145 réponses à ce sujet

[Raiil]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Avissel wrote...

I already covered that.

If you siding with the city guard just leads to a scenario where Hawke would be the enemy of both Templar's and Mages world wide instead of a potential ally of one side. It makes him a poor character to use in any following games. "The guy nobody likes."

Also you technically DO side with the Guard, because odds are that Aveline sides with you, and she controls the guards, which mean the guards are on your side either way.

If you side with the mages, Aveline only joins you if you've maxed friendship/rivalry, and even then she mentions how she left the Guards to her husband.

The Guards are to restore order, and in Kirkwall that means the Guards are with the Templars.

Er, she mentions that she instructed Donnic to have the guards protect the people if you side with the mages and she stays with you. She flat out says that the templars won't have them.

[Avissel]

Right. Also the whole point of her Act 3 Quest was how she was upset with the Templar's attempts to control the guard.

[FedericoV]

Lithuasil wrote...

There's the huge difference in numbers for once - and hawke having no authority to command them.

So, a final in a videogame make sense... because of the numbers of both parties... you must haven't played ME2 finale . And I must repeat myself: you fight both sides and kill most of them (except the few sane persons in both orders) with your party no matter what choices you make if that's the point.

And about authority: I'm the champion of Kirkwall. If I had no authority they should not have called me there. They could have given me the possibility to have such authority during the game. But, no, they haven't. Because I have to play the game how they wanted to so I could be the protagonist of a civil war between blood mages and nazy-templars in a future game or because they wanted me to reflect on very important issues and not to have fun.

Modifié par FedericoV, 30 mars 2011 - 04:14 .

[Lithuasil]

You kill most of them *IN GAMEPLAY*. In Gameplay, Loghain, Zhevran, Leliana and me where all it took to retake denerim. That doesn't render the army gathered useless.

[Dean_the_Young]

Valentia X wrote...


Er, she mentions that she instructed Donnic to have the guards protect the people if you side with the mages and she stays with you. She flat out says that the templars won't have them.

In terms of the fighting here and now against you, yes. In terms of the guard fighting for you, no. In the long term: the Templars are coming back to restore order anyway.

[Dean_the_Young]

Lithuasil wrote...

You kill most of them *IN GAMEPLAY*. In Gameplay, Loghain, Zhevran, Leliana and me where all it took to retake denerim. That doesn't render the army gathered useless.

I remember an old D&D campaign where a DM nicely sidestepped the overpowerdness of how high-level PC's could just about mop entire armies of low-level mooks without taking damage, without needing your own army.

He basically gave every mook a tool for Magic Missile, and other non-avoidable spells and whatnot. Anyone who tried to take an army was guaranteed death by pinprick.

[Clangeddin86]

I think that the problem is that the third act of the game feels rushed. You are supposed to take sides, but in the end you take none, you end up fighting blood mages, templars, Orsino and Meredith no matter what you chose. In fact, if you try to take a side, either Orsino's turn to Blood Magic (if you sided with mages) or Meredith's sudden turn against you (if you sided with templars) will feel completely abrupt and out of place.
When Orsino turned to blood magic, and I sided with mages the whole time I was like "Uh?! What the hell?" I mean, Hawke is the frigging champion of Kirkwall who kicked the Qunari with help of few people, he's supposed to be a beacon of hope, and if you are standing in the room with him, and he tells you "Ehi, calm down, I'm here with you, we'll work this together, don't do anything stupid", you are not supposed to go "Oh my god, it's the end, waaaaa let's use blood magic". That totally made the "Champion" of Kirkwall a useless and redundant character in my eyes. What kind of "Champion" can't even convince the people he defends and supports through thick and thin? Bah.

And it's not that much different with Meredith if you side with templars for the whole game, her "craziness" comes out of nowhere after she's had the idol for years. Yes, you see that she's a power hungry tyrant **** through the game, but she still appears reasonable while doing so. In the end, she turns, all of a sudden, into a schizofrenich (spelling? whatever) zealot who turns against everyone, even her own templars.

It seems to me that originally they planned on putting two endings, with two different final bosses. Apparently they had problems with making sense of the story in that case.

Modifié par Clangeddin86, 30 mars 2011 - 04:40 .

[FedericoV]

Lithuasil wrote...

You kill most of them *IN GAMEPLAY*. In Gameplay, Loghain, Zhevran, Leliana and me where all it took to retake denerim. That doesn't render the army gathered useless.

It's a VIDEO-GAME. All that I should cared about is what happens in GAMEPLAY. If GAMEPLAY is not self sufficient, you have done something wrong designing your VIDEO-GAME. If you need written worlds or cutscene, it means that you are doing everything wrong. And at least in origins during the final fight in Denerim, you could call the troops of the various party you have mustered in GAMEPLAY, and controll the other memebers of your party before the battle with the Archdemon in the battle of the gates.

And you are ignoring my point: they have decided for you that there was no other options. If they wanted to, the story could have been different and even a "neutral/hero of the people" stance could have made sense. I know that in the actual context it does not make a lot of sense: but nothing make a lot of sense in DA2's act. 3, from Anders going terrorist, to everyone is a blood-mage/abomination, to Orsino betrayal finishing with Meredith's possesion.

Modifié par FedericoV, 30 mars 2011 - 04:37 .

[Lithuasil]

@Dean_the_Young
That kind of Pc's should pretty much only be played by people who can be awesome about it, rather then going all killcrazy

[Lithuasil]

@FredericoV
We agree that gameplay and story *should* be at a unity. But there's one (Ein, uno, 1) game that actually managed to pull that off. (Among those I've played, anyway). We also agree, that the third act should have been less rushed. But there is simply no way, how Hawke remaining neutral/turning on both would make sense, unless with Hawke getting overrun and horribly murdered.

[SIx_Foot_Imp]

I would have loved the option to stay neutral. the whole game was spent showing just how wrong both sides are. I tried every time to get them to stop trying to kill each other but both Orsino and Merideth are designed to never compromise and kill each other in the end. I get on some level both of them were trying to protect their people but ultimately the giant massacre at the end was both their faults. If given the choice I would have just killed both of them or just left them both to kill each other. They didn't even need hawke to be there as the chantry collapses no matter who wins the war. I really believe in peace and compromise (yay for Canadians) but the game portrays that as impossible: if you have two factions fighting the result is always annihilation. I get that they had to have the conflict to let us fight the final boss, but the way they made it seem like a tough moral choice irked me. ****s or psychotic Terrorists isn't much of a choice and they're probably the only two group who I would actually have no problems with killing.

[FedericoV]

Lithuasil wrote...

@FredericoV
We agree that gameplay and story *should* be at a unity. But there's one (Ein, uno, 1) game that actually managed to pull that off. (Among those I've played, anyway). We also agree, that the third act should have been less rushed. But there is simply no way, how Hawke remaining neutral/turning on both would make sense, unless with Hawke getting overrun and horribly murdered.

There's more than one game and you should allways aim that goal imho. The fact that it's difficult it's no excuse to make everything good even if abstract. Deus Ex, Shadow of the Colossus, Mafia 1, Half Life 2, Fallout 1&2, Silent Hill 2 (and I could continue with the list) are all games that at least try very hard to achieve that goal. I am omitting Bioware's games on purpose, but imho, all their previous game have more consistency between gameplay and story (and I must repeat myself, the problem is all about act 3).

Sorry going ot. Can we also agree that act. 3 plot and choice/consequences design is a fukin' disaster? I do agree that they have designed act. 3 in a way that wanted to avoid neutrality as an option. That's what we are complaining about! Since there is no lesser evil there is no point to avoid neutrality. It's bad game/story design. You cannot spend all the game showing me how corrupt and evil are the forces that fight for the controll of Kirkwall and then ask me to make an emotional leap of faith based on sensations and fear, only to betray it in a matter of few scene without any kind of context (since I have not any kind of meaningfull interaction with Orsino and Meredith). Most of all: what's the point? It's not fun. It's not rewarding. It does not make a better story in any way. It ruins all the work you have done before.

That's my last post on the matter. Sorry if I have monopolized the discussion with my rants. It's only that I'm still here, discussing in the forums because I cannot find the strenght to finish a game I completely enjoyed untill the very end of act. 3.

Modifié par FedericoV, 30 mars 2011 - 05:27 .

[exskeeny]

Lee T wrote...

If I had my say I would have confiscated Meredith's sword and Orsino's staff and only would gave them back when they behave.

Their bickering was one of the few occasions (them and Gamlen mostly) where I really missed Mass Effect 2's renegade interrupts.

You know you're gonna make people worry that DA3 will be even more like mass effect 2

[Knightly_BW]

Okay I finished game last night again (3rd time, with a rogue). After giving a little tought I guess many 3rd way options already cut off. Talked Shenecel Bran for the first time and even he didn't like templars he mentions what happened to Viscount prior to one we saw killed. Nobles afraid to say anything about or stepping front for new viscount. Templars are the real power in Kirkwall. So in that political setup all other escape points are closed. Plus Meredith sees you as a pottential threat to her "rule".

Let me put out some possible scenarios:
1- You didn't want to side with both groups and want so bad to heroicly defend people of Kirkwall. They will only be really free if templars are thrown out of city --> Side with mages
2- You didn't want to side with both groups and only care for saving your hide but your brother/sister belongs to one group, you need to save your sister from templar's wrath or your brother from a horrible death at the hands of demons/blood mages --> Side with which groups sounds more secure way to get them out of line of fire
3- You didn't want to side both groups and trying to start your own movement. Nobles won't support you, guards can be better shape than templars but they are strong in numbers, you have trusted followers etc. ---> you are dead.

I think I also found an answer for the question's been in my mind since first playthrough. Why seekers also looking or warden? Champion willingly or not was in the heart of conflict and word spread he supported one group. This part was reasonable for me but why warden/hero of Ferelden? As we think Divine is located in Orlais and Ferelden is only a nation, hero of Ferelden title loose its charm in Templar/Mage war in my opinion. I came up with this solution: Chantry can be looking for him because of his part in Broken Circle event. Another hero another siding with Templar/Mage situation.

outcomes can be like:
1- Both Warden and Hawke sided with Templars: Needed for bolstering Templar ranks (they are loosing blood according to Varrick)
2- Both Warden and Hawke sided with Mages: Needed for taking Mages under control again
3- Each supported one faction: Needed for settling peace/finding a common ground

My weary brain can only squeezed out those ideas.

Oh and really looking for DA 3 or an expansion to see what will happen. From last words of Cassandra and Leliana also guessing we probably play as another hero. Neither Hawke nor Warden can be found and they will proceed according to plan.

[Dark Specie]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I remember an old D&D campaign where a DM nicely sidestepped the overpowerdness of how high-level PC's could just about mop entire armies of low-level mooks without taking damage, without needing your own army.

He basically gave every mook a tool for Magic Missile, and other non-avoidable spells and whatnot. Anyone who tried to take an army was guaranteed death by pinprick.

No "I am a sexy shoeless God of War!!!" for the PC's in that game then, I guess?

Modifié par Dark Specie, 31 mars 2011 - 01:32 .

[Downtown1]

Lazy writing? They'd have to figure out where you do the last "goodbye" conversations if you remain neutral. I think both mages/templars are in the gallows, but what reason would you have to go there if you remained neutral? Can't think of one unless they did another kidnapping.

[Pandaman102]

Downtown1 wrote...

Lazy writing? They'd have to figure out where you do the last "goodbye" conversations if you remain neutral. I think both mages/templars are in the gallows, but what reason would you have to go there if you remained neutral? Can't think of one unless they did another kidnapping.

Could always just live up to that Champion title and rally the noble houses (with their mercenaries) and guardsmen to contain the Templar/Mage fight, which leads to Meredith forcing a confrontation after seeing you at the head of a (in her paranoid mind) hostile army, followed up by you going into the Gallows to tell Orsino the good news about Meredith's death... only to find an Abomination waiting for you.

Third options aren't that hard to think up and it allows you to kill the same two end bosses, so the epilogue won't change.

[Knightly_BW]

If you want to rally nobles just talk with Bran during Act 3. Meredith has all ropes of the city in her grip by that time.

Modifié par Asperius, 01 avril 2011 - 08:15 .

[Pandaman102]

Asperius wrote...

If you want to rally nobles just talk with Bran during Act 3. Meredith has all ropes of the city in her grip by that time.

I'm aware of that little bit of history, the difference being the Viscount who was deposed by the Templars was also mentioned to be a tyrant disliked by everyone else - meaning he didn't have the unified support of all the noble houses to resist the Templars. It's established that any one house, no matter how powerful, cannot stand up against the Templars, but nothing suggests that the combined resources of Kirkwall can't displace said Templars.

Especially when they already have their hands tied trying to execute mages.

[Wulfram]

Valentia X wrote...

Er, she mentions that she instructed Donnic to have the guards protect the people if you side with the mages and she stays with you. She flat out says that the templars won't have them.

Though a bunch of guardsmen turned up with that treacherous bastard Fenris in my latest game.

[sphinxess]

Asperius wrote...

Okay I finished game last night again (3rd time, with a rogue). After giving a little tought I guess many 3rd way options already cut off. Talked Shenecel Bran for the first time and even he didn't like templars he mentions what happened to Viscount prior to one we saw killed. Nobles afraid to say anything about or stepping front for new viscount. Templars are the real power in Kirkwall. So in that political setup all other escape points are closed. Plus Meredith sees you as a pottential threat to her "rule".

Let me put out some possible scenarios:
1- You didn't want to side with both groups and want so bad to heroicly defend people of Kirkwall. They will only be really free if templars are thrown out of city --> Side with mages
2- You didn't want to side with both groups and only care for saving your hide but your brother/sister belongs to one group, you need to save your sister from templar's wrath or your brother from a horrible death at the hands of demons/blood mages --> Side with which groups sounds more secure way to get them out of line of fire
3- You didn't want to side both groups and trying to start your own movement. Nobles won't support you, guards can be better shape than templars but they are strong in numbers, you have trusted followers etc. ---> you are dead.

I think I also found an answer for the question's been in my mind since first playthrough. Why seekers also looking or warden? Champion willingly or not was in the heart of conflict and word spread he supported one group. This part was reasonable for me but why warden/hero of Ferelden? As we think Divine is located in Orlais and Ferelden is only a nation, hero of Ferelden title loose its charm in Templar/Mage war in my opinion. I came up with this solution: Chantry can be looking for him because of his part in Broken Circle event. Another hero another siding with Templar/Mage situation.

outcomes can be like:
1- Both Warden and Hawke sided with Templars: Needed for bolstering Templar ranks (they are loosing blood according to Varrick)
2- Both Warden and Hawke sided with Mages: Needed for taking Mages under control again
3- Each supported one faction: Needed for settling peace/finding a common ground

My weary brain can only squeezed out those ideas.

Oh and really looking for DA 3 or an expansion to see what will happen. From last words of Cassandra and Leliana also guessing we probably play as another hero. Neither Hawke nor Warden can be found and they will proceed according to plan.

Makes sense - that would be Plan B as described - and there are 3 years for a new champion type to rise in power <end of DA2 and the talk with Varric>