127 réponses à ce sujet

[Layn]

Taleroth wrote...
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of consequence in my context. NEGATIVE consequence. Meaning "bad things happen." Conner becoming a happy mage, Isolde living, none of these are negative consequence. To anyone. Unless you really hate these people.

well, is Connor going to be a happy mage? Eamon in the end mentioned that his son was acting weird. dunno if this was a reference to him being just a normal mage (who used to be an abomination even) or that the whole experience has made him weird and possibly even dangerous later on

[sagevallant]

Suron wrote...

the complaints here are all based on meta game knowledge..and if you play a game that way of course it's dull and un-rewarding.

On my first playthrough I decided to sacrifice Isolde..becuase I didn't know, having not spoiled it and it being my first play, that leaving for a few days wouldn't result in something happening...that's how my CHARACTER saw the situation.

now that I've played through it a few times I try and make choices based of the personality/theme of the character I'm playing NOT meta-game knowledge...YOUR CHARACTER HAS NO IDEA that everything will be all hunky-dory with Redcliffe if you leave for several days.

or in short..the complaints are stupid if you're going to only opt for the best-case-scenerio because you know all the outcomes.

YOUR CHARACTER may have felt outraged like Zathrian and thought the werewolves deserved punishment..or vise-versa..

once again these arguments are idiotic. Bio put in various outcomes for someone ROLEPLAYING A CHARACTER..NOT meta-gaming and min/maxing a character...

if you're too shallow to play from your characters perspective and thoughts on the matter instead of your existing knowledge of ALL outcomes...don't come here complaining BioWare did something wrong..show some intelligence

Personally, when I got to that part, I made a simple decision. I saved the game, then left and got the mages. If something bad had happened while I was gone, I would've reloaded the save. Ditto for the conversations, rep gains and losses. But then, personally, I play for the story, not to pretend I'm protagonist. I play to see what the protagonist does. And generally, yes, this does lead me down the path of righteousness

[marshalleck]

sagevallant wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Bioware can't write negative consequences into their games because every time they've tried in the past, people become enraged. That's why there's always the Shining Paladin of Goodness option, which from a metagaming perspective invalidates all but the most ideal solution to every problem.

A large portion of the audience buys Epic Quest Game to go forth and be the hero. If they want to f*** up the city, stab hobos, and kill hookers, they play GTA.

I vote for a GTA spinoff titled Grand Theft Dragoon, where we can all be our sadistic bastard selves.

That's not at all what I am talking about. I don't care about being Chaotic Stupid.

What annoys me is for example the Connor situation. Time stops in the town while you're off rustling up the Circle to help the boy. There is no consequence for leaving him possessed in the castle.

The options should have been:

1) Sacrifice Isolde to save Connor (a life for a life, consequence)
2) Kill Connor (negative consequence obvious)
3) Go get help from Mages...only to find out upon your return that Demon-Connor has massacred the town you worked so hard to save.

But that's not how it happens. Option 3 in the game has no consequence whatsoever. and as pointed out by Taleroth in the OP, this is repeated throughout the game.

Modifié par marshalleck, 01 décembre 2009 - 07:27 .

[sagevallant]

marshalleck wrote...

sagevallant wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Bioware can't write negative consequences into their games because every time they've tried in the past, people become enraged. That's why there's always the Shining Paladin of Goodness option, which from a metagaming perspective invalidates all but the most ideal solution to every problem.

A large portion of the audience buys Epic Quest Game to go forth and be the hero. If they want to f*** up the city, stab hobos, and kill hookers, they play GTA.

I vote for a GTA spinoff titled Grand Theft Dragoon, where we can all be our sadistic bastard selves.

That's not at all what I am talking about. I don't care about being Chaotic Stupid.

What annoys me is for example the Connor situation. Time stops in the town while you're off rustling up the Circle to help the boy. There is no consequence for leaving him possessed in the castle.

The options should have been:

1) Sacrifice Isolde to save Connor (a life for a life, consequence)
2) Kill Connor (negative consequence obvious)
3) Go get help from Mages...only to find out upon your return that Demon-Connor has massacred the town you worked so hard to save.

But that's not how it happens. Option 3 in the game has no consequence whatsoever. and as pointed out by Taleroth in the OP, this is repeated throughout the game.

This is to equate it with going to the Circle first, which is entirely possible. Although I do think something happens in Redcliffe if you go there last? idk, I've never done it.

[Taleroth]

Suron wrote...

however..my point stands..and your counter-argument is weak. The complaints are based off knowing all outcomes..your character doesn't...and whether it's your 1st or 100th time playing..if you make the choice based off the personality you set for your character (OMG roleplaying in an RPG????? NO F'n WAY!) this is a non-issue. Does YOUR CHARACTER think it's worth the time it will take going to the mage tower? does YOUR CHARACTER feel disgusted by the elves/werewolves and think one or the other should pay...

How is it a non-issue?  The question at hand here is themes/morals/messages.

How does knowing that an idyllic path leads to an idyllic end contest the notion that an idyllic theme is presented?
Especially when backed up by knowing that less than idyllic paths occasionally lead to less than idyllic ends.

Does in-character understanding present consistent or darker themes?  How?  Is the idyllic principled character confronted by negative consequence as a result of his idealism consistently?  Or is he vindicated?

[marshalleck]

sagevallant wrote...

This is to equate it with going to the Circle first, which is entirely possible. Although I do think something happens in Redcliffe if you go there last? idk, I've never done it.

It doesn't matter, you're still leaving Demon-Connor who has shown an ability to dominate the minds of others alone in the Castle for several days while your party treks up to the tower and back. You're telling me that for some reason all his power is gone just because you killed a few guards? Why doesn't Connor reanimate them? Why doesn't he turn Teagan into a puppet again?

[Layn]

marshalleck wrote...

The options should have been:

1) Sacrifice Isolde to save Connor (a life for a life, consequence)
2) Kill Connor (negative consequence obvious)
3) Go get help from Mages...only to find out upon your return that Demon-Connor has massacred the town you worked so hard to save.

But that's not how it happens. Option 3 in the game has no consequence whatsoever. and as pointed out by Taleroth in the OP, this is repeated throughout the game.

i felt like i had to take the chance and go to the circle. then they tell me i wasted my time going there, so since i already wasted time, why note quickly clear out the tower, which didn't really seem that hard. oh and then sloth demon made me sleep for a day... when i finally was through with the tower i was seriously worried

however you are right, there should be a consequence for actually doing the whole circle quest line while everyones waiting back at redcliffe. then again, before that you can leave redcliffe at any time and they manage just fine too

[Taleroth]

marshalleck wrote...

The options should have been:

1) Sacrifice Isolde to save Connor (a life for a life, consequence)
2) Kill Connor (negative consequence obvious)
3) Go get help from Mages...only to find out upon your return that Demon-Connor has massacred the town you worked so hard to save.

But that's not how it happens. Option 3 in the game has no consequence whatsoever. and as pointed out by Taleroth in the OP, this is repeated throughout the game.

I'd like to interrupt a bit here with a clarification on myself.  I'm absolutely okay with the options that were presented to us.  I would have just preferred it appear more consistent.  I like that I can save everyone and have a happy ending in Redcliffe.  And in Brecillian forest.

But why did poor Jory have to die?
:'(

[sagevallant]

marshalleck wrote...

sagevallant wrote...

This is to equate it with going to the Circle first, which is entirely possible. Although I do think something happens in Redcliffe if you go there last? idk, I've never done it.

It doesn't matter, you're still leaving Demon-Connor who has shown an ability to dominate the minds of others alone in the Castle for several days while your party treks up to the tower and back. You're telling me that for some reason all his power is gone just because you killed a few guards? Why doesn't Connor reanimate them? Why doesn't he turn Teagan into a puppet again?

Because Demon-Connor is actually Connor being possessed by a Demon in random bursts. More commonly at night than during the day, in fact. The demon was never actually summoned at all, Connor was approached in the Fade while he dreamt. The Demon never pierced the Veil. That the town is still standing ought to be some proof that the Demon does not have full control, which buys time. Plus, all those lovely walking dead have been re-deadified. He doesn't have an army at his disposal anymore.

[sagevallant]

Taleroth wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

The options should have been:

1) Sacrifice Isolde to save Connor (a life for a life, consequence)
2) Kill Connor (negative consequence obvious)
3) Go get help from Mages...only to find out upon your return that Demon-Connor has massacred the town you worked so hard to save.

But that's not how it happens. Option 3 in the game has no consequence whatsoever. and as pointed out by Taleroth in the OP, this is repeated throughout the game.

I'd like to interrupt a bit here with a clarification on myself.  I'm absolutely okay with the options that were presented to us.  I would have just preferred it appear more consistent.  I like that I can save everyone and have a happy ending in Redcliffe.  And in Brecillian forest.

But why did poor Jory have to die?
:'(

Because Jory and Daveth were red shirts. This is just the way of the universe.

[marshalleck]

sagevallant wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

sagevallant wrote...

This is to equate it with going to the Circle first, which is entirely possible. Although I do think something happens in Redcliffe if you go there last? idk, I've never done it.

It doesn't matter, you're still leaving Demon-Connor who has shown an ability to dominate the minds of others alone in the Castle for several days while your party treks up to the tower and back. You're telling me that for some reason all his power is gone just because you killed a few guards? Why doesn't Connor reanimate them? Why doesn't he turn Teagan into a puppet again?

Because Demon-Connor is actually Connor being possessed by a Demon in random bursts. More commonly at night than during the day, in fact. The demon was never actually summoned at all, Connor was approached in the Fade while he dreamt. The Demon never pierced the Veil. That the town is still standing ought to be some proof that the Demon does not have full control, which buys time. Plus, all those lovely walking dead have been re-deadified. He doesn't have an army at his disposal anymore.

Except for the army of freshly dead guards that you so conveniently dispatch. But this is getting off-topic.

[Recidiva]

Suron wrote...

but your character doesn't know that..he took a chance..and it ends up paying off...yes I believe something SHOULD have happened...be it even small..some mention..SOMETHING.

however..my point stands..and your counter-argument is weak. The complaints are based off knowing all outcomes..your character doesn't...and whether it's your 1st or 100th time playing..if you make the choice based off the personality you set for your character (OMG roleplaying in an RPG????? NO F'n WAY!) this is a non-issue. Does YOUR CHARACTER think it's worth the time it will take going to the mage tower? does YOUR CHARACTER feel disgusted by the elves/werewolves and think one or the other should pay...

omg...roleplaying...in an rpg..what a concept? I know I'm crazy

I'm a roleplayer, but what drove me through the first game (which I did with zero spoilers) was curiosity of how it's going to turn out. 

I'm a decent roleplayer, but as a PLAYER I need motivations to get through the games also.  Subsequent playthroughs give me the maximum options of excluding and including certain choices out of curiosity. 

So although I'll run a first playthrough entirely on my gut and consequently missing a lot of content or choices.

It's impossible for me to not use the knowledge I gained in the previous games to influence future ones, and why would I want to do so?  Actors don't make themselves forget all their lines before performance.

Metagaming may make it possible for me to 'know' that there's no way Bhelen's ever getting anything from me other than stabbing.  I didn't know this the first time through and that's fine for what it is.

But even choosing my roles in subsequent games means I'm there as a player to satisfy curiosity or certain goals.  

You can combine pragmatic interest in replay and exploration, while excluding paths you've taken before because...you've taken them before, or taking them again because...you enjoyed them.

At a certain point pure roleplaying is as tiresome as all the arguments pretentious actors can make about "The Method" - I always hear Sir John Gielgud in my head.  While filming "Raging Bull" Robert De Niro was running around and exercising (the method, must truly exercise to be seen as portraying exercise accurately) and Gielgud was on the set.  He asked DeNiro what he was doing and DeNiro explained "the method" and Gielgud said "Have you tried ACTING, dear boy?"

I prefer a combination of meta knowledge and method as it suits me.  I will act when I choose and immerse when I choose, but otherwise if I'm just persisting in being entirely ignorant I'll end up playing the same game again and again and convincing myself I should be surprised this time.

[Recidiva]

It doesn't matter, you're still leaving Demon-Connor who has shown an ability to dominate the minds of others alone in the Castle for several days while your party treks up to the tower and back. You're telling me that for some reason all his power is gone just because you killed a few guards? Why doesn't Connor reanimate them? Why doesn't he turn Teagan into a puppet again?

The difference is that Teagan has asked Jowan to help in controlling Connor and considering Jowan does know a bit about magic, theoretically that's what keeps the holding pattern going.

[sagevallant]

marshalleck wrote...

sagevallant wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

sagevallant wrote...

This is to equate it with going to the Circle first, which is entirely possible. Although I do think something happens in Redcliffe if you go there last? idk, I've never done it.

It doesn't matter, you're still leaving Demon-Connor who has shown an ability to dominate the minds of others alone in the Castle for several days while your party treks up to the tower and back. You're telling me that for some reason all his power is gone just because you killed a few guards? Why doesn't Connor reanimate them? Why doesn't he turn Teagan into a puppet again?

Because Demon-Connor is actually Connor being possessed by a Demon in random bursts. More commonly at night than during the day, in fact. The demon was never actually summoned at all, Connor was approached in the Fade while he dreamt. The Demon never pierced the Veil. That the town is still standing ought to be some proof that the Demon does not have full control, which buys time. Plus, all those lovely walking dead have been re-deadified. He doesn't have an army at his disposal anymore.

Except for the army of freshly dead guards that you so conveniently dispatch. But this is getting off-topic.

You kill a few guards fighting Teagan. Otherwise, it's all shambling dead monstrosities in the castle.

[Findarin]

well, if you don't help the village, you do have more undead to kill in the castle as most if not all of the villagers are now undead.

[KalosCast]

I'm still curious as to why everybody (in this thread) is so convinced Dragon Age was written with teaching a moral lesson in mind.

[FalloutBoy]

Taleroth wrote...

I'd like to interrupt a bit here with a clarification on myself.  I'm absolutely okay with the options that were presented to us.  I would have just preferred it appear more consistent.  I like that I can save everyone and have a happy ending in Redcliffe.  And in Brecillian forest.

I hated the "good" ending for the elves. I had to convince a guy that everything he did in order to save his people actually made things much worse, and that the world would be a better place if he were to self-terminate. Then I had to watch the LotF who had saved so many victims of the curse from becoming mindless beasts willingly accept her own passing while all her people looked on. I almost teared up.

Saving the mages means the possibility of loosing demons into the world. Neither dwarf ruler is very good. Destroying the Anvil means weakening your army against the darkspawn and killing someone Ogren cares about. None of the options for King is very appealing (sorry but Alistair is a terrible option for multiple reasons).

The Redcliffe ending was happy. I'll give you that. So was killing the slavers. So that's 2 happy endings out of the 6 I mentioned.

Furthermore you are forced to decide the fate of major characters Sten, Zevran, Lohain, Jowan, and even Brother Genetivi who wants to turn the Sacred Urn into Disneyland. They all commited crimes, but do they deserve to die for it? It's up to you to decide.

Modifié par FalloutBoy, 01 décembre 2009 - 08:44 .

[Recidiva]

KalosCast wrote...

I'm still curious as to why everybody (in this thread) is so convinced Dragon Age was written with teaching a moral lesson in mind.

I don't think it's a lesson.  It's about choices.

I think it's a game that wants to entertain and keep people immersed and involved, and many factors are used to create conflict, morality is one of them.

[Tristera]

Recidiva wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

I'm still curious as to why everybody (in this thread) is so convinced Dragon Age was written with teaching a moral lesson in mind.

I don't think it's a lesson.  It's about choices.

I think it's a game that wants to entertain and keep people immersed and involved, and many factors are used to create conflict, morality is one of them.

Thank you, I said this in my earlier post which got eaten up by other arguments.

[Spaceweed10]

Roxlimn wrote...

I also get the distinct suspicion that "Flemeth" isn't, in fact, Flemeth, particularly since she seems a bit addled and none too intelligent. I get the feeling that Flemeth has already completed her ritual and is now housed in the body of someone who used to be Morrigan, but her new body takes getting used to and she still needs to get rid of the old body, which presumably is still very powerful.

So what does she do?

She manipulates the old body with the addled soul to rescue two Grey Wardens and then joins them for a variety of reasons, one of which is to flesh out her new body and powers in the relative safety of two powerful individuals. This puts her out of danger from the old body. Later on, she manipulates the Wardens into killing the old body, and retrieving all her old stuff to boot. She can't be there because killing the old body might have disastrous results if she were near. Convenient.

Certainly, from all the old tales of what Flemeth is capable of doing, I wouldn't put this past her.

I agree with your point regarding Morrigan and the baby, but you are way off the mark on this...

[Taleroth]

KalosCast wrote...

I'm still curious as to why everybody (in this thread) is so convinced Dragon Age was written with teaching a moral lesson in mind.

I'm curious as to why some people think that playting with themes/messages/morals is automatically an attempt at trying to teach.  They organize ideas and are fun to play with on their own.  An author doesn't have to agree with the ideas they're presenting, but they may still want to express them.

My concern is largely that there isn't one.  I consider that lamentable.  But I'd also like to know if maybe I just missed it.

[sagevallant]

FalloutBoy wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

I'd like to interrupt a bit here with a clarification on myself.  I'm absolutely okay with the options that were presented to us.  I would have just preferred it appear more consistent.  I like that I can save everyone and have a happy ending in Redcliffe.  And in Brecillian forest.

I hated the "good" ending for the elves. I had to convince a guy that everything he did in order to save his people actually made things much worse, and that the world would be a better place if he were to self-terminate. Then I had to watch the LotF who had saved so many victims of the curse from becoming mindless beasts willingly accept her own passing while all her people looked on. I almost teared up.

Saving the mages means the possibility of loosing demons into the world. Neither dwarf ruler is very good. Destroying the Anvil means weakening your army against the darkspawn and killing someone Ogren cares about. None of the options for King is very appealing (sorry but Alistair is a terrible option for multiple reasons).

The Redcliffe ending was happy. I'll give you that. So was killing the slavers. So that's 2 happy endings out of the 6 I mentioned.

Furthermore you are forced to decide the fate of major characters Sten, Zevran, Lohain, Jowan, and even Brother Genetivi who wants to turn the Sacred Urn into Disneyland. They all commited crimes, but do they deserve to die for it? It's up to you to decide.

Actually, you CAN destroy Caridan and still destroy the anvil and give Branka a chance at redemption. Then you forges you a crown like Caridan does and self-terminates.

Weakening your army or sacrificing countless dwarves in the future by giving them a power that they already had and already abused... yeah, that's a morality issue. You can just let their future be effed up, I mean, it's not like the mega-happy ending is the only one. You don't get a "Mission Failed" screen if you want to wipe them out. Same if you decide to convince the werewolves to fight the Dalish. Then you get F***ING WEREWOLVES to fight the darkspawn for you, too. Being good makes you miss out on all the good units >_<

[Azazel005]

KalosCast wrote...

I'm still curious as to why everybody (in this thread) is so convinced Dragon Age was written with teaching a moral lesson in mind.

Every good story should have a consistent message/theme. It's half the reason we spend so much time waffling about them! At least the story is good enough to have people carry on like this, I can't remember the last time someone got into an in depth discussion over the moral quandries faced by the Master Chief.

[Fishy]

PatT2 wrote...

Curry Noodles wrote...

What's wrong with the caste system?

I think the problem with the caste system is that you have a large portion of the population outside of it, where they aren't even treated as sentient beings.  There's a document somewhere in orzammar that indicates the reason the casteless are still casteless is to ensure a steady supply of suicide soldiers into the legion of the dead. 

The problem with the caste system (the problems) are manifold. The "system " has no way of measuring whether a person has talent, ability or whatever. Someone born caste-less, someone even with Einstein's ability, would be completely wasted. Because he was born caste-less, irregardless of his abilities. Someone with an affinity for wordsmithing might have to pound iron. Etc.
There are so many things wrong with the caste system it would take a book to explain, and those books exist. Ask anyone from the Dalit caste in India if the caste system works.

The opposite can be said also.That someone with absolotly no talent might replace someone with much more talent but  who's not interested to become .. let's say a Smith.

Also  anyone with  super talent can become a Paragon..Casteless or not.

[Fishy]

Yeah Morrigan try actually everything .



She don't want to make love with your PC if she fall in love.Well That a HUGE HINT.

She tell you it's going to end BAD .

She ask the PC .. one word for him and she will LEAVE

She put it clear for a long time that love it's a weakness and she has other priority and she's not the average wench.



Yet if you're still with her at the end you're the only one to blame.