29 réponses à ce sujet

[scpulley]

The game doesn't fall apart in Act 3 because of an abrupt ending. It's more it's assuming the character has had enough time in game now, not just codex, dealing directly with the issue surrounding the big decision, to create a sense that it's an important decision for you character. There isn't. All you have is some side quest that can potentially come back to either love or hate you, in most cases you find out you may as well have killed them in most cases, the romance options really don't go anywhere other than they may stay with you when everyone leaves eventually, and no matter what you decide, you fight the same battles ultimately with the same ending of 'and then everyone ran for the hills and went their separate ways'. It's like Bioware went through a good story and tried to skip all the 'boring' parts to go straight to the action. But...they forgot that those 'boring parts' are what builds the story and give purpose to the action. Otherwise it's just a bunch of fun fights and lots of blood with no story or reason behind it at all.

[jds1bio]

PirateT138 wrote...

Games on rails can be good, but don't give me the illusion of choice and then force me down the same avenue regardless of what I picked, it will come out poorly like the end of DA2.

But that's what the illusion of choice is...forcing you down the same avenue regardless.  It's been done to us by BioWare before.  KOTOR - have to fight Malak, then you're either evil or good - and that's it, regardless of other choices made.  DA:O - have to fight the archdemon, then some people are gone while other people stuck around - and that's it, regardless of other choices made (and Orzammar always ends up a mess).  ME - you have to fight Saren, then you pose for a renegade or paragon photo - and that's it, regardless of other choices made.  ME2 - you have to fight the collectors, then some people are gone while other people stuck around - and that's it, regardless of other choices made.

[Chuvvy]

PirateT138 wrote...

No. Act III is an abomination, but it's not an epilogue, and I can only think of one REAL choice in Act III, everything else is an action game on rails. It's some of the WORST parts of the game where the game totally ignores previous choices.

"Get him, he's working with XYZ!!!!!"

"Guys, I've been working against XYZ for years now, I'm on your side, let's talk about this."

"Get him, he's working with XYZ!!!!!"

"Seriously?"

"Get him, he's working with XYZ!!!!!"

THAT. ****ING. QUEST. So much rage.

[Loc'n'lol]

Sakanade wrote...

This is pretty much entire DA2 for me

At that one point where the crazy templar abducts the Qunari and has them in chains, I say "I hate them too!"
I get: 

"Get him, he's working with XYZ!!!!!"

Actually that's a bad example, you can side with Varnell and get to fight a Qunari rescue party instead. Petrice doesn't get killed and cameos in act 3 if you do that.

[Alamar2078]

I think the point of the Varric narrative is that Hawk didn't cause any of the problems and there was no grand plan, choices, etc. Hawk was just swept up in the current of change and tried to ride it out as best as he could.

In terms of choice I think there are really only 2 basic ways you can plot out a series with choices you import from other games:

-- You either have a story that you want to tell [across a series of games] and you map out ALL of the choices that you can make in the series and how they interact with each other. This way you can be careful and only offer choices that don't destroy the story that you want to tell in the series.

OR

-- The choices you make only really effect the game world that you're in. This way if you're not pre-planning the story for each game you insure that you have freedom to tell the story you want without prior choices getting in the way.