39 réponses à ce sujet

[GabranthSG]

Torax wrote...

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.

Not just a few times. It actually happened repeatedly throughout the game. I hated when I got Cullen to dismiss Keran and he still appeared in Best Served Cold. Or when I got Cullen to execute Alain and he was still alive and kicking and helping me fight the Templars in the last mission. The more I think about it, the more I think the choices we make are really superficial and everything turns out the same way regardless!

[Wee Joe Green]

Torax wrote...

Wee Joe Green wrote...

Torax 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.

Hehe sorry, just a mistake. (It's late here) Yeah I agree with you in particular regarding the outcome of your mother, but it was an enjoyable quest nonetheless - except lack of physical or emotional response at times, you just stood there invariably and had a fairly delayed response to help.  His emotions were a little stale in that you could joke about the incident too.  "Mother's been taken? Oh well, she'll be fine, let Aveline and the guard handle it" kind of thing.  Same with his sister Bethany in the Chantry, finds her (we thought) lying dead next to Orsino and you don't go "NOO!" and run up to her aid.  He just kind of pads up and goes oh good you're not dead. lol

I never knew you had to lead to Qunari out the city btw, that's interesting.  I also think I agree would have to agree with your thoughts on their reasons for restricting the scope of the choices in order to tame the story into a more manageble focussed narrative.

[Torax]

Dylandl wrote...

Torax wrote...

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.

Not just a few times. It actually happened repeatedly throughout the game. I hated when I got Cullen to dismiss Keran and he still appeared in Best Served Cold. Or when I got Cullen to execute Alain and he was still alive and kicking and helping me fight the Templars in the last mission. The more I think about it, the more I think the choices we make are really superficial and everything turns out the same way regardless!

Aye why I said the only things you can truly decide is just if your companions leave your or if Bethany/Carver die in act 1. The only other slight change past that is some of the side quests that you may or may not do. There are others that make no difference. Like you don't have to do Ander's Act 2 & 3 quests if you don't want to. He still does what he wants at the end and you still get to kill him. Him being your friend or not changes nothing. But Isabela will leave you. Fenris may or may not turn on you based on his friendship/rivalry as will merrill and i think Aveline. These are the only things you have a sort of control over. After that it's just how your Hawke acts and who you romance for flavor.

Modifié par Torax, 10 avril 2011 - 01:47 .

[Wee Joe Green]

Dylandl wrote...

Torax wrote...

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.

Not just a few times. It actually happened repeatedly throughout the game. I hated when I got Cullen to dismiss Keran and he still appeared in Best Served Cold. Or when I got Cullen to execute Alain and he was still alive and kicking and helping me fight the Templars in the last mission. The more I think about it, the more I think the choices we make are really superficial and everything turns out the same way regardless!

Not that it affected me, but I think the biggest oversight was that some people had allowed Anders to die in Awakening and yet there he is in DA2! They could have picked a new mage Warden if they made that an option - which they must then have known about.  Bit of a blinder and drastic continuity error.  Detracts from what makes the games special and that which makes us love them so much, when the choices we make are disregarded.  What happened to strength of conviction there?

Modifié par Wee Joe Green, 10 avril 2011 - 01:49 .

[Torax]

Wee Joe Green wrote...

Dylandl wrote...

Torax wrote...

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.

Not just a few times. It actually happened repeatedly throughout the game. I hated when I got Cullen to dismiss Keran and he still appeared in Best Served Cold. Or when I got Cullen to execute Alain and he was still alive and kicking and helping me fight the Templars in the last mission. The more I think about it, the more I think the choices we make are really superficial and everything turns out the same way regardless!

Not that it affected me, but I think the biggest oversight was that some people had allowed Anders to die in Awakening and yet there he is in DA2! They could have picked a new mage Warden if they made that an option - which they must then have known about.  Bit of a blinder and drastic continuity error.  Detracts from what makes the games special and that which makes us love them so much, when the choices we make are disregarded.  What happened to strength of conviction there?

To be fair I had an import save that thought my keep wasn't fully upgraded so it labeled Anders and others like Nathaniel dead. But that is a bug. The Anders situation was solved in a short story actually. Granted it was after he joined with Justice so it would have been theoretically after Awakening since I had Justice with me to fight the Broodmother and left Anders at home and used the Elf to heal.

[RavenB]

You never actually see Anders in Awakening die, though. You can send him away with the templars (I think?) or you can leave him to die at the keep, but both of those can be explained away without much trouble. First option, he escaped. Anders escaping from the templars seems more likely than not, honestly. Second option, he faked his death to escape, which is what he tells Nathaniel if you import a game where Nathaniel lived and Anders died. There was chaos during the battle and they don't say what state the corpse was in.

I think Anders still being alive makes a lot more sense than Leliana, who you may have killed personally. Possibly by BEHEADING.

[Wee Joe Green]

RavenB wrote...

You never actually see Anders in Awakening die, though. You can send him away with the templars (I think?) or you can leave him to die at the keep, but both of those can be explained away without much trouble. First option, he escaped. Anders escaping from the templars seems more likely than not, honestly. Second option, he faked his death to escape, which is what he tells Nathaniel if you import a game where Nathaniel lived and Anders died. There was chaos during the battle and they don't say what state the corpse was in.

I think Anders still being alive makes a lot more sense than Leliana, who you may have killed personally. Possibly by BEHEADING.

Good point.

[Gravbh]

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.

Bingo. DA:O had too many instances where it was even possible to get an "everyone is happy" ending. Connor was one. The elves/werewolves was another. I mean, how can you consider anything but "everyone lives, no one dies and the boy is saved, werewolf curse is lifted, only the guy who started the thing dies(Zathrian)" as the right choices? You don't lose anything by going those routes and everyone still lives.

I remember the first time I did the quest with Connor and I learned of the option to petition the circle for help. One of the characters warns you that Connor might not have enough time for you to go to the circle. I sat there for a good 5 minutes trying to decide if it was worth the risk or if I should just take Isolde up on her offer to sacrifice herself. When it turns out that there was no risk and I got the flowers-and-bunnies-yay ending because there was in fact no downside to waiting for the circle, I was actually disappointed.

DA2 makes you get off the fence and actually make a tough choice.

[Mariquis]

DA:O's choices felt more.. grand, I guess. But yes, in retrospect they kind of placed the warden in a weird position (here let's trust this stranger with picking the king! Haha, oh well.) But I honestly felt that DA2s were a lot more difficult, and interesting. The only decision I found at all morally grey was the Bhelen/Harrowmont one in DA:O. But a LOT of the choices (even if they were on a smaller scale) in DA2 left me thinking for a bit, because there really wasn't a good or right answer.

Most of the main choices in Act 3 for example (side to choose/Anders' fate/whether to help Merrill/Anders or not/Bartrand's fate/etc.) and some in Act 2 (Support Isabella/Defend Aveline in front of Arishok/Feynriel/etc.) They all had pretty huge grey areas, a person can effectively argue the correctness of supporting either side of the decision. I felt it was much more interesting, than what were pretty much good/evil choices of DA:O.

[Wee Joe Green]

Gravbh wrote...

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.

Bingo. DA:O had too many instances where it was even possible to get an "everyone is happy" ending. Connor was one. The elves/werewolves was another. I mean, how can you consider anything but "everyone lives, no one dies and the boy is saved, werewolf curse is lifted, only the guy who started the thing dies(Zathrian)" as the right choices? You don't lose anything by going those routes and everyone still lives.

I remember the first time I did the quest with Connor and I learned of the option to petition the circle for help. One of the characters warns you that Connor might not have enough time for you to go to the circle. I sat there for a good 5 minutes trying to decide if it was worth the risk or if I should just take Isolde up on her offer to sacrifice herself. When it turns out that there was no risk and I got the flowers-and-bunnies-yay ending because there was in fact no downside to waiting for the circle, I was actually disappointed.

DA2 makes you get off the fence and actually make a tough choice.

I personally like the ability to persevere in order to get "the best outcome" and you must remember that you were only rewarded these "everyone benefits" options provided you acted in a particular way which not everyone would have managed.  It's therefore a reward for the kind of player you are and the positive decisions which you make.  It's not real life, it is a game and stories such as this should have the option to save the day! I like this element of escapism in games.

I for example, never saved both Connor and his mother for the everyone's happy ending.  I took the choice that going to the circle wasn't worth it and I wanted an immediate remedy - which I paid for in Alistair's criticism of me!
 But I liked the option to reach a better and more amicable solution to the werewolves/elves.  Let's face it, it doesn't Always have to be about gritty realism.  Sometimes it's more fun and gratifying to reach a positive "everyone's happy" ending.  There were hardly no repurcissions too, the Elven leader had to die who everyone respected and loved, leading to limited resentment and I could empathise with the spirit on control of the wolf, who was portrayed quite empathetic.  I still found it somewhat hard to have to kill them both, but it was the best outcome.  There's nothing wrong with this.

[Plaintiff]

Actually, the decisions in Origins don't strike me as anything special. I didn't see a lot fo moral "grey areas". There was either a definite right/wrong, or a compromise that pleased everyone.

If you had to kill either Connor or Isolde, that might be a difficult choice. But you don't have to, you can go to the tower and get Irving's help and nobody will be harmed.

If you had to choose between slaughtering the elves or slaughtering the werewolves, that would be a difficult, morally grey choice. But instead, you can convince Zathrian to end the curse, along with his unnaturally long life, and everyone's happy.

The mage situation is obvious (at least to me). Maybe not to some. But I'm not about to kill people because they might be possessed. Innocent until proven guilty, thanks very much.

Orzammar is the only truly difficult one for me. I like Bhelen's policies a lot, but he's an incredible **** and if I met him on the street I'd probably kick him in the face.

Loghain? Kill the mother****er. Kill him in the face. Even if I was able to comprehend how completely screwing Ferelden over was supposed to save it from imaginary Orlesians, even if I respected his glorious past, even if I was able to symapthise with his apparent need to ****ing kill me, Alistair is my bro and bros stick together.

Crowning? Alistair on his own, definitely. On my first few playthroughs I had him marry Frigid Mc****, to "convince the opposition" but then I sat back and realized she was just as much of a treacherous snake as her father, and for all her big talk about being the brains behind the crown, she proved through her actions to be incompetent and untrustworthy. Alistair may be untested, but he's not a douche, which is more than can be said for just about every other nobleman you meet.

As far as DA2 goes, I found most of the decisions similarly easy. Kelder is the only tricky one I can think of off the top of my head. My instinct is to let him live, but killing him is a mercy and, well, I get a lot of Friendship points out of it. But, at least in general, DA2 forces you to pick a side. The only compromise I can think of is in Act Of Mercy, where you can lie to the templars instead of killing Thrask.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 10 avril 2011 - 02:21 .

[RavenB]

Plaintiff wrote...

Actually, the decisions in Origins don't strike me as anything special. I didn't see a lot fo moral "drey areas". There was either a definite right/wrong, or a compromise that pleased everyone.

If you had to kill either Connor or Isolde, that might be a difficult choice. But you don't have to, you can go to the tower and get Irving's help and nobody will be harmed.

If you had to choose between slaughtering the elves or slaughtering the werewolves, that would be a difficult, morally grey choice. But instead, you can convince Zathrian to end the curse, along with his unnaturally long life, and everyone's happy.

The mage situation is obvious (at least to me). Maybe not to some. But I'm not about to kill people because they might be possessed. Innocent until proven guilty, thanks very much.

Orzammar is the only truly difficult one for me. I like Bhelen's policies a lot, but he's an incredible **** and if I met him on the street I'd probably kick him in the face.

Loghain? Kill the mother****er. Kill him in the face. Even if I was able to comprehend how completely screwing Ferelden over was supposed to save it from imaginary Orlesians, even if I respected his glorious past, even if I was able to symapthise with his apparent need to ****ing kill me, Alistair is my bro and bros stick together.

Crowning? Alistair on his own, definitely. On my first few playthroughs I had him marry Frigid Mc****, to "convince the opposition" but then I sat back and realized she was just as much of a treacherous snake has her father, and for all her big talk about being the brains behind the crown, she proved through her actions to be incompetent and untrustworthy. Alistair may be untested, but he's not a douche, which is more than can be said for just about every other nobleman you meet.

As far as DA2 goes, I found most of the decisions similarly easy. Kelder is the only tricky one I can think of off the top of my head. My instinct is to let him live, but killing him is a mercy and, well, I get a lot of Friendship points out of it.

I pretty much agree with all your Origins choices. I made most of the same decisions, I think. Bhelen vs Harrowmont was the hardest choice for me, also. In the end I picked Bhelen, because I thought the change he would bring would benefit the majority more so than his tactics would cause harm to.

I'll be honest, Branka vs Cairidin was a hard choice for me, too. Putting Bhelen in charge, I knew that there was a high chance for abuse, but the idea was tempting. Golems being produced again seemed like, while not great morally, and interesting development to watch and a help for the final battle. In the end I sided with.. well, Shale. I loved her character and didn't want to ****** her off. But then not much seems to come of it if you DO save the technology, so turns out I made the right choice in hindsight. XD

[Torax]

The sad part is there is no option to kill Thrask. Yes she asks you do that but what really happens is you fight the other templars and Thrask still lives. He has plot armor like Grace.

[TheRealJayDee]

Plaintiff wrote...

Actually, the decisions in Origins don't strike me as anything special. I didn't see a lot fo moral "grey areas". There was either a definite right/wrong, or a compromise that pleased everyone.

If you had to kill either Connor or Isolde, that might be a difficult choice. But you don't have to, you can go to the tower and get Irving's help and nobody will be harmed.

If you had to choose between slaughtering the elves or slaughtering the werewolves, that would be a difficult, morally grey choice. But instead, you can convince Zathrian to end the curse, along with his unnaturally long life, and everyone's happy.

The mage situation is obvious (at least to me). Maybe not to some. But I'm not about to kill people because they might be possessed. Innocent until proven guilty, thanks very much.

Orzammar is the only truly difficult one for me. I like Bhelen's policies a lot, but he's an incredible **** and if I met him on the street I'd probably kick him in the face.

Loghain? Kill the mother****er. Kill him in the face. Even if I was able to comprehend how completely screwing Ferelden over was supposed to save it from imaginary Orlesians, even if I respected his glorious past, even if I was able to symapthise with his apparent need to ****ing kill me, Alistair is my bro and bros stick together.

Crowning? Alistair on his own, definitely. On my first few playthroughs I had him marry Frigid Mc****, to "convince the opposition" but then I sat back and realized she was just as much of a treacherous snake as her father, and for all her big talk about being the brains behind the crown, she proved through her actions to be incompetent and untrustworthy. Alistair may be untested, but he's not a douche, which is more than can be said for just about every other nobleman you meet.

As far as DA2 goes, I found most of the decisions similarly easy. Kelder is the only tricky one I can think of off the top of my head. My instinct is to let him live, but killing him is a mercy and, well, I get a lot of Friendship points out of it. But, at least in general, DA2 forces you to pick a side. The only compromise I can think of is in Act Of Mercy, where you can lie to the templars instead of killing Thrask.

There is still something like roleplaying. Most DA:O decisions had a different outcome based on which character I played. What was right or wrong was decided by my characters point of view given the situation at hand, which often used to differ from what I consider the best solution or even what the character would’ve wished for. But most of the big decisions that decided how Ferelden would turn out to be at the end were made by my characters.

In DA2 it didn't feel that way. A lot of choices didn't really seem to have any lasting effect on Kirkwall, and not few of the important events happened and/or were decided without my character’s involvment:

Death of the first sibling: decided solely by the player through his choice of class.

Leaving/ possible death of the second sibling: granted, Hawke decides wether to take his sibling with him or not. But it wasn't anything like a meaningful decision over his/her life, it just felt like "yeah, sorry, your sibling is dead now. Because, urm, he/she got tainted off-screen. Bummer!". No influence on your sibling leaving/being taken away.

Leandra's death: no influence at all from neither character nor player.

Chantry bombing: minor influence only on the degree of complicity.
 
Siding with templars/mages: forced choice between two evils, no option for a third way. In the end you slaughter everyone anyway.
 

[Wee Joe Green]

I agree to some extent with the above.

Also did anyone else feel the confrontations you had were at times confused in the end battles?

On one occassion you went into a room and there would be maleficar and templars just waiting in the room not attacking each other (when I was defending the mages) then you'd attack both.

The most noticeable occassion was in the lead up to the confrontation outside of Kirkwall with the renegades templar and mages who were plotting to bring Meredith down. All along the way I was bein attacked by Templars and mages alike and they were saying how could you side with Meredith, when from the word go I had always shown tendacies to favour the Mages and already had the achievement for defending them. At each encounter, when prompted, I would say I'm not your enemy I agree with you Meredith has to be brought down. Next corner, battling them again.

When I reached the Templar in charge (forget name) I agreed with him - not his methods however in taking my sister - and said I would side with them. That **** apostate said lets kill him anyway and his sister. Granted, she was crazy and so the Templar in charge opposed her. What didn't make sense though was that when the fighting started, both the apostates AND the templars were fighting me. Why wouldn't they have followed the lead of their leuitenant who they trusted and followed?

It was just occassions like this that didn't make much sense and seemed to be there either way regardless which outcome you chose.