39 réponses à ce sujet

[Wee Joe Green]

Hey all,

So I was just considering something about DA2 in comparison with Origins.  I realise one of the main reasons that compelled me to play Origins and which I loved about it, were the decisions to be made.  The tough, morally grey areas which you were left to decide and have an impact on the Kingdom of Fereldon and your companions.

Now, I unlike many, do think that DA2 is a better game and there have been many improvements made to the game in many areas (excluding the bugs, but they will be fixed at least), but this is one area where Origins really shined.

I can barely think of any areas where I've felt ooh, that's a tough decision to make...
(Origins spoiler) "Shall I kill theEarl's son to the mother's displeasure but save her life or shal I allow the mother to be killed in his stead to appease her and disappoint the father" etc etc

Many seriously tough decisions to be made which were heavy on the morality counter.

This same appeal is missing in DA2 and I don't feel like your decisions are impacting the nation or Kirkwall particularly, other than that which is scripted, i.e. takes down the Qunari.  So in this sense, there won't be the same desire (not as much anyway) to have your numerous decisions, which impacted the entire game, imported from DA2 to DA3.

It's much less heavy on this front.

EDIT: OH! and please the only thing I would ask you not to talk about on this thread is the end-game choices as I've not reached them yet!!  Thank you!

Agree/Disagree?

Modifié par Wee Joe Green, 09 avril 2011 - 03:59 .

[Gunso91]

I suppose that's true.. there were still a few decisions that boggled me for a while but yeah I think that part was better in DAO

[CloudOfShadows]

There really don't seem to be too many choices with an effect in DA2, but there are often small, personal things.

I. e. do you just free a slave, help her, hire her, or make her your property.

There are also some interesting choices around Feynriel which all kind of mess things up, I never know if the choices I make there are truly the right thing.

In general, I think that DA:O had a more 'immediate' and good/evil feel of your choices, whereas DA2 stays grayer and less wide-spread.

[Wee Joe Green]

CloudOfShadows wrote...

There really don't seem to be too many choices with an effect in DA2, but there are often small, personal things.

I. e. do you just free a slave, help her, hire her, or make her your property.

There are also some interesting choices around Feynriel which all kind of mess things up, I never know if the choices I make there are truly the right thing.

In general, I think that DA:O had a more 'immediate' and good/evil feel of your choices, whereas DA2 stays grayer and less wide-spread.

This is what I was meaning, yes of course there are some small personal decisions to make (even just the Merrill or Isabella was a big one for me! ).  What I was referring to though was that DAO had some epic major good/evil choices as you say, but DA2's choices are more restricted to smaller scale less consequential ones which haven't shaped the Kingdom - such as choosing it's ruler, taking down it's oppressor, saving key individuals in place of another, taking down one race in favour of another.  All these sorts of things.

Modifié par Wee Joe Green, 09 avril 2011 - 06:45 .

[dgcatanisiri]

DA2 is a more intimate form of story telling. It's all about the small scale choices. There aren't these major decisions. The key point of it is how the little things matter. It's all about the small acts that snowball into major crises.

[stobie]

Different isn't necessarily bad there, but I sometimes felt that my choices in Origins were ridiculous. I could pick the king, but not marry the king. I'm in a full party, all of whom do these heroic things, but somehow, I, quiet little mage girl or boy elf or whatever, am now utterly revered. I sometimes felt my choices were too big in Origins. I prefer these companions, who have stronger wills & agendas, but I miss the more subtle conversations and slower-building trust.

In both cases, I get to points where it's 'none of the above' - I wouldn't do or say anything offered.

[Greta13]

I loved the morally tough decisions in DA:O, and I didn't care that these decisions were major and really shouldn't be decided by one person because, lets face it, the warden was epic. In DA2 I did like for the characters had their own agenda's, how Hawke wasn't god like (for lack of a better description) and some the little decisions were good. But when playing video games I like doing things that seem impossible and not realistic, but thats just me

[Wee Joe Green]

stobie wrote...

Different isn't necessarily bad there, but I sometimes felt that my choices in Origins were ridiculous. I could pick the king, but not marry the king. I'm in a full party, all of whom do these heroic things, but somehow, I, quiet little mage girl or boy elf or whatever, am now utterly revered. I sometimes felt my choices were too big in Origins. I prefer these companions, who have stronger wills & agendas, but I miss the more subtle conversations and slower-building trust.

In both cases, I get to points where it's 'none of the above' - I wouldn't do or say anything offered.

No I agree, different isn't necessary bad, as I've loved DA2 and still enjoyed those small decisions - that's what makes it good invariably.  It was just one of the few aspects I thought were perhaps stronger in Origins, so perhaps DA3 might look to incorporate some more dramatic and difficult decisions with no obvious outcomes as well as the benefits which DA2 has seen.

Oh and in terms of why you were revered above the others, well everyone had their roles to play didn't they?  Some characters (based on where you went first etc) weren't even part of the group for some time and so didn't have an effect on some of the heroic quests.  Plus, Alistair had his own titles to gain (as King and one of the last remaining Grey Wardens in mine) as well as finding out his birth right and inheriting his royal bloodline and family - Uncle etc.  Morrigan would never be a symbol of adoration as she was a (fairly wicked at times) apostate who was the daughter of the witch of the wilds.  Another a Qunari murderer etc etc so you see my point.  You were the one who made all the decisions, you were the one who had the strength of your convictions and led the party and (in my case anyway) you were the one who slayed the Arch-demon.  It's only natural that the main character would therefore be the one heralded as hero of fereldon.

Plus (as can be seen with the cameos in DA2) nobody has forgotten about those famed warriors who fought alongside the hero and each have their own stories and mysteries surrounding.

[stobie]

I liked that part - that Zevran, Leliana, etc, are remembered for their contribution. And depending on how you played your Warden, it definitely worked. From my perspective, with my characters, it just seemed odd. This tiny little elf mage (blood mage at the time) is standing there with big eyes, and they all let me pick a king? But it had its humor - I tended to envision that she's super-powerful & they're under her control. Ha!

I don't think my mage got to kill the AD, though - as I remember, he was immune & Alistair kept getting the killing blow - unless I cheated, moved everyone back, & poked at him during his last gasps.

I was VERY peevish, however, when the Grand Cleric says that 'even a mage' could be the Maker's instrument, & gives Him credit for my little elf's victory. (and she also says 'even an elf' when it was my City Elf who did, in fact, stab the dragon.)

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

Totally agree with you and just wait for the end decisions, you will have a new opinion guaranteed.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

I liked the Origins decisions because I feel that they carried weight and they nearly always led to a different result. In DA2 I felt like an observer.

[Wee Joe Green]

TOBY FLENDERSON wrote...

Totally agree with you and just wait for the end decisions, you will have a new opinion guaranteed.

Haha you're right it has changed a little, just completed.  The decisions at the end were definitely a little more epic and took some consideration (with the characters anyway, as the end result is the same regardless which way you play Mages/Templars).

Not entirely satisfied with the end however...I'm about to start a different thread on it elsewhere

[Wee Joe Green]

stobie wrote...

I liked that part - that Zevran, Leliana, etc, are remembered for their contribution. And depending on how you played your Warden, it definitely worked. From my perspective, with my characters, it just seemed odd. This tiny little elf mage (blood mage at the time) is standing there with big eyes, and they all let me pick a king? But it had its humor - I tended to envision that she's super-powerful & they're under her control. Ha!

I don't think my mage got to kill the AD, though - as I remember, he was immune & Alistair kept getting the killing blow - unless I cheated, moved everyone back, & poked at him during his last gasps.

I was VERY peevish, however, when the Grand Cleric says that 'even a mage' could be the Maker's instrument, & gives Him credit for my little elf's victory. (and she also says 'even an elf' when it was my City Elf who did, in fact, stab the dragon.)

Haha oh and I see your point here.  I guess it all just depends on how you played it and how you're Warden was.  That's one thing Origins had going for it in terms of choices.  The ending actually played out differently depending on your choices - to quite a large extent too!  You were the 'hero' but you didn't have to slay the arch-demon as could have been predicted as a must, and if you did, it wasn't set whether you'd live or die.  Those are real choices and it made you want to see how all the different endings could have played out.  DA2 ending is effectively identical regardless how you played, all bar about 2 phrases of words which get changed depending on choices.

Dragon Age Origins had a myriad of outcomes at the end, which was very satisfying.  It was this which made you feel like the Warden and not just a player.

[RavenB]

I think the problem isn't that you don't make choice, or that they aren't as morally grey, so much as that the effect is so much more limited. You're confined to Kirkwall. There doesn't seem to be much reach to what you do, besides the fact that there will be a mage/templar rebellion, which happens no matter. The only difference is how you fit into it. Any other major changes in the world, you'd have to wait until DLC or the next game to find out about, if they exist.

This is in contrast to Origins where you were choosing kings and deciding the fates of massive groups of people to obvious and immediate change. The choice between Bhelen and Harrowmont, for example. The choice was quite morally ambiguous and effected the entire dwarven race. On top of that, you learn the results of this choice in the game itself. I don't feel like there were nearly as many choices like this in II.

[CloudOfShadows]

RavenB wrote...

I think the problem isn't that you don't make choice, or that they aren't as morally grey, so much as that the effect is so much more limited. You're confined to Kirkwall. There doesn't seem to be much reach to what you do, besides the fact that there will be a mage/templar rebellion, which happens no matter. The only difference is how you fit into it. Any other major changes in the world, you'd have to wait until DLC or the next game to find out about, if they exist.

This is in contrast to Origins where you were choosing kings and deciding the fates of massive groups of people to obvious and immediate change. The choice between Bhelen and Harrowmont, for example. The choice was quite morally ambiguous and effected the entire dwarven race. On top of that, you learn the results of this choice in the game itself. I don't feel like there were nearly as many choices like this in II.

Uh.

While Origins did have choices that seemed to affect entire kingdoms, at no point at all did you feel a result in the game - whether you chose Bhelen or Harrowmont.

And morally ambigous? If you did ask around in Orzammar you learnt what each of those two stood for. So yeah, it was a choice between two evils, perhaps, but it wasn't really morally ambigous, it depended on whether you wanted progress, or upholding of the status quo.

I thought one of the few morally ambigous choices in Origins was how to deal with Connor, or who to make ruler of Ferelden, perhaps.

In DA2 there are imho a lot more morally ambigous choices - it's not so visible, since it's tiny effects, but often you get to pick how to do some stuff - that feels nice. The effect is more often than not the same as in Origins, except you don't get any slides at all. Would have been nicer to get more visible results from the choices, but they're there nonetheless.

[erynnar]

dgcatanisiri wrote...

DA2 is a more intimate form of story telling. It's all about the small scale choices. There aren't these major decisions. The key point of it is how the little things matter. It's all about the small acts that snowball into major crises.

Except that those small decisons make not a jot on the final major snowball. It may be more intimate, but really, nothing you make a decision on makes any but the smallist ripples.  I don't mind that, but there has to be some decision I make that impacts the ending, otherwise it is just like real life. The "intimate" decisions I make in my life don't effect anything really at all. So Hawke isn't really a hero who changes the world, she is a simple schlub like me (albeit one with daggers) living in a fantasy world. I can go play Medieval Sims for that. I don't need every decison to be EPIC, but some illusion of altering the course of events would have been nice.

[RavenB]

CloudOfShadows wrote...

RavenB wrote...

I think the problem isn't that you don't make choice, or that they aren't as morally grey, so much as that the effect is so much more limited. You're confined to Kirkwall. There doesn't seem to be much reach to what you do, besides the fact that there will be a mage/templar rebellion, which happens no matter. The only difference is how you fit into it. Any other major changes in the world, you'd have to wait until DLC or the next game to find out about, if they exist.

This is in contrast to Origins where you were choosing kings and deciding the fates of massive groups of people to obvious and immediate change. The choice between Bhelen and Harrowmont, for example. The choice was quite morally ambiguous and effected the entire dwarven race. On top of that, you learn the results of this choice in the game itself. I don't feel like there were nearly as many choices like this in II.

Uh.

While Origins did have choices that seemed to affect entire kingdoms, at no point at all did you feel a result in the game - whether you chose Bhelen or Harrowmont.

And morally ambigous? If you did ask around in Orzammar you learnt what each of those two stood for. So yeah, it was a choice between two evils, perhaps, but it wasn't really morally ambigous, it depended on whether you wanted progress, or upholding of the status quo.

I thought one of the few morally ambigous choices in Origins was how to deal with Connor, or who to make ruler of Ferelden, perhaps.

In DA2 there are imho a lot more morally ambigous choices - it's not so visible, since it's tiny effects, but often you get to pick how to do some stuff - that feels nice. The effect is more often than not the same as in Origins, except you don't get any slides at all. Would have been nicer to get more visible results from the choices, but they're there nonetheless.

Choosing the guy who will help the casteless and bring Orzammar foward, but happened to assassinate a good portion of his family and is likely to continue shady tactics to bolster his position vs the honest man who would hold Orzammar back and keep the caste system in place? That seemed like a pretty morally difficult choice to me. Tenfold if you played a dwarf noble, considering Bhelen is your brother, meaning he killed YOUR family and framed you. You do get hints as to the difference and you learn at least in the epilogue what occurred based on the choices.

What to do with Connor wasn't morally ambiguous to me at all. Going to the circle seemed like the glaringly obvious choice. Why kill anyone when you have an option to save everyone?

[The Angry One]

Saving Connor shouldn't have been an option at all, it trivialises the notion of abominations and makes every other choice "wrong" because you always have the happy flower fun time everybody lives option.

[Wee Joe Green]

erynnar wrote...

dgcatanisiri wrote...

DA2 is a more intimate form of story telling. It's all about the small scale choices. There aren't these major decisions. The key point of it is how the little things matter. It's all about the small acts that snowball into major crises.

Except that those small decisons make not a jot on the final major snowball. It may be more intimate, but really, nothing you make a decision on makes any but the smallist ripples.  I don't mind that, but there has to be some decision I make that impacts the ending, otherwise it is just like real life. The "intimate" decisions I make in my life don't effect anything really at all. So Hawke isn't really a hero who changes the world, she is a simple schlub like me (albeit one with daggers) living in a fantasy world. I can go play Medieval Sims for that. I don't need every decison to be EPIC, but some illusion of altering the course of events would have been nice.

This is a good point I think.  Contrasting the two games endings, I think it could have been better if you're "more refined" or limited choices did have an actual impact on the ending other than just a set of different words.

I believe they may have done this as they are setting up for something very specific in Dragon Age 3 and to have too many variables again would just cause unsolvable problems and obstancles.  They needed the end to be Mages have caused upheaval and Templars are not what they used to be (also joining the rebellion), the world as we know it is set to change.

I think personally there is a lot of potential now for Dragon Age 3 to be the epitome of Dragon Age.  A truly truly good game.  Especially baring in mind that they will (don't doubt it I'm certainly the will) have learned from their mistakes and taking critics reviews and opinions in mind - especially concerning diversity of locations and looks.

Dragon Age 3 could be set to be phenomenal.

[Wee Joe Green]

The Connor quest was a perfect example of what I meant by "morally ambiguous" choices and I think it was a great one. I'm very happy it was there. Oh and you could only save everyone in very limited circumstances.

[Torax]

The Angry One wrote...

Saving Connor shouldn't have been an option at all, it trivialises the notion of abominations and makes every other choice "wrong" because you always have the happy flower fun time everybody lives option.

I agree. Especially if you do save Connor and Isolde then the prices that her actions caused only basically punishes all the people who served her. She still gets to live. Her son just eventually gets sent to the circle and maybe gets possessed again later. But either way the one that deserved to pay at least will live in the super happy fun solution.

To me Origins was not really choices. You just had the good ones and the bad ones kind of. Just some times the results was a definite good answer and some are just a little more gray.

Let Harrowmont rule. While he isn't a liar he will just attempt to keep things as status quo. While being fought against by all of Bhalen's old pals. Meanwhile if you choose Bhalen. He uses forged evidence to try and discredit his opponent to meet his own ends. But he will kill all who opposes him and disband the senate to keep his rule his own and no one elses. Neither solution is golden.

You could let the Werewolves slaughter all the Elves for Zathrian's actions. Or you can either help Zathrian kill witherfang and end the curse for just who he cares about. Lastly the happy sugar solution is having Zathrian end the curse killing him and the Lady. That third option is meh but it's the one I usually pick to use the vendor there in camp.

The list goes on. The decisions we do have in Origins are more about meta gaming of a feel than anything. I don't think it makes the game any better if the only difference is sugar fun time and death to the enemy. The one thing that DA2 did better is at times there is no such thing as the happy solution. Life doesn't work that way and a game shouldn't have to either. So for example no matter what Merrill's quest ends. There is no happy ending. There is always a price to be paid. No getting away completely.

Modifié par Torax, 10 avril 2011 - 12:19 .

[saintratchet]

I can remember every decision I made in DA:O but honestly I cant think of any decisions I made in DA2 other than the Anders thing and who to romance.

[Torax]

saintratchet wrote...

I can remember every decision I made in DA:O but honestly I cant think of any decisions I made in DA2 other than the Anders thing and who to romance.

The choices we made were more about the Battle we'd be fighting at the end. DA2 you don't need a huge army at yourside for the end battle. Your choices are about your companions like if Isabela stays or if your sibling dies in act 1 or not. But in regards to the story just select things like which quests you do or who you help along way have subtle changes but nothing that changes the end result. This allows for a more framed Narative. Think of it as Dragon Age: Origins was an experiment. They found it wasn't as cohesive a way to tell a story in parts without conflicting with player variations. So they had to change the format going forward. For better or worse.

Modifié par Torax, 10 avril 2011 - 12:25 .

[Wee Joe Green]

The Angry One wrote...

The list goes on. The decisions we do have in Origins are more about meta gaming of a feel than anything. I don't think it makes the game any better if the only difference is sugar fun time and death to the enemy. The one thing that DA2 did better is at times there is no such thing as the happy solution. Life doesn't work that way and a game shouldn't have to either. So for example no matter what Merrill's quest ends. There is no happy ending. There is always a price to be paid. No getting away completely.

Yeah but I didn't like the lack of choices in Merrill's quest and it turns out I quite like to "meta-game", or at least have the option to do so - even though I only found out about this concept today.

Modifié par Wee Joe Green, 10 avril 2011 - 01:22 .

[Torax]

Wee Joe Green wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

The list goes on. The decisions we do have in Origins are more about meta gaming of a feel than anything. I don't think it makes the game any better if the only difference is sugar fun time and death to the enemy. The one thing that DA2 did better is at times there is no such thing as the happy solution. Life doesn't work that way and a game shouldn't have to either. So for example no matter what Merrill's quest ends. There is no happy ending. There is always a price to be paid. No getting away completely.

Yeah but I didn't like the lack of choices in Merrill's quest and it turns out I quite like to "meta-game", or at least have the option to do so - even though I only found out about this concept today.

I said it not The Angry One. I also didn't like having less choices. But I got over that quickly. The part I still don't like is the few times it felt like we had choices when we did not. For example keeping DuPious alive still doesn't change the outcome for your mother. I felt it should be it's not the case. The most obvious example being to say no to escorting the Qunari out of Kirkwall yet you still have to do it anyway.

Modifié par Torax, 10 avril 2011 - 01:30 .