189 réponses à ce sujet

[The dead fish]

Prove that there is no choice in DA2. It's an illusion, it's a lie.

Magician qunari chased, you can not kill him even if you want to play an anti-qun, hero is obliged to escort him. Sister Patrice we can't choose to be with her or kill her at the end and yet she tries to kill us.

Qunari hunters, we are forced to fight them, even if we decide to give them  the mage qunari, wathever dialogue.

Ser Varnell has abducted qunari, if I object to its extreme, I fight him, ok that's normal. But if I say I want to see qunari dead too, I want to see them expelled from Kirkwall, it tells me that there are outside influences at first to eliminate ( that is me. then I want to be his side.) What is this madness ? He is stupid or what ? Finally Hawk whatever its side, leaves qunari be butchered and must fight Ser Varnell...

It's alway like that. The same purpose, the same conclusion. There is only one plot line from beginning to end;

And the best for last, there is just a single purpose. The same for everyone.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 24 mars 2011 - 01:47 .

[AntiChri5]

Our choices shape Hawke, rather then shaping Kirkwall.

[Miashi]

There are choices, they're just not... as meaningful as you wish them to be.

[The dead fish]

Please, tell me where are the choices. ^^

[Vanaer]

What fundamental choices are there in ME2? I know some smaller ones, as in DA II, but the only real choice I found in ME 2 was to keep the Collector Base or to destroy it. It's obvious DA II is a set up for DA 3, thus real choices can not really be made, except on which side you will be on in DA 3.

[Lithuasil]

Did we really need a third post about this on the front page? Your point doesn't get more valid because you post it more often, y'know?

[Lianaar]

http://social.biowar...4/index/6666195

[Khayness]

Best Served Cold.

'nuff said. I had to kill loads of reasonable templars and mages as a mage supporter.

[Badpie]

I agree that much of it is the illusion of choice. The outcome is always the same no matter what way you choose to respond to the variables within it. It's very frustrating. It wouldn't be so frustrating if Bioware didn't espouse the whole "choices matter" thing.

I understand that you're shaping your character as well, but that doesn't really work for me. The point of playing these types of games is to shape the world around you in some way and I feel like the game fell short of achieving this.

I really like DA2, but it falls short of achieving a lot of things I was hoping for.

[The dead fish]

Did we really need a third post about this on the front page? Your point doesn't get more valid because you post it more often, y'know?

The forum is a mess, I have not seen other topics like this. If there are other, much better, it proves that there is something wrong.

What I propose is to gatherall the evidence that the choices are an illusion.

I'm not trying to post to appear more valid, I just want that light be shed on this matter.

Maybe I'm wrong, and I expect them to come show me.

[blahq34653]

I think that's what they meant by "existence is the only choice".

Just kidding... it was probably an accidental coincidence. These writers aren't clever enough to disguise messages into their dialogue.

[AlexXIV]

Well after DA:O It's no big surprise people 'miss' all the choices we had there.

But if you compare for example ME2 to DA2. You didn't have much more choices in ME. Basically only the companion related quests.

[Lithuasil]

Sylvianus wrote...


Maybe I'm wrong, and I expect them to come show me.

You're wrong to mourn the lack of something that no game has ever achieved ever, atleast not in the way people imagine it. Even Morrowind was no PnP simulator catering for every possible choice, and by the make, bethesda tried.
The thing I have to bring up again and again in these topics is this - you expect something you never had - Previous games, like Origins, didn't have it either. They just *told* you, that your decision would totally matter, and everything would change the second you're out of the zone.
DA2 on the other hand went the opposite, much preferable road of not pretending, but rather giving you reasons*why* your choices didn't matter in the end. (With the exception of "best served cold" admittedly.

[Gadarr]

Sylvianus wrote...
The forum is a mess, I have not seen other topics like this. If there are other, much better, it proves that there is something wrong.

What I propose is to gatherall the evidence that the choices are an illusion.

I'm not trying to post to appear more valid, I just want that light be shed on this matter.

Maybe I'm wrong, and I expect them to come show me.

There are plenty of non-world-changing choices where things play out differently throughout the game. One prominent example being Feynriel. There are a few different outcomes, one being that if you make him tranquil in the Fade and send him to the Circle, one templar in the Gallows later comments, that his mother killed herself, rather than having to see her son this way. If you pick different options, things play out rather differently.

So... no, you can't really change the fate of Kirkwall. You can very much change the road on the way to that fate, however.

Although, I have to admit... that there wasn't an option to attack Sister Petrice in her little hut did annoy me as well. That was... a bit too obvious.

Modifié par Gadarr, 24 mars 2011 - 02:05 .

[CarlSpackler]

Khayness wrote...

Best Served Cold.

'nuff said. I had to kill loads of reasonable templars and mages as a mage supporter.

Agreed, this quest is particularly bothersome, I wanted to meet/greet and help these folks, not slaughter them. 

[The dead fish]

What fundamental choices are there in ME2? I know some smaller ones, as in DA II, but the only real choice I found in ME 2 was to keep the Collector Base or to destroy it. It's obvious DA II is a set up for DA 3, thus real choices can not really be made, except on which side you will be on in DA 3.

In m2, the main plot is to recruit and strengthen the loyalty of your troops.

In each mission of loyalty, there is a different ending, conciliatory or pragmatic. It is not only a difference of words chosen in the wheel with the same conclusion.

Examples of Mass Effect

In mass effect , you can kill Balack or not at the expenses of civils, save civilians or industries against missiles, you can kill the queen or save Rachni, kill Chiala or not, you can save the council or not, you can help Qu'iin or tthe administrative Anoleis his ennemy, or rather gianna parasini in a case of corruption.

You can help a Quarian to leave Omegaor or instead help those who tormented him and push him to never leave.

Do I need to list all we can do differently in Mass Effect ?

It has the same end, that's normal, but you can have a course, a different line.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 24 mars 2011 - 02:10 .

[AlexXIV]

Also in ME2 you keep your crew. At the end of DA2 even the companions are gone. So you almost lost everything. People would probably respond better to a 'lack of choices' if the ending wasn't so ... depressive.

[Lianaar]

You can not change major events, that lead to consequences (you can not stop Anders merging with Justice, you can not change who Arishok is, you can not make Bertrand not sell the idol to Meredith. You can not make your mother not look like that other woman.). Why would you be able to change everyone? It is realistic, that some people don't really give a damn about what you do. It is realistic that some people do give a damn about what you do and their life (as well as your life) changes due to that. Being on my 3rd playthrough I can state that each story told was different because the choices made are varied.

[AlexXIV]

I said it before and I'll say it again. Probably many times. It's a game and not a book or movie. People don't play games to lose. They play them to win. That may make the story boring or predictable for some people. But I am almost sure most people don't really understand why they play a game that plays like a depressing book or movie. I mean if you want to tell a story where the audience doesn't have any impact then the proper thing is to write a book about it.

[Darth Obvious]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Our choices shape Hawke, rather then shaping Kirkwall.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read yet today.

[The dead fish]

You're wrong to mourn the lack of something that no game has ever achieved ever, atleast not in the way people imagine it. Even Morrowind was no PnP simulator catering for every possible choice, and by the make, bethesda tried.
The thing I have to bring up again and again in these topics is this - you expect something you never had - Previous games, like Origins, didn't have it either. They just *told* you, that your decision would totally matter, and everything would change the second you're out of the zone.
DA2 on the other hand went the opposite, much preferable road of not pretending, but rather giving you reasons*why* your choices didn't matter in the end. (With the exception of "best served cold" admittedly.

I hope you're kidding ?  Dragon Age Origins is the game where I have never seen so many different choices. Countless opportunities that I never suspected in my first game, and I could see when I saw others talking of their choice.

example :. The demon of desire. You can kill her, but ALSO even negotiate or even make love with her.

The son of Isolde, you can slaughter it, you can use the blood magic with Jowan, or Morrigan to save him, you can appeal to the circle of mages. Yet, the same end there too. Redcliffe is calm, with notable differences, such as sacrifice, a murder or is for the better. all is a live even Isolde.

Dalatians, we have the same end, we managed to have their support for the warden.

But the process is completely different depending on individual decisions. You can choose the wolves, you can choose the elves. And even choosing the elves, you can kill Zathrian, or make him admit he was wrong. And he sacrifices himself.

There are plenty of examples like that. Where were you ? When did you bother to play really dao ?
Dao is a game with real choices, the ability to replay a different part is simply magnificent.

There is nothing like that in DA2.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 24 mars 2011 - 02:26 .

[Arppis]

AlexXIV wrote...

Also in ME2 you keep your crew. At the end of DA2 even the companions are gone. So you almost lost everything. People would probably respond better to a 'lack of choices' if the ending wasn't so ... depressive.

I think that was one of the good things about the ending. I don't always want happy ending, sometimes endings like these are much better. It would be really boring if the hero would always win. Just like Silent Hill 2 is the best horror game around, because the setting and the ending isn't all fun fun happy joy joy full of victory.

Modifié par Arppis, 24 mars 2011 - 02:30 .

[Gadarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

I said it before and I'll say it again. Probably many times. It's a game and not a book or movie. People don't play games to lose. They play them to win. That may make the story boring or predictable for some people. But I am almost sure most people don't really understand why they play a game that plays like a depressing book or movie. I mean if you want to tell a story where the audience doesn't have any impact then the proper thing is to write a book about it.

Except that the audience does have an impact. You're under the impression that the story of DA2 is about the fate of Kirkwall, when it's really about Hawke. Right from the very beginning it is rather obvious that the game will end on an unhappy note, otherwise the Seeker wouldn't drag Varric out of his hole for interrogation, and both wouldn't comment on the world being on the brink of war.

Hawkes story however doesn't need to be depressing at all, at least if you don't measure it against Kirkwalls or Thedas' fate. Hawke, at first, is a refugee with nothing but remnants of his family and the stuff he's carrying. By the end of the game, Hawke is a legend, well off, influential, and depending on your choices with numerous friends willing to follow him through hell and back. DA2 is the story of Hawke. We, as the players, get to choose who he really is, as opposed to what people perceive him as. That's the whole idea of the framed narrative, which implies - who would have guessed - a frame. We get to draw the painting.

[AlexXIV]

Gadarr wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I said it before and I'll say it again. Probably many times. It's a game and not a book or movie. People don't play games to lose. They play them to win. That may make the story boring or predictable for some people. But I am almost sure most people don't really understand why they play a game that plays like a depressing book or movie. I mean if you want to tell a story where the audience doesn't have any impact then the proper thing is to write a book about it.

Except that the audience does have an impact. You're under the impression that the story of DA2 is about the fate of Kirkwall, when it's really about Hawke. Right from the very beginning it is rather obvious that the game will end on an unhappy note, otherwise the Seeker wouldn't drag Varric out of his hole for interrogation, and both wouldn't comment on the world being on the brink of war.

Hawkes story however doesn't need to be depressing at all, at least if you don't measure it against Kirkwalls or Thedas' fate. Hawke, at first, is a refugee with nothing but remnants of his family and the stuff he's carrying. By the end of the game, Hawke is a legend, well off, influential, and depending on your choices with numerous friends willing to follow him through hell and back. DA2 is the story of Hawke. We, as the players, get to choose who he really is, as opposed to what people perceive him as. That's the whole idea of the framed narrative, which implies - who would have guessed - a frame. We get to draw the painting.

Hawke's father died in the blight, the Hawkes lost their home in Lothering. One sibling dies. Another sibling may or may not die. The mother dies. Yes, in the mean time somewhere Hawke gains fame and wealth, but it is all lost in the end since Hawke disappears, in the best case with one sibling and the LI. The rest 'who would go through hell with Hawke' leave him/her. And the house in Kirkwall is probably also lost. And Hawke being a legend is probably mostly because of Varric's tales because Hawke him/herself doesn't do one thing that really changes much. Anders is out of Hawke's control, and the qunari uprise could probably also have been stopped by Meredith and her templars. Hawke is, if anything, becoming legendary because he/she has been there and Varric's tale weaving skill.

[Arppis]

Sylvianus wrote...

You're wrong to mourn the lack of something that no game has ever achieved ever, atleast not in the way people imagine it. Even Morrowind was no PnP simulator catering for every possible choice, and by the make, bethesda tried.
The thing I have to bring up again and again in these topics is this - you expect something you never had - Previous games, like Origins, didn't have it either. They just *told* you, that your decision would totally matter, and everything would change the second you're out of the zone.
DA2 on the other hand went the opposite, much preferable road of not pretending, but rather giving you reasons*why* your choices didn't matter in the end. (With the exception of "best served cold" admittedly.

I hope you're kidding ?  Dragon Age Origins is the game where I have never seen so many different choices. Countless opportunities that I never suspected in my first game, and I could see when I saw others talking of their choice.

example :. The demon of desire. You can kill her, but ALSO even negotiate or even make love with her.

The son of Isolde, you can slaughter it, you can use the blood magic with Jowan, or Morrigan to save him, you can appeal to the circle of mages. Yet, the same end there too. Redcliffe is calm, with notable differences, such as sacrifice, a murder or is for the better. all is a live even Isolde.

Dalatians, we have the same end, we managed to have their support for the warden.

But the process is completely different depending on individual decisions. You can choose the wolves, you can choose the elves. And even choosing the elves, you can kill Zathrian, or make him admit he was wrong. And he sacrifices himself.

There are plenty of examples like that. Where were you ? When did you bother to play really dao ?
Dao is a game with real choices, the ability to replay a different part is simply magnificent.

There is nothing like that in DA2.

No matter what you do everything goes by it's normal path: You recruit army and then you fight archdemon and kill it. None of that really affects the plot too much either. I can oversimplify too. Theres no real choices! I can't change the fundimental of the plot! AMIGAAAD! Why can't I form alliance with the blight and rule as a king?! Why can't I just kill Loghain right away and change the whole plot around?! All I can do is collect the army and then defeat the archdemon!

There are choices in the DA2, they don't affect the plot that much, but neither do the DA:O choices.

AlexXIV wrote...

Hawke's father died in the blight, the
Hawkes lost their home in Lothering. One sibling dies. Another sibling
may or may not die. The mother dies. Yes, in the mean time somewhere
Hawke gains fame and wealth, but it is all lost in the end since Hawke
disappears, in the best case with one sibling and the LI. The rest 'who
would go through hell with Hawke' leave him/her. And the house in
Kirkwall is probably also lost. And Hawke being a legend is probably
mostly because of Varric's tales because Hawke him/herself doesn't do
one thing that really changes much. Anders is out of Hawke's control,
and the qunari uprise could probably also have been stopped by Meredith
and her templars. Hawke is, if anything, becoming legendary because
he/she has been there and Varric's tale weaving skill.

What you expected when the theme of the game was "family and loss"? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

Modifié par Arppis, 24 mars 2011 - 02:41 .