
 Yes origins had more choices most of witch had an easy way out where everyone wins and nothing goes wrong.

Sure, there is a way to prevent most things from going wrong.
I made Behlen and Harrowmount share the thrown.
Branka and Caridan are making Golems out of nugs.
I gave Zarathain lifeward so that I could cure the werewolves and keep him alive.
The whole Grey Warden curse? Bunk. I took out the Arch Demon and no Warden had to die.
Loghain and Alistair are BFFs.

First point is the only point that actually offers a hard choice, the second choosing between some crazy lady and a paragon realy hard call...no, third almost possible but the the guy you talk to all of three times has to die such a shame really, it is possible to keep both loghain and allistair alive with no wardens dying.

Oh poo, I forgot about the super-demon-god child option for taking out the Arch Demon.
Nothing negative about that.

[xandrian29]

Lethvienne wrote...

DA:O appealed to my imagination more than DA2.

This I can agree with, but probably for different reasons than your own.

[MJRick]

TJSolo wrote...

MJRick wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

MJRick wrote...
 Yes origins had more choices most of witch had an easy way out where everyone wins and nothing goes wrong.

Sure, there is a way to prevent most things from going wrong.
I made Behlen and Harrowmount share the thrown.
Branka and Caridan are making Golems out of nugs.
I gave Zarathain lifeward so that I could cure the werewolves and keep him alive.
The whole Grey Warden curse? Bunk. I took out the Arch Demon and no Warden had to die.
Loghain and Alistair are BFFs.

First point is the only point that actually offers a hard choice, the second choosing between some crazy lady and a paragon realy hard call...no, third almost possible but the the guy you talk to all of three times has to die such a shame really, it is possible to keep both loghain and allistair alive with no wardens dying.

Oh poo, I forgot about the super-demon-god child option for taking out the Arch Demon.
Nothing negative about that.

anything bad happen yet.....didnt think so.