146 réponses à ce sujet

[Narreneth]

cotheer wrote...

The Redcliffe quest line alone had more meaningful choices than DA2 from beginning to the end.
And those choices are ME, and the way i play and the way i would probably react/do IRL.

If that doesn't make the Warden MY warden, than i don't know what does.

No, the choices you picked were of limited number.  Just as in every other RPG on any console anywhere.
It's great that you liked the Redcliffe questline.  It's fine if you think it was more meaningful than anything you've ever played.  But you had a limited number of options.  You had a limited number of responses.  Don't sit there and try to pretend like you got to do something taylor-fitted to you and only you.  In the end you had two choices: Conor is saved or he isn't.  The means you save him with are the only parts that change.  Do you use Blood magic, or get the Circle to help with Lyrium?  Either way ends with you trucking through the fade to the Desire Demon.  If you go in as the Warden, you can deal with the Demon and screw Conor if you choose.  If not, you fight her.

So again.  You save him or you don't. 

In truth, I think Origins did a better job of making you feel like you had more choices.  And I realize this is a very large part of people's perception of the game.  In reality, though, you didn't have thousands upon thousands of options like people try to say.  OP's point still stands.  You're acting like he's pissing in your Cheerios and he isn't  He's simply saying that the anti-DA2 side is taking things to such an extreme over something that isn't true to begin with.

And you are.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Narreneth wrote...


Which Hawke was I?  What happened to the mages I encountered along the way?  No, not just the circle in general, but the individual ones whose lives swung in the balance.  Did Samson get back into the Templars?  You're being a ****** to make a point.  Even if the ending is one of two (yes, two, saying "derp, Hawke disappears I know what happened" completely ignores the fact that you still side with Meredith or Orsini initially) you still have no way of knowing how I personally got there.  Which of my companions were still alive and with me?

And yes I do know how your DAO game ended.  The Blight stopped.  Done.  You see how stupid that looks?  That's exactly what you just did witht he DA2 ending.  You didn't personally like the game, therefore, you're ignoring every other story point but the very final lead-out where Varric lets the Seeker know he doesn't know where Hawke is.

Oh, and for the reference, your Warden disappeared too.  

 Actually I think this response is far more "angsty" than Bob's. Please do not call people names and try to have a polite discussion everyone.

[AkiKishi]

Narreneth wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Wygrath wrote...

 I keep seeing this stuff over and over and it's really gotten under my skin because it's all a subjective illusion brought about by your own differing expectations.

None of which have ever been fulfilled in any game let alone Origins.

I get that Dragon Age 2 is not game of the year quality, but it isn't half as bad as some on the forums here have played it out to be.

You didn't have "your warden" in Origins. If it was, than Hawke is "your champion" in as much as the warden was.
You didn't choose how his story unfolded, you just made choices along the way, just like in Dragon Age 2. 

The dialogue was laid out barebones for you, line for line, 1990's style and as dry as a bone. None of you wrote that dialogue so you didn't choose who the Warden was. You chose from a predetermined list of responses just like in Dragon Age 2. The difference is the wheel, which also had symbols to let you know the tone of the responses you chose.

Was the wheel spot on and perfectly accurate? Not at all. They just gave us paraphrased, short hand versions of the choices, which were not at all misleading. You can't say the same for the Origin's dialogue because every one who played chose a response that they thought would go over one way, but was seemingly taken out of context by the NPCs involved in the conversation.

If you guys really want a tailor made story/adventure/character, the only way you are going to get that is by getting a group of friends together, buying some table top RPG handbooks and manuals, and set about creating your own campaign.

So how about easying up on the me, me, me, mine, my, my stuff when discussing both Origins and DA2.

Yes you did.  Unless you can tell me who my Warden was that's a false statement. I know you were Hawke, wow that was easy.

Again guess how my DA game ended. I know DA2 ended with Hawke disapearing. But can you tell me which set of circumstances ended my game in DA ? I think not.

Wrong again In DA you had a list of defined responses. In DA2 you have a paraphrase and an icon.

Face it DA2 is no where near the CRPG DA was.

Which Hawke was I?  What happened to the mages I encountered along the way?  No, not just the circle in general, but the individual ones whose lives swung in the balance.  Did Samson get back into the Templars?  You're being a ****** to make a point.  Even if the ending is one of two (yes, two, saying "derp, Hawke disappears I know what happened" completely ignores the fact that you still side with Meredith or Orsini initially) you still have no way of knowing how I personally got there.  Which of my companions were still alive and with me?

And yes I do know how your DAO game ended.  The Blight stopped.  Done.  You see how stupid that looks?  That's exactly what you just did witht he DA2 ending.  You didn't personally like the game, therefore, you're ignoring every other story point but the very final lead-out where Varric lets the Seeker know he doesn't know where Hawke is.

Oh, and for the reference, your Warden disappeared too.  

There is only one Hawke. There is only one ending.

Only because it's retconned in a lazy way.

[Narreneth]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Wygrath wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Wygrath wrote...

If you guys really want a tailor made story/adventure/character, the only way you are going to get that is by getting a group of friends together, buying some table top RPG handbooks and manuals, and set about creating your own campaign.

So how about easying up on the me, me, me, mine, my, my stuff when discussing both Origins and DA2.

No, this is incorrect in every possible way IMO.

First off, you CAN have choice in games. Not unlimited choice, no, but certainly far more choice than is presented in DA2. DAO is proof of this concept. The main story arc was what it was: You character rises to become a legendary Gray Warden and save the world from a Blight.

But it is the OTHER pieces that you are given choice on. What reward do you ask for? Do you make yourself King? How do you deal with Morrigan's offer? Who do you support in the Orzamaar? In the Brecilian Forest? In the Landsmeet?

In DAO there are real, meaningful choices that have a major and lasting impact on how the ending unfolds. In DA2 it doesn't matter what you do, you end up a complete failure at the end and you may as well never have played the game at all for all that you managed to influence the course of events.

And lastly, YES, the game IS about ME. It is about MY RISE as Champion of Kirkwall. It is about MY enjoyment. And most importantly, it is about how MY gaming dollar is spent. If I feel that I did not get the value I had hoped for for my investment of time and money then it is absolutely fine to say so.

If others do feel that they got what they wanted, they're also welcome to their own opinion.

I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion. I'm just asking for a little bit more perspective. You don't have to get all bent out of shape and huffy. 

I'm not trying to be a jerk or obtuse, but it really isn't about you or your rise to power. You're just along for the ride and you get to make a few decisions on how to get to the end. This was true of Origins as well. I'm sure this is just not something that we are going to see eye to eye on.

Morrigan's offer seems to be the only lasting choice that made any real difference as far as the overall world and narrative are concerned. Everything else is just flavor. 

As far as failing in the end, that's not at all the case. You also have the choice to be "King" or not in Dragon Age 2. The choice in Orzimmar had absolutely no effect on anything in the expansion/DLC or Dragon Age 2 and I don't consider that a significant choice. I'll reiterate that with the Werewolves/Elves. You get a little bone thrown to you in Dragon Age 2 over it, but ultimate nothing significant is changed by that decision, other than the final battle in Origins.

No, the choices exist and have meaningful consequences in the context of the DAO outcomes. The issue you're talking about are the problems with how the choices you make are handled POST DAO.

As in, so much of what you do that leads to different endings to DAO (very good!) is not built upon in subsequent games like it should have been. Both Awakenings and DA2 were rushed titles that tarnished what was there for DAO. 

This is why people aren't complaining as much about ME2 going further into shooter territory vs. ME1. Because at the very least the RPG elements of choice are being preserved. As an example, how you handled Wrex in ME1 leads to very important consequences in ME2. As does the decision at the end that revolves around the council and Anderson/Udina.

I'm one who liked ME1 better than ME2, but I'm not nearly as upset about the gameplay decisions that they made for ME2 because there is continuity of storyline and consistency in applying your choices from ME1 into real consequences in subsequent games.

This is not the case in the Dragon Age universe. In Dragon Age: Origins it set the stage perfectly for the choices you made in that game having a large scale impact in the next one. But the followthrough was not there and that is a large part of what people like me are complaining about.

Taking this one step further, there is not one, single, significant choice that you make during the entirety of Dragon Age 2. The same people die and the same outcomes take place regardless of what you do or don't do. The world does not at ALL change based on your decisions.

This is quantifiably different than, say, choosing Harrowmont over Bhelan leading dwarves to pursue more isolationist/conservative policies in the end. That is something that absolutely could have been built upon in DA2 if the designers had decided to. Again, choice was there in DAO, it just wasn't followed up on and built upon in DA2.

There are 3 endings.  You kill the Archdemon and live.  Having Alistair or Loghain kill it is the same damn thing in this case.  You kill the Archdemon and die.  You have someone else kill the Archdemon and die.

Three endings.  Everything else is just supplementary to give you the illusion of consequence and choice.  As was the point of the original post.  A paragraph at the end that tells me what Harrowmont did versus what Bhelen did is NOT an alternate ending.  You're being utterly ridiculous.

[AkiKishi]

Wygrath wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...



Yes you did.  Unless you can tell me who my Warden was that's a false statement. I know you were Hawke, wow that was easy.

Again guess how my DA game ended. I know DA2 ended with Hawke disapearing. But can you tell me which set of circumstances ended my game in DA ? I think not.

Wrong again In DA you had a list of defined responses. In DA2 you have a paraphrase and an icon.

Face it DA2 is no where near the CRPG DA was.

And the award for most angsty poster goes to... /drumroll

I'm not even touching the "which game was better" argument because it's a subjective thing and is outside of the realm of right and wrong. Is it wrong to like onions because you don't?

What's with all of the angery defensive assaults? I'm not attacking either game. I'm simply trying to point out that there a hell of alot more similarities between Origins and Dragon Age 2 than some of you are willing to admit.

It doesn't matter which game you liked more because that's a totally subjective thing and is therefore pointless to discuss unless you just want to post your thoughts over and over without ever learning anything or altering your views based on anyone else's input.

You are trying to play down the failures of DA2 by trying to make DA less than it was. That you even need to do that at all proves what a failure DA2 is better than a 1000 word essay.

Everything I said is fact. Want to try to argue be me guest.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

If you are a Dalish elf, you can get lands set aside for your people.

[Narreneth]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Narreneth wrote...


Which Hawke was I?  What happened to the mages I encountered along the way?  No, not just the circle in general, but the individual ones whose lives swung in the balance.  Did Samson get back into the Templars?  You're being a ****** to make a point.  Even if the ending is one of two (yes, two, saying "derp, Hawke disappears I know what happened" completely ignores the fact that you still side with Meredith or Orsini initially) you still have no way of knowing how I personally got there.  Which of my companions were still alive and with me?

And yes I do know how your DAO game ended.  The Blight stopped.  Done.  You see how stupid that looks?  That's exactly what you just did witht he DA2 ending.  You didn't personally like the game, therefore, you're ignoring every other story point but the very final lead-out where Varric lets the Seeker know he doesn't know where Hawke is.

Oh, and for the reference, your Warden disappeared too.  

 Actually I think this response is far more "angsty" than Bob's. Please do not call people names and try to have a polite discussion everyone.

I didn't call anyone a name.  I answered ****iness with ****iness.  It happens.

[Narreneth]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

If you are a Dalish elf, you can get lands set aside for your people.

Again, talking to someone at the end and having them go "Yes! You can have the lands!" Is not a new ending or an actual consequence.  It's satisfying, but it doesn't actually have an effect on the story or the world. 

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Actually you did say he was being a "******" and and then said his views were "stupid." Try to be civil please, that's all I'm asking.

[Narreneth]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Wygrath wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...



Yes you did.  Unless you can tell me who my Warden was that's a false statement. I know you were Hawke, wow that was easy.

Again guess how my DA game ended. I know DA2 ended with Hawke disapearing. But can you tell me which set of circumstances ended my game in DA ? I think not.

Wrong again In DA you had a list of defined responses. In DA2 you have a paraphrase and an icon.

Face it DA2 is no where near the CRPG DA was.

And the award for most angsty poster goes to... /drumroll

I'm not even touching the "which game was better" argument because it's a subjective thing and is outside of the realm of right and wrong. Is it wrong to like onions because you don't?

What's with all of the angery defensive assaults? I'm not attacking either game. I'm simply trying to point out that there a hell of alot more similarities between Origins and Dragon Age 2 than some of you are willing to admit.

It doesn't matter which game you liked more because that's a totally subjective thing and is therefore pointless to discuss unless you just want to post your thoughts over and over without ever learning anything or altering your views based on anyone else's input.

You are trying to play down the failures of DA2 by trying to make DA less than it was. That you even need to do that at all proves what a failure DA2 is better than a 1000 word essay.

Everything I said is fact. Want to try to argue be me guest.

Your opinion is fact.  You must be a pretty awesome person to know.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Narreneth wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

If you are a Dalish elf, you can get lands set aside for your people.

Again, talking to someone at the end and having them go "Yes! You can have the lands!" Is not a new ending or an actual consequence.  It's satisfying, but it doesn't actually have an effect on the story or the world. 

It is a different ending though and it represents a different voyage through the game since several characters do treat you at least somewhat differently if your character is Dalish. It's a credit to the game makers or Origins and I don't think it should be overlooked. I think they could of done more with it, sure.

[Narreneth]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Actually you did say he was being a "******" and and then said his views were "stupid." Try to be civil please, that's all I'm asking.

That's right, I said he was being a ******.  I didn't say he is one.  I don't know him personally, so I can't make that call.  I can say with absolute certainty, however, that in his first post in this thread he was acting like a ******.  And he's been doing it in every other post here as well.  He JUST said everything he said is fact and arguing with him is pointless.  That's pretty pricky.

[Eskendale]

Modifié par Eskendale, 26 mars 2011 - 07:03 .

[AkiKishi]

Narreneth wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

If you are a Dalish elf, you can get lands set aside for your people.

Again, talking to someone at the end and having them go "Yes! You can have the lands!" Is not a new ending or an actual consequence.  It's satisfying, but it doesn't actually have an effect on the story or the world. 

Are you actually thinking as you are writing ? IF you just got some land, thats land for the Dalish ,that's land they would not have had without your actions.

Whether it happens during the game or in the post game epilogue changes nothing.

What made FO so interesting is you get to see how your actions worked out, sometimes in the way that you intended sometimes not. You also have the "ultimate sacrfice" or let someone else do it choice.

[cotheer]

Narreneth wrote...

No, the choices you picked were of limited number.  Just as in every other RPG on any console anywhere.
It's great that you liked the Redcliffe questline.  It's fine if you think it was more meaningful than anything you've ever played.  But you had a limited number of options.  You had a limited number of responses.  Don't sit there and try to pretend like you got to do something taylor-fitted to you and only you.  In the end you had two choices: Conor is saved or he isn't.  The means you save him with are the only parts that change.  Do you use Blood magic, or get the Circle to help with Lyrium?  Either way ends with you trucking through the fade to the Desire Demon.  If you go in as the Warden, you can deal with the Demon and screw Conor if you choose.  If not, you fight her.

So again.  You save him or you don't. 

In truth, I think Origins did a better job of making you feel like you had more choices.  And I realize this is a very large part of people's perception of the game.  In reality, though, you didn't have thousands upon thousands of options like people try to say.  OP's point still stands.  You're acting like he's pissing in your Cheerios and he isn't  He's simply saying that the anti-DA2 side is taking things to such an extreme over something that isn't true to begin with.

And you are.

No one is debating the "limitness" of choices in a game, but rather the number, significance and impact of those choices on gameplay and game itself.
DA:O had more of THOSE type of choices than DA2, and that is what is important and that is why i played the game the way i want in MOST cases.

Limited number of choices >>> No choice at all (or very very few)

[Narreneth]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

If you are a Dalish elf, you can get lands set aside for your people.

Again, talking to someone at the end and having them go "Yes! You can have the lands!" Is not a new ending or an actual consequence.  It's satisfying, but it doesn't actually have an effect on the story or the world. 

It is a different ending though and it represents a different voyage through the game since several characters do treat you at least somewhat differently if your character is Dalish. It's a credit to the game makers or Origins and I don't think it should be overlooked. I think they could of done more with it, sure.

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I think Origins did a better job of making the player FEEL like their choices were making a large impact.  Sometimes the extra line added into a conversation is all it takes.

My argument is more along the lines of the concrete impact of your decisions on the conclusion of the story. 

[AkiKishi]

Narreneth wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Actually you did say he was being a "******" and and then said his views were "stupid." Try to be civil please, that's all I'm asking.

That's right, I said he was being a ******.  I didn't say he is one.  I don't know him personally, so I can't make that call.  I can say with absolute certainty, however, that in his first post in this thread he was acting like a ******.  And he's been doing it in every other post here as well.  He JUST said everything he said is fact and arguing with him is pointless.  That's pretty pricky.

It's called knowing how to debate. Don't worry though not reporting you.

[TJSolo]

Narreneth wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

I don't PnP.
I don't LARP.
If I wanted to keep buying and playing action adventure games where I just watch a story unfold because I am able to fight my way to the next plot point, I would do that.
I want a cRPG story that is has choices with different consequences on the game world. That is why I got into cRPGs. Specifically that is what ME1 offered and got me hooked.

So I will not stop with the me me me crap because that is what brought me into the genre of cRPGs.

You are completely ignoring the point of the post.  Good job.

I am not ignoring a thing. What I am doing is disagreeing with his post and the point to it. His point of trying to say DAO was not a "My story" game is completely wrong and not remotely close to the goal (Waring lots of Woo) stated by the Bioware corp dev team for DAO. With DA2, EA Bioware is going away from that and at times contradict the supposed presence Bioware corp represented.

[Eskendale]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Wygrath wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...

Wygrath wrote...

If you guys really want a tailor made story/adventure/character, the only way you are going to get that is by getting a group of friends together, buying some table top RPG handbooks and manuals, and set about creating your own campaign.

So how about easying up on the me, me, me, mine, my, my stuff when discussing both Origins and DA2.

No, this is incorrect in every possible way IMO.

First off, you CAN have choice in games. Not unlimited choice, no, but certainly far more choice than is presented in DA2. DAO is proof of this concept. The main story arc was what it was: You character rises to become a legendary Gray Warden and save the world from a Blight.

But it is the OTHER pieces that you are given choice on. What reward do you ask for? Do you make yourself King? How do you deal with Morrigan's offer? Who do you support in the Orzamaar? In the Brecilian Forest? In the Landsmeet?

In DAO there are real, meaningful choices that have a major and lasting impact on how the ending unfolds. In DA2 it doesn't matter what you do, you end up a complete failure at the end and you may as well never have played the game at all for all that you managed to influence the course of events.

And lastly, YES, the game IS about ME. It is about MY RISE as Champion of Kirkwall. It is about MY enjoyment. And most importantly, it is about how MY gaming dollar is spent. If I feel that I did not get the value I had hoped for for my investment of time and money then it is absolutely fine to say so.

If others do feel that they got what they wanted, they're also welcome to their own opinion.

I'm not saying you are not entitled to your opinion. I'm just asking for a little bit more perspective. You don't have to get all bent out of shape and huffy. 

I'm not trying to be a jerk or obtuse, but it really isn't about you or your rise to power. You're just along for the ride and you get to make a few decisions on how to get to the end. This was true of Origins as well. I'm sure this is just not something that we are going to see eye to eye on.

Morrigan's offer seems to be the only lasting choice that made any real difference as far as the overall world and narrative are concerned. Everything else is just flavor. 

As far as failing in the end, that's not at all the case. You also have the choice to be "King" or not in Dragon Age 2. The choice in Orzimmar had absolutely no effect on anything in the expansion/DLC or Dragon Age 2 and I don't consider that a significant choice. I'll reiterate that with the Werewolves/Elves. You get a little bone thrown to you in Dragon Age 2 over it, but ultimate nothing significant is changed by that decision, other than the final battle in Origins.

No, the choices exist and have meaningful consequences in the context of the DAO outcomes. The issue you're talking about are the problems with how the choices you make are handled POST DAO.

As in, so much of what you do that leads to different endings to DAO (very good!) is not built upon in subsequent games like it should have been. Both Awakenings and DA2 were rushed titles that tarnished what was there for DAO. 

This is why people aren't complaining as much about ME2 going further into shooter territory vs. ME1. Because at the very least the RPG elements of choice are being preserved. As an example, how you handled Wrex in ME1 leads to very important consequences in ME2. As does the decision at the end that revolves around the council and Anderson/Udina.

I'm one who liked ME1 better than ME2, but I'm not nearly as upset about the gameplay decisions that they made for ME2 because there is continuity of storyline and consistency in applying your choices from ME1 into real consequences in subsequent games.

This is not the case in the Dragon Age universe. In Dragon Age: Origins it set the stage perfectly for the choices you made in that game having a large scale impact in the next one. But the followthrough was not there and that is a large part of what people like me are complaining about.

Taking this one step further, there is not one, single, significant choice that you make during the entirety of Dragon Age 2. The same people die and the same outcomes take place regardless of what you do or don't do. The world does not at ALL change based on your decisions.

This is quantifiably different than, say, choosing Harrowmont over Bhelan leading dwarves to pursue more isolationist/conservative policies in the end. That is something that absolutely could have been built upon in DA2 if the designers had decided to. Again, choice was there in DAO, it just wasn't followed up on and built upon in DA2.

This.

Want to know the difference between DA: O and DA II?

In
DA: O you could harden Alistair, form his personality based upon your
arguments with him during the game, which would lead him to possibly
becoming king regardless of Loghain's life being spared.

Whereas
in DA II, there is no option of convincing a certain mage not to go
through with a plot at the end of the game; there is no character
development over the period of 7 years, and nothing you say to anyone
significantly changes their views on life or affects important
decisions. If anything, the choices these characters make in the game
could occur regardless of whether or not they had met Hawke.

[Narreneth]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

If you are a Dalish elf, you can get lands set aside for your people.

Again, talking to someone at the end and having them go "Yes! You can have the lands!" Is not a new ending or an actual consequence.  It's satisfying, but it doesn't actually have an effect on the story or the world. 

Are you actually thinking as you are writing ? IF you just got some land, thats land for the Dalish ,that's land they would not have had without your actions.

Whether it happens during the game or in the post game epilogue changes nothing.

What made FO so interesting is you get to see how your actions worked out, sometimes in the way that you intended sometimes not. You also have the "ultimate sacrfice" or let someone else do it choice.

Really?  They didn't have the land before?  Wow.  Thanks for informing me.  My entire opinion on everything has changed!  You've changed my entire outlook on life.  I feel enlightened now.  Time to go cure cancer.

[AkiKishi]

Narreneth wrote...
Really?  They didn't have the land before?  Wow.  Thanks for informing me.  My entire opinion on everything has changed!  You've changed my entire outlook on life.  I feel enlightened now.  Time to go cure cancer.

Not really something to joke about. But good luck with that.

[Narreneth]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Actually you did say he was being a "******" and and then said his views were "stupid." Try to be civil please, that's all I'm asking.

That's right, I said he was being a ******.  I didn't say he is one.  I don't know him personally, so I can't make that call.  I can say with absolute certainty, however, that in his first post in this thread he was acting like a ******.  And he's been doing it in every other post here as well.  He JUST said everything he said is fact and arguing with him is pointless.  That's pretty pricky.

It's called knowing how to debate. Don't worry though not reporting you.

If you knew how to debate, you wouldn't make claims to fact on opinion.  You'd support an opinion with fact.  Saying : "DA2 is a crappy game, prove me wrong.  You can't, I'm right."  Isn't debating something.

The alst response you made to me, did in fact, have some points for debate, I chose to not respond to them, however, because your opening point was an ad hominem attack. 

[Narreneth]

Eskendale wrote...

This.

Want to know the difference between DA: O and DA II?

In
DA: O you could harden Alistair, form his personality based upon your
arguments with him during the game, which would lead him to possibly
becoming king regardless of Loghain's life being spared.

Whereas
in DA II, there is no option of convincing a certain mage not to go
through with a plot at the end of the game; there is no character
development over the period of 7 years, and nothing you say to anyone
significantly changes their views on life or affects important
decisions. If anything, the choices these characters make in the game
could occur regardless of whether or not they had met Hawke.

That's because that certain mage's decision is an integral and necessary part of the storyline.  Alistair sticking around at the end is not.  If you work towards relationship strength with certain characters in DA2, they will stick with you in the end when you make a decision that would otherwise cause them to leave your party (and in some cases attack you.) 

[Edli]

Narreneth wrote...
No, the choices you picked were of limited number.  Just as in every other RPG on any console anywhere.
It's great that you liked the Redcliffe questline.  It's fine if you think it was more meaningful than anything you've ever played.  But you had a limited number of options.  You had a limited number of responses.  Don't sit there and try to pretend like you got to do something taylor-fitted to you and only you.  In the end you had two choices: Conor is saved or he isn't.  The means you save him with are the only parts that change.  Do you use Blood magic, or get the Circle to help with Lyrium?  Either way ends with you trucking through the fade to the Desire Demon.  If you go in as the Warden, you can deal with the Demon and screw Conor if you choose.  If not, you fight her.

So again.  You save him or you don't. 

I have to give you credit for actually simplifying that questline that much. What about deciding to help the village or not and how to. Killing the blacksmith or persuade him to help the village. What about how to save the kid if you even wanted to. Sacrifice the mother, send one of the mages or even go in yourself. What about the deal with the desire demon. What about the sacred ashes part where you can go with 3 other party members and turn from the place alone?

You simplified it to whether save Connor or not. Of course there are only 2 choices for that, what did you expect.
1. save Connor
1. Let Connor die
3. Save him only a bit or save him too much?? O_o .... what other options go in here

[AkiKishi]

Narreneth wrote...

If you knew how to debate, you wouldn't make claims to fact on opinion.  You'd support an opinion with fact.  Saying : "DA2 is a crappy game, prove me wrong.  You can't, I'm right."  Isn't debating something.

The alst response you made to me, did in fact, have some points for debate, I chose to not respond to them, however, because your opening point was an ad hominem attack. 

I never said that quote me were I said that. I took 3 points the OP made to make DA2 look better than it was and disproved them. That was my goal and I accomplished it.

I don't blame you not wanting to argue it's not like you have a lot to work with .

Modifié par BobSmith101, 26 mars 2011 - 07:14 .