189 réponses à ce sujet

[GabranthSG]

Camenae wrote...

Hmm, I guess I don't really understand why DA2 had less "choice" than DAO, other than not having an epilogue that gives nods to what you did. On a quest-by-quest basis I thought the level of choice was pretty much the same.

DAO had choices like, you can choose to kill the werewolves or the Dalish elves or resolve the curse, you can side with the mages or the templars, you can recruit Wynne or kill her.

I used to think wow DAO has a lot more choices than DA2! But then I paused and tried to think of reasons for that opinion, and then it quickly fell apart because DA2 had choices on a similar scale as DAO. You can send Feynriel to the circle or not. You can give Merrill the arulin'holm or you can keep it from her causing her to give up blood magic. You can protect Isabela or give her up to the Qunari. Etc.

Hoping for somebody else to find convincing reasons to bolster my original opinion.

Ok a few examples I can think up of offhand are:

1) If you had saved the Circle in the Tower quest, you could have the option of approaching them for help with Connor. You didn't have to see the epilogue to see that your choice had an impact on your gameplay later.

2) Several Specializations in DA:O could only be obtained by choosing certain options. You could never obtain them otherwise.

3) When you get captured by Ser Cauthrian, you could play 2 different paths where one had you break out of the prison yourself, and the other has your campanions rescuing you.

4) Depending on certain circumstances which I can't remember, you could survive the killing of the Archdemon, or you could die, or you could have the other Grey Warden do it.

Not to mention the other decisions you make feel like they have a real impact on the world at large. Such as allowing the Anvil to be found, or allowing Andraste's ashes to be found, or not curing the werewolves causing them to still be a menace, etc.

Don't get me wrong, because I like DA2. I'm still playing the game now. But it's ridiculous to compare DA:O and DA2 when it comes to making choices. Because more often than not in DA2, you do get railroaded to a specific outcome. I wanted to kill sister Petrice, not work with her. But I had to anyway, and the Qunari conflict gets worse.

[GabranthSG]

Deztyn wrote...

RubiconI7 wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Our choices shape Hawke, rather then shaping Kirkwall.

A voice of reason.

Well, I want to shape my second mage Hawke as a woman of uncompromising morals who genuinely believes that the Circle is a good option for mages who lacked the advantage of having an Apostate daddy and recognizes the threat that bad or untrained mages present to the world. Who also hates blood magic because she believes that it is innately evil just as most people in the game do. Okay, really I just want to play a pro-templar mage because it makes Anders head explode. Still.

Then of course there's Merrill.

Who I told I did not want to talk to after the game forces me to drop her off at the alienage.

And never spoke to after. And ignored completely on the character selection screen.

The game of course is still treating Merrill as if she is one of my companions in cutscenes and dialogue.

I'd call that a failure to make a convincing illusion of choice.

Not to mention that if I wanted to play an absolutely detestable villain in DA2, I couldn't. Because the options I have still have me play out as a hero, albeit an extremely aggressive one.

[ShrinkingFish]

"There are men who struggle against destiny, and yet achieve only an early grave. There are men who flee destiny, only to have it swallow them whole. And there are men who embrace destiny, and do not show their fear. These are the ones that change the world forever."

Boom. You just got meta-d! You cannot fight your destiny... choice is an illusion...

Muwahahaha!

[M8DMAN]

The ending doesn't change no matter what choice you make. Hawke is still considered a hero to the mages even though he sided with the Templars. WTF Bioware?

Plus you still have to fight Orsino even if you side with the mages. How does that make sense?

[Miashi]

I want to add something to this thread because I'm really compelled to.
I'm on my second playthrough, still in act 1.
This time I'm playing the game differently and going for other dialogs to see the variety of choice and how they affect the game.

So far 2 quests pushed me into choices I went against:

1- The mine quest: After I cleared the mine from the drake, I told the guy that I wasn't interested in his mine venture at all and to leave me alone. He still gave me the quest to convince his workers to go back to the mind.

2- Sheepherding wolves: I told Petrice I didn't want to get involved with the Qunari. She totally ignored me and still forced me into escorting the guy.

Why add the option to refuse a quest yet it's forced upon you? Dialog is just flavor unfortunately. I'll post more once I run into more of them.

[TcheQ]

You still get to colour the personality of you characte by means of choice.  Yuo decide who lives and dies, who supports you and don't, who to help and who to spurn.

[Halo Quea]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

Even once you recieve the title of Champion it seems to have little effect on how people view Hawke. Your status seems to hold no special perks. You're still in the same home, surrounded by the same city, with the same friends and everyone treats you as if you're an idiot when you're the only sane one of the bunch.

This was one of the more dissappointing elements because EA/Bioware's marketing campaign gave you the early impression that your rise to power in DA2 meant something.   It doesn't.   Hawke continued to be everyone's little errand boy/girl after s/he was named Champion. 

There was one scene where Aveline really presses Hawke about what his/her role is in Kirkwall.   I had liked this conversation the first time I had it because Aveline was very strongly suggesting that someone like Hawke should want a more responsible role in the city besides cracking skulls and collecting coin.  And it made sense because Hawke's only goal since he arrived to Kirkwall was moving the family to Hightown. 

But it never develops into anything.  If anything, being Champion seems to send people into an even greater rage whenever they see you.   No one would even stop, not a single pause.  

"There's the Champion!"  And suddenly a dozen swords and staffs start coming towards you. 

Can I just say one thing before you guys start swinging swords and summoning demons?  "Kill the Champion!"

I might be on your side if you just explain to me what's going on.  "The Champion must die!"

After a couple of hours of that, YOU GET IT.    The title of Champion of Kirkwall is meaningless, it might as well be a painted target on your armor.   So what was the whole point of becoming Champion anyway?  Just a title to use  during the narrative?  

[M8DMAN]

Halo Quea wrote...

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

Even once you recieve the title of Champion it seems to have little effect on how people view Hawke. Your status seems to hold no special perks. You're still in the same home, surrounded by the same city, with the same friends and everyone treats you as if you're an idiot when you're the only sane one of the bunch.

This was one of the more dissappointing elements because EA/Bioware's marketing campaign gave you the early impression that your rise to power in DA2 meant something.   It doesn't.   Hawke continued to be everyone's little errand boy/girl after s/he was named Champion. 

There was one scene where Aveline really presses Hawke about what his/her role is in Kirkwall.   I had liked this conversation the first time I had it because Aveline was very strongly suggesting that someone like Hawke should want a more responsible role in the city besides cracking skulls and collecting coin.  And it made sense because Hawke's only goal since he arrived to Kirkwall was moving the family to Hightown. 

But it never develops into anything.  If anything, being Champion seems to send people into an even greater rage whenever they see you.   No one would even stop, not a single pause.  

"There's the Champion!"  And suddenly a dozen swords and staffs start coming towards you. 

Can I just say one thing before you guys start swinging swords and summoning demons?  "Kill the Champion!"

I might be on your side if you just explain to me what's going on.  "The Champion must die!"

After a couple of hours of that, YOU GET IT.    The title of Champion of Kirkwall is meaningless, it might as well be a painted target on your armor.   So what was the whole point of becoming Champion anyway?  Just a title to use  during the narrative?  

The only good point of being the Champion is that you get to wear cool armor.

[Sylvianus]

@Miashi.

you're the most honest person in this topic among those who defended that there were choices in DA2

 Never aggressive, never pretend to be smarter than others. You focus on the facts and tries to reflect on the problem, whatever your position in this case.

Like me, before you rush to post, you tried to play another round to try something else entirely.

In this game you will discover that everything is done for hawk remains neutral. You can not be a bastard or a good guy. Being with the Templars or the Magi, you should always be neutral, not your history. You'll be forced to follow a line, whatever you want to decide.

The mission of Fenryl example, is a decoy. You send it to the circle or in DAlatians, you will receive 3 years later the same letter, the same mission to save him. It's not a situation that arises from our choice, is a default situation. One and the same situation. The choice to put the circle or in DAlatians is purely fanciful.

We offer you the dialogues that are not taken into account because it finally brings you to the same situation.

  You're a blood mage who wants to destroy the Templars, you should be on the side of some of them, and worse, which kill Grace

Want to be a Templar? You'll have to necessarily kill the Templars, to be against Petrice.

Some quests if thou refuse, do not bring a result, it just makes you lose a quest and so,score experience.


--------------------------

@gadarr

ould be honest and admit that they're just venting steam and ranting along because the game and their expectations didn't match.

Exxageration ? That's your opinion, you have the right to think that. However, this removes there a problem ? No, definitely. Now it's your opinion, i don't care. You have mostly appeared to be someone who does not appreciate the difference of opinion.

All your post while moderate in shape confirmed me. You saw me once spit on the team or their game ? where ? You saw me involved in a topic where it said THIS GAME SUCKS, or I LOVE THIS GAME? Not looking for. You will not find.

My topic points directly an aspect of the game, I go directly into the concrete. I do not care about generalities. I see a problem, I tip. We can desagree, and show me that i wrong, thanks to the folks wo try.

Your generalizations about people, keep them to yourself, we don't need in this topic who wants to concentrate on the subject. You have rabies, because some have different opinion than you on the game you love so much, that's all.

What you don't want to see is that many people who complain here, loved the game. No, you'd rather see that players are disgruntled trolls, haters, because it's easier to you to convince you they are wrong. You need to take on the enemy, the evil trolls who want  necessarily bash to your favorite game. Black and white.

Open your eyes and you will see that these people there, like you, loved the game but have noticed problems in their opinion of course.  It was shown by the players how the illusion worked on a number of dialogues, some have pointed to inconsistencies, like the fact that they are magicians, and that Grace is turning against them and yet they want help, it is anti-Templar. There is no dialogue to say they are friends, we must necessarily kill her.

Even some  who still defend bioware, recognize that DA2 is really limited and justified by the fact that kind of comment "all rpgs are illusions"

I'm simply not willing to let it go undefended before the waves of unadulterated hate washing through these forums, when the reason for ninety percent of them is blindness by either nostalgia, or the inabillity to look past the most 

@Lithuasil

Again an example of an attempt to discredit the views of the opposition. Nostalgia, blah blah blah.

No, what you report as mere nostalgia, it may be a standard of quality that must regain at least in a rpg.

I would add that just because you say you are smarter than others, don't mean that 's the case, thank you to avoid in the future this kind of sterile comment . Nobody ever said you were a blind fangirl that never see any default. Tries to do the same.

Now please, back on topic, focus on facts and debate.

_____________

mine quest: After I cleared the mine from the drake, I told the guy that I wasn't interested in his mine venture at all and to leave me alone. He still gave me the quest to convince his workers to go back to the mind.

Yes, it's a quest by default, you accept it or you reject it. And even if you refuse, he gives it to you anyway, there are no consequences for your refusal. This will be the same with Anders and his proposal to divert the attention of the High Priestess as he enters the Chantry.

herding wolves: I told Petrice I didn't want to get involved with the Qunari. She totally ignored me and still forced me into escorting the guy.

Exactly, you're forced. And throughout this quest you will be forced. Try all dialogues, exact same situation. Magician qunari dies, qunari fight you, Petric pay you and leave you in promising you that she will remember you.

- no possibility to refuse the mission
- no-possiiblity of obtaining approval for Petric.
- You are always the enemy. This is ridiculous, if you want to play a bastard, or a pro-Templar.

Unable to resolve the matter peacefully with qunari case, whatever your decision, which is ignored from beginning to end, you have no choice, you follow a line in this quest.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 26 mars 2011 - 09:32 .

[Miashi]

The trend I observe is that ultimately, your decisions only impact your rivalry/friendliness with your companions. That's it. The quests end the same way.

But really; having a 100% rival or 100% friendly companion doesn't really matter in the end either because they will stick around with you. The reason why they'll stick around is different but still.

Food for thought.



I just want to say this ultimately: I was convinced that there were choices, or there was an appearance of choice, but the further I play my second playthrough, the less I am convinced that they matter.

On the comment that you decide who lives and who dies, you really don't. If I look back at the Sheepherding wolves, the Qunari dies, whether I let it go free or I return him to his pack.

Another "choice": I may decide to let Anders die, but realistically, he's the most important character in the game: he's the best healer, he's the guy that blows everything up. If I kill him and Bethany dies in the deep roads, I'm screwed. The very least would've been to make the healing tree accessible to Merrill.

I've played about all the RPGs bioware made, and I have a full shelf of all their games: Neverwinter nights (orginal box, gold version, diamond edition, the separate boxes for Shadow of Udrentide and Hordes of the Underdark); KOTOR, BG1 and BG2, Jade Empire for XBOX, Mass Effect PC and Mass Effect on XBOX360, Mass Effect 2 limited edition on XBOX360 (with all the DLCs), DA:O limited edition on PC with all the DLCs except Golem and that Darkspawn DLC that I didn't care about; DA:Awakenings; DA:2 signature edition on XBOX360 and now DA:2 on PC. I also play DA Legends on Facebook. If there's a bioware fangirl out here, I can safely say I am, cause I've thrown hundred of dollars in their games without ever asking a question.

But I will say here and now that we've been offered better quality games in the past. Neverwinter Nights was boohed by quite a few people when compared it to BG2 which still remains Bioware's best game; however NWN was widely better than DA:2 was. For instance, if I decided to massacre townsfolk inside Neverwinter, then I was more than welcome to do it. That's something that you can't even do in DA:O!

Anyways, that was a lot of rambling.

I don't know if Bioware read this topic or not, but I want to bring an important point here: my beef is the way the game goes, and not the story. I loved the story. I just hated how it was portrayed in the game. It would've been better to write a book out of this game. David Gaider, please please please don't let them make a game out of your stories anymore unless a reasonable amount of time is spent in developping the game. Dragon Age is not Rock Band.

Modifié par Miashi, 26 mars 2011 - 10:16 .

[Lord Gremlin]

M8DMAN wrote...

Plus you still have to fight Orsino even if you side with the mages. How does that make sense?

That one was stupid. My mage Hawke and pals successfully help him fight templars, their corpses are piled in the hallway, and suddenly Orsino turns himself into a mindless flesh golem.
This is called betrayal. Worst kind - betrayal born of fear, stupidity and 0 strategy thought or magic understanding.
Why? Why was the first enchanter so stupid? Maybe that was the case with all the problems - first enchanter was an idiot.

And don't get me started on Petrice - worst quest in game. Period. Well, these things happen. Your Hawke made an idiot in that case. Bioware, give me a reason why we can't kill her? And if it's a story thing why she's still there when we come back? Oh, the stupidity!

[Wittand25]

Sylvianus wrote...

mine quest: After I cleared the mine from the drake, I told the guy that I wasn't interested in his mine venture at all and to leave me alone. He still gave me the quest to convince his workers to go back to the mind.

Yes, it's a quest by default, you accept it or you reject it. And even if you refuse, he gives it to you anyway, there are no consequences for your refusal. This will be the same with Anders and his proposal to divert the attention of the High Priestess as he enters the Chantry.

You are always forced to go on a wild goose chase to restore Eamon no matter how ridiculous and pointless that actually is in the setting in DA:O.

herding wolves: I told Petrice I didn't want to get involved with the Qunari. She totally ignored me and still forced me into escorting the guy.

Exactly, you're forced. And throughout this quest you will be forced. Try all dialogues, exact same situation. Magician qunari dies, qunari fight you, Petric pay you and leave you in promising you that she will remember you.

- no possibility to refuse the mission
- no-possiiblity of obtaining approval for Petric.
- You are always the enemy. This is ridiculous, if you want to play a bastard, or a pro-Templar.

Unable to resolve the matter peacefully with qunari case, whatever your decision, which is ignored from beginning to end, you have no choice, you follow a line in this quest.

The quest ends in several differnt ways and with different rewards. In fact if you do not solve the quest in the right way one of the achievements even becomes impossible to fulfill and another quest in the second act is harder to unlock.
A fight may be unavoidable but the reason for the fight changes. And the same is true in Origins. There is no peaceful resolution for the Elf/Werewolf problem you always have to fight one of them and the same is true for most of the other quests in DA:O as well..

Modifié par Wittand25, 26 mars 2011 - 10:38 .

[Sylvianus]

The quest ends in several differnt ways and with different rewards. In fact if you do not solve the quest in the right way one of the achievements even becomes impossible to fulfill and another quest in the second act is harder to unlock.
A fight may be unavoidable but the reason for the fight changes. And the same is true in Origins. There is no peaceful resolution for the Elf/Werewolf problem you always have to fight one of them and the same is true for most of the other quests in DA:O as well.. 

No my friend. ^^ It's possible in dao, yes after somes fight, but it's possible to resolve peacefully.

Zathrian sacrifices himself and forgets his idea of revenge. Versipelle disappears with him, thanking him, at peace with him. Peaceful outcome that I confess I did not think possible. I thought it was like you have to choose a field. My girlfriend succeed to find this path.

But I agree with you. Sometimes it's unavoidable. You will notice that I agree with the obligation to choose sides in the end. What I find unfortunate is not to be committed from the outset for a camp. Hawk MUST remain neutral, to advance the story. It is not us who choose our affiliations, is the story that wants it. Now that's what makes it ruins everything from the difference in role.

Why give the possibilities if it is to have the same end ? Bioware is it cruel ? We hold out decisions that ultimately did not make any sense ?

In mass effect, every time we give you the opportunity to choose, it leads to something different.

It's totally possible to play a bastard or a super nice guy.

Example: The son of Thane, it threatens a Turian with a pistol. This Turian do not like humans. The end is what? There is only one. It ends up back home and her father is happy.

But how it ends? two ways. Nice Shepard who is human use a nice diversion, hits the Drell disarmed. and saves the racist Turian. Or he kills the hostage, the son of Thane and has no means to threaten anybody, it is now without means of pressure. Besides, the drell is shocked by the senseless murder of Shepard.

The policeman asked why he did that ? Shep replied because it was an anti-human. You see the difference? can play a different role. in this case is a bastard. a racist.

Finally, the son you can make him a  prisonner who do hard labor for one year if you're nice and respectful of the order, or if you 're pragmatic. You advised the policeman to use him as an assassin in the service of the police.

I hope I managed to figure out what I think.

Just have a difference of pronunciation of a sentence, I think it's really not cool.

And decisions taken in Act 1, except for the companions, do not count.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 26 mars 2011 - 11:56 .

[Sylvianus]

The trend I observe is that ultimately, your decisions only impact your rivalry/friendliness with your companions. That's it. The quests end the same way.

haha, you understood.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 26 mars 2011 - 11:54 .

[Deztyn]

I actually think Shepherding Wolves presents a good example of how to force a player along a preset path while still allowing some degree of choice. Not in the beginning where you accept the quest even when trying to refuse it. That was one of the worst examples. But how the quest ends once you meet up with the other Qunari is fantastic. Playing it as a noble mage loving rogue the first time through, Ketojan self-immolates in the end, and it was dramatic, and tragic. Playing it my second time through as a character who was willing to let the other Qunari take him he still chooses his own death, and you still fight the other Quanari, and it is also done to great dramatic effect.

But this isn't a case of your choices not mattering. In both scenarios it's about the Qun and what Saarebas wants.

Modifié par Deztyn, 27 mars 2011 - 12:00 .

[Miashi]

Ok. Let me replace "choice mattering" by "consequences". No matter what choice you pick, the consequences are the same. Typically, previous Bioware games punish or reward certain choices.

There's been several kind of reward or punishment: items, extra quests, additional lore or special cutscenes, etc.

A blatant example of choice - consequence in DA:O - the scene where you decide to fight or let yourself be captured in Arl Howe's estate. If you decide to fight, consequence: the fight is damn hard, and it's a fairly big challenge to go through. If you get captured, then the consequence is that you a) avoid the whole confrontation, and then you may decide to get rescued or rescued yourself. This is my favorite part of the game. Do we have anything similar in DA:2? Not the slightest.

Note: You can argue that the finality of the quest will lead you back to Arl Eamon's estate, and as I mentioned in some of my previous posts, there's always going to be a line that a storyline will end up following (at least for Bioware's games). The key element is how your turn it into a perception that it is a choice. I believe that DA:2 failed to deliver in that matter.

Modifié par Miashi, 27 mars 2011 - 12:24 .

[Lithuasil]

Miashi wrote...

Ok. Let me replace "choice mattering" by "consequences". No matter what choice you pick, the consequences are the same. Typically, previous Bioware games punish or reward certain choices.

There's been several kind of reward or punishment: items, extra quests, additional lore or special cutscenes, etc.

A blatant example of choice - consequence in DA:O - the scene where you decide to fight or let yourself be captured in Arl Howe's estate. If you decide to fight, consequence: the fight is damn hard, and it's a fairly big challenge to go through. If you get captured, then the consequence is that you a) avoid the whole confrontation, and then you may decide to get rescued or rescued yourself. This is my favorite part of the game. Do we have anything similar in DA:2? Not the slightest.

Note: You can argue that the finality of the quest will lead you back to Arl Eamon's estate, and as I mentioned in some of my previous posts, there's always going to be a line that a storyline will end up following (at least for Bioware's games). The key element is how your turn it into a perception that it is a choice.

While the whole Denerim political affair was by far the finest hour of Origins, it also pretty much illustrates why such a thing happened only once in all of Origins, and never in DA2.
Speaking simply from a designers perspective, making such stuff, as awesome as it might be, simply is no viable option. Think about it, four or five cutscenes, at least twenty minutes of individual dialogue and a whole level (which they recycled for the final btw) - all for naught, if the player simply happens to not suck at the combat system. Crafting a game that offers several such choices, would basically mean creating two or three games, with the player only experiencing one per playthrough. In other words, either a campaign half as long, or twice as much time needed for developement. Bioware are only people - sure DA2 could have taken another three month of polish allright, but allowing for several such choices, where even Origins only had that one, isn't viable, no matter how long the game's in developement.

[Miashi]

Hordes of the Underdark, act 2 - you had to ally with 3 factions, and there were (I believe 4 or 5 available) and as soon as you had 3 on your side, you triggered the final part of the act, which meant that you "skipped" content no matter what. It's not something new and exciting Bioware did in DA:O.

A game without multiple decisions or consequences means that the game has no replayability value. If that's what Bioware had in mind when they did DA:2, then so be it. What I'm saying is that historically, this goes against all what Bioware stood for.

edit: oh and trust me, the fight in the estate was intentionally hard - even on easy - so hard that most people actually would end up getting captured anyways. The option to fight was still available, however, and that is to be applauded.

Modifié par Miashi, 27 mars 2011 - 12:45 .

[Lithuasil]

Miashi wrote...

Hordes of the Underdark, act 2 - you had to ally with 3 factions, and there were (I believe 4 or 5 available) and as soon as you had 3 on your side, you triggered the final part of the act, which meant that you "skipped" content no matter what. It's not something new and exciting Bioware did in DA:O.

A game without multiple decisions or consequences means that the game has no replayability value. If that's what Bioware had in mind when they did DA:2, then so be it. What I'm saying is that historically, this goes against all what Bioware stood for.

Technically, there's plenty of replayability in DA2 (arguably more then in Origins, since the dialogue is actually different in DA2).

And also technically "all that bioware stood for" is a little too big an expression for "they didn't do it in Me1/2, and they did it in Origins once, in a later recycled level, tacked to the single one plot twist not obvious from five miles away"?
Point being, doing something like this once, or twice is awesome when a dev can spare the resources - but  demanding every other decision in a game to be like that (which is pretty much what your words imply) is utterly delusional.

[Lithuasil]

Miashi wrote...

edit: oh and trust me, the fight in the estate was intentionally hard - even on easy - so hard that most people actually would end up getting captured anyways. The option to fight was still available, however, and that is to be applauded.

Aside from our taste, our assesment of what is 'hard' in a video game, also seems to differ.

[Katzen]

Some choices:

- You can choose to give Isabella to the Qun
- You can choose to give Fenric back to his former master
- You can choose to take responsibility for Merril or slaughter an entire Dalish clan!
- You can choose whether or not to kill Anders
- You can choose to make your sibling a Grey Warden or let them die

I guess most major choices had to deal with you companions. But really the whole story is a commentary on fate. There's a specific way the story is going to turn out but you can shape the events leading up to those moments.

[Miashi]

First off, if you read my earlier posts, I've addressed the complexity of a branching game well before you did, so saying that my "demands" are delusional shows that you need to sit down and stop taking everything so personally.

The "recycled" keep in Dragon Age origins, that you seem to exult talking about so much, had a reason to be there. It was the prison, but also the very same building where the Archdemon was sitting on. I believe that the "reused" tiles people complain about is not the zones that are the same night or day, but caverns, mines, sewers and estates that use the same layout, minus a few doors here and there. Bottomline: your point is invalid.

Modifié par Miashi, 27 mars 2011 - 01:03 .

[Deztyn]

Katzen wrote...

Some choices:

- You can choose to give Isabella to the Qun
- You can choose to give Fenric back to his former master
- You can choose to take responsibility for Merril or slaughter an entire Dalish clan!
- You can choose whether or not to kill Anders
- You can choose to make your sibling a Grey Warden or let them die

I guess most major choices had to deal with you companions. But really the whole story is a commentary on fate. There's a specific way the story is going to turn out but you can shape the events leading up to those moments.

Yes...

. . . but they don't even let you choose your companions. :innocent:

[Lithuasil]

Miashi wrote...

First off, if you read my earlier posts, I've addressed the complexity of a branching game well before you did, so saying that my "demands" are delusional shows that you need to sit down and stop taking everything so personally.

The "recycled" keep in Dragon Age origins, that you seem to exult talking about so much, had a reason to be there. It was the prison, but also the very same building where the Archdemon was sitting on. I believe that the "reused" tiles people complain about is not the zones that are the same night or day, but caverns, mines, sewers and estates that use the same layout, minus a few doors here and there. Bottomline: your point is invalid.

And where does your authority come from, to dismiss a point as invalid, that you have missed entirely? :|

[xSTONEYx187x]

I wasn't happy that I killed Anders, sided with Meredith, killed Bethany, killed Orsani (SP) and then was forced to fight Meredith, why couldn't I be evil along side her?