104 réponses à ce sujet

[Bio Addict]

I certainly agree with those who say that losing Leandra is much more emotionally impactful then just swooping in to save the day at the last moment. I'm no hater, I'm really enjoying the game and I'm on my second play through right now. I just think it would've been nice to have the option as I did spare Gascard and I did agree to let him use blood magic to find my mother on my first play through.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Nothing wrong with a decision you'll never truly feel comfortable about; the last thing I'd want is more easy 'third choices', such as the one most took in Redcliffe.

[TheBlackBaron]

highcastle wrote...

I thought what they had said was that they considered having the option to save her, but opted against it. Personally, I think this was the better move story wise. Games are a medium where the player's used to being this invincible hero who always succeeds. But there's been a trend recently where devs play around with that notion. Red Dead Redemption is a recent example that comes to mind.

When the hero fails, when he loses something of value to him, it has an impact. Obviously the story can't be wholly about loss or the player will just feel cheated. But peppering tragedy amidst the success makes those moments of glory so much more powerful. And Leandra's death was one of the most moving experiences in the game for me.

I really don't understand all the grief over this. You can't save everybody. You're not invincible. You're one guy trying to do something extraordinary and sometimes you fail.

Something tells me Leandra's death would be better appreciated and elicit a greater emotional response if, you know, it actually was your fault she died (by screwing up in whatever way would lead to that) and not the result of a railroading cyber-GM. 

ME2's suicide mission was very good in this respect - any squadmate deaths suffered were a result of your bad decisions. Easy though it may have been to get through it with no deaths, you still get a sense of loss when not everybody comes back and a sense of pride when everbody comes through alive. 

Now, that said, I still thought the quest itself was well done, and FemHawke had some just absolutely fantastic VO work there, but it's still annoying. 

And the RDR comparison is pretty apples to oranges, frankly. For one, RDR is not an RPG partially advertised as having events affected by player choice. Secondly, that's at the very end of the game's story arc, and Marston's family actually makes it out alive while h's the one making the sacrifice, so it doesn't feel like the devs are stuffing them in the fridge for the sake of pathos and saving work. 

Plus it's just a damned good sequence to boot. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 28 mars 2011 - 01:15 .

[Icinix]

highcastle wrote...

I thought what they had said was that they considered having the option to save her, but opted against it. Personally, I think this was the better move story wise. Games are a medium where the player's used to being this invincible hero who always succeeds. But there's been a trend recently where devs play around with that notion. Red Dead Redemption is a recent example that comes to mind.

When the hero fails, when he loses something of value to him, it has an impact. Obviously the story can't be wholly about loss or the player will just feel cheated. But peppering tragedy amidst the success makes those moments of glory so much more powerful. And Leandra's death was one of the most moving experiences in the game for me.

I really don't understand all the grief over this. You can't save everybody. You're not invincible. You're one guy trying to do something extraordinary and sometimes you fail.

So why have choice at all?

Why allow the player to alter any outcomes in the game universe?  Why not just write a kick arse story and have the player stroll through it?

I thought they had a great opportunity here to alter the outcome based on numerous things.

e.g You save her, but only if you resort to blood magic.  Creating a great grey area moral dilema.  If your Hawke is anti-blood magic, but it's the quickest way to get to her, does your Hawke go against their morals to do it?  Does your Hawke do what they perceive to be the right thing and not use Blood Magic, but get there in time to find they can't save her.

The ending itself wasn't the issue I had with it...but the fact that we as the player regardless of the path we chose to get to the end had no affect on the end. Even though game wise we could have saved hours.
 

[Danjaru]

highcastle wrote...

I thought what they had said was that they considered having the option to save her, but opted against it. Personally, I think this was the better move story wise. Games are a medium where the player's used to being this invincible hero who always succeeds. But there's been a trend recently where devs play around with that notion. Red Dead Redemption is a recent example that comes to mind.

When the hero fails, when he loses something of value to him, it has an impact. Obviously the story can't be wholly about loss or the player will just feel cheated. But peppering tragedy amidst the success makes those moments of glory so much more powerful. And Leandra's death was one of the most moving experiences in the game for me.

I really don't understand all the grief over this. You can't save everybody. You're not invincible. You're one guy trying to do something extraordinary and sometimes you fail.

You mean like how everyone in his family dies/gets taken away. How he has no impact on the story except being the muscle and then dissapears without any type of closure except prepping for a sequel?

nah, DA2 is not at all about loss and cheating the player.

[TheBlackBaron]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Nothing wrong with a decision you'll never truly feel comfortable about; the last thing I'd want is more easy 'third choices', such as the one most took in Redcliffe.

The difference there, I think, is that the third option in Redcliffe took absolutely no work and had no consequences even though by all rights there should have been. Never used it myself.

I'd be perfectly happy with being given the option to save Leandra in exchange for work and consequences elsewhere. I may or may not make use of it, but at least the option is there. 

[Vhalkyrie]

The betrayal of Orsino supporting Quentin's research wouldn't have been an impact without mother's death.

[Alexein]

highcastle wrote...

I thought what they had said was that they considered having the option to save her, but opted against it. Personally, I think this was the better move story wise. Games are a medium where the player's used to being this invincible hero who always succeeds. But there's been a trend recently where devs play around with that notion. Red Dead Redemption is a recent example that comes to mind.

When the hero fails, when he loses something of value to him, it has an impact. Obviously the story can't be wholly about loss or the player will just feel cheated. But peppering tragedy amidst the success makes those moments of glory so much more powerful. And Leandra's death was one of the most moving experiences in the game for me.

I really don't understand all the grief over this. You can't save everybody. You're not invincible. You're one guy trying to do something extraordinary and sometimes you fail.

The grief is that this is not the sort of game i expected to play when i picked up and bought it.

Its not a bad game, i agree 100% that its well-written and achieves it's desired ends. The writing and delivery was top-notch.

But like i walk into a comedy sci-fi movie expecting it to be funny with aliens, if i sit down and later find out it's a heart-wrenching drama about the WW2 occupation... i'm going to feel a little pissed off.

Not to say that bioware is supposed to hand out spoilers for their games or never explore new ground.... but if new ground is struck, there is going to be some criticsm, good and bad.

I, and many people, came in with certain expectations built up from previous RPGs, including DA:O, that decisions can be optimized and heroes are invincible. This sort of death is certainly outside of conventional RPG story telling. Granted, the trend toward this sort of thing is growing, but it's still new enough to shock and catch people off-guard.

Do not expect everyone to have YOUR level of genre savyness and understanding, or even your preferences.

I for one think it's a great quest, just like i think World War 2 dramas are excellent and well done, i just don't watch them, and with this game, now that i know the direction is going, i won't buy DA3.  Not saying its bad, i just don't want to play a game like that.

My choice..... which is what i think RPGs are supposed to be about.

Modifié par Alexein, 28 mars 2011 - 01:25 .

[wulfsturm]

Vhalkyrie wrote...

The betrayal of Orsino supporting Quentin's research wouldn't have been an impact without mother's death.

The thing is - I didn't feel like it really impacted his decision either way. I didn't know much about Quentin or his research to care about it. What I did care was Orsino's decision to use the research, but it very well could have been someone else's research and I still would have felt the same.

[Lithuasil]

TheBlackBaron wrote...
Something tells me Leandra's death would be better appreciated and elicit a greater emotional response if, you know, it actually was your fault she died (by screwing up in whatever way would lead to that) and not the result of a railroading cyber-GM. 

Allow me to disagree - as long as people can save freely, if such an event could be changed, people could simply reload until they're satisfied - entirely sidestepping the punch to the gut this is *supposed* to be.
I personally feel, the way DA2 did it is pretty much the best way to do it (with the exception of offering multiple path all leading to the same ending). While the events could not be diminished by simply reloading - they *felt* like they were my fault.

When Bethany died on me in the deep roads, when a killer I've tried to catch twice killed Leandra, when Anders first blew up the chantry - I felt responsible, but the same kind of helpless responsibility that Alaytha Hawke felt that moment. And in my book, that's a big 'mission accomplished' on the writers part.

[Vhalkyrie]

wulfsturm wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

The betrayal of Orsino supporting Quentin's research wouldn't have been an impact without mother's death.

The thing is - I didn't feel like it really impacted his decision either way. I didn't know much about Quentin or his research to care about it. What I did care was Orsino's decision to use the research, but it very well could have been someone else's research and I still would have felt the same.

Maybe it would have been an impact if she lived, but it wouldn't have been personal.  The fact he supported Quentin, and it led to mother's death, makes it personal.

Modifié par Vhalkyrie, 28 mars 2011 - 01:27 .

[TheBlackBaron]

Lithuasil wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...
Something tells me Leandra's death would be better appreciated and elicit a greater emotional response if, you know, it actually was your fault she died (by screwing up in whatever way would lead to that) and not the result of a railroading cyber-GM. 

Allow me to disagree - as long as people can save freely, if such an event could be changed, people could simply reload until they're satisfied - entirely sidestepping the punch to the gut this is *supposed* to be.
I personally feel, the way DA2 did it is pretty much the best way to do it (with the exception of offering multiple path all leading to the same ending). While the events could not be diminished by simply reloading - they *felt* like they were my fault.

When Bethany died on me in the deep roads, when a killer I've tried to catch twice killed Leandra, when Anders first blew up the chantry - I felt responsible, but the same kind of helpless responsibility that Alaytha Hawke felt that moment. And in my book, that's a big 'mission accomplished' on the writers part.

Well, allow me to disagree - the very fact that I was pissed off enough about Beth dying in the Deep Roads to reload and fix that proves it did its job in eliciting emotion, does it not? 

[wulfsturm]

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Maybe it would have been an impact if she lived, but it wouldn't have been personal.  The fact he supported Quentin, and lead to mother's death, makes it personal.

He supported Quentin's research, no Quentin himself. Desperation can make someone do something they normally wouldn't even consider. That was the main source of my ire with him; not his decision to use Quentin's research, but that he felt hopeless and trapped enough to think about useing it in the first place.

[Danjaru]

Lithuasil wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...
Something tells me Leandra's death would be better appreciated and elicit a greater emotional response if, you know, it actually was your fault she died (by screwing up in whatever way would lead to that) and not the result of a railroading cyber-GM. 

Allow me to disagree - as long as people can save freely, if such an event could be changed, people could simply reload until they're satisfied - entirely sidestepping the punch to the gut this is *supposed* to be.
I personally feel, the way DA2 did it is pretty much the best way to do it (with the exception of offering multiple path all leading to the same ending). While the events could not be diminished by simply reloading - they *felt* like they were my fault.

When Bethany died on me in the deep roads, when a killer I've tried to catch twice killed Leandra, when Anders first blew up the chantry - I felt responsible, but the same kind of helpless responsibility that Alaytha Hawke felt that moment. And in my book, that's a big 'mission accomplished' on the writers part.

Really? all I thought was "this is bull****... Why is my brother the only one to get the taint?, he wasn't even the tank!" and "ahh.. So my sister dies cause I'm a mage.. that's stupid" or "oh, so she leaves me unless I'm nice to her all the time or a douche all the time.... Or I have to shag her.. That's convenient for the programmers I guess, now to face the qunari war without my rogue.."

Nothing felt like your fault cause you could literally do nothing about it. To save your brother/sister from the taint, you must've guessed to bring Anders or leave them behind, but if you leave them behind, they go away in another manner.

Just felt like they gave you a family as a cheap way to make you care. Then take them away, one by one. Except your worthless uncle.

Modifié par Danjaru, 28 mars 2011 - 01:36 .

[The Angry One]

We all know Orsino has the situational awareness of a chihuahua anyway.

[Vhalkyrie]

wulfsturm wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Maybe it would have been an impact if she lived, but it wouldn't have been personal.  The fact he supported Quentin, and lead to mother's death, makes it personal.

He supported Quentin's research, no Quentin himself. Desperation can make someone do something they normally wouldn't even consider. That was the main source of my ire with him; not his decision to use Quentin's research, but that he felt hopeless and trapped enough to think about useing it in the first place.

Quentin asked for special books on necromancy, and Orsino gave it to him with the notes "Great job on your research!  Be sure to let me know all the details!"

In a court of law, that would be an accomplice.  You can't say he knew about his research, but wasn't supporting Quentin.

[Vicious]

So they made it so she died every time? As part of DARK FANTASY?

If Bioware was REALLY trying to be dark fantasy, they'd let you save her... but as the frankenstein zombie she'd become.

So yeah you can keep her around... if you don't mind the smell.

the lulz would have been epic. Bioware lacks imagination at times.

[Zaros]

wulfsturm wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Maybe it would have been an impact if she lived, but it wouldn't have been personal.  The fact he supported Quentin, and lead to mother's death, makes it personal.

He supported Quentin's research, no Quentin himself. Desperation can make someone do something they normally wouldn't even consider. That was the main source of my ire with him; not his decision to use Quentin's research, but that he felt hopeless and trapped enough to think about useing it in the first place.

He actually refers to him as a friend in his letters though, and even if he didn't like him, he knew that Quentin was the one who killed your mother (Meredith does and uses it in an argument against you, also, word probably spreaded fast that you killed a serial killer, but at the cost of your own mother), and he still neglected to tell you that he supported his reasearch (yeah, it probably would've made you turn against him, but he should've had some integrity).

[Lithuasil]

TheBlackBaron wrote...
Well, allow me to disagree - the very fact that I was pissed off enough about Beth dying in the Deep Roads to reload and fix that proves it did its job in eliciting emotion, does it not? 

You still lost here in the end though, due to being taken to the circle.
I'm not saying the effect wholly disappears - but it's a different kind of pissed of, reloading, doing an hour of gameplay again, and having it fixed, as opposed to having to live with your decisions, like you have to do in real life (or pnp for that matter). 

[Vicious]

The death was pretty well done, I will give Bioware that much.

[TheBlackBaron]

Lithuasil wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...
Well, allow me to disagree - the very fact that I was pissed off enough about Beth dying in the Deep Roads to reload and fix that proves it did its job in eliciting emotion, does it not? 

You still lost here in the end though, due to being taken to the circle.
I'm not saying the effect wholly disappears - but it's a different kind of pissed of, reloading, doing an hour of gameplay again, and having it fixed, as opposed to having to live with your decisions, like you have to do in real life (or pnp for that matter). 

Nope, I had Warden Bethany instead. Being under the command of Drake Cousland, Warden-Commander of Ferelden, that's a pretty good conclusion to a rather contrived situation, imo. 

[Lithuasil]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Nope, I had Warden Bethany instead. Being under the command of Drake Cousland, Warden-Commander of Ferelden, that's a pretty good conclusion to a rather contrived situation, imo. 

Given my overall opinion of the wardens, I think the circle is actually preferable for her - that said - of course it's a matter of taste, but I avoid reloading as much as I can, and strictly refuse reloading in such a game to try out different decisions. Multiple playthroughs yes, but not tampering with them. So I guess maybe I'm prone to liking these changes, since they're pretty much what I usually get anyway.

[Deztyn]

They wanted to give Hawke a personal reason to side with the Templars. The fact that everyone in Kirkwall was a blood mage wasn't good enough.

What they could have done was tie it closer to Act I quests. Make it so that you had to make certain choices over the course of the whole game in order to have things turn out okay. It didn't have to be a cheap and easy one reload and a half hour replay answer. Strengthen player involvement not take it away entirely. Sure some people would be willing to start the game over entirely to avoid that scene, but so what? Those are probably the same people who would be playing fifteen different playthroughs to see all the content anyway.