27 réponses à ce sujet

[EternalPink]

Decided to side with the mages since they seems slightly less crazy until the first enchanter turns into evil blood mage and i had to kill him, every encounterable mage in the gallows i had to kill, every encounterable templer i've had to kill and then had to kill meredith and the statues.

So at the end of the game i'm left with anders who started it all by blowing up the chantry and cullen the crazy templer from origins and the evolution or resolution of the main plot is basically you kill everything.

Think i see now why everybody was so pissed and the seeing the bard leliana from origins for about 30 seconds really didn't make up for that.

On the plus side i did get it as a budget game so i suppose a few days worth of entertainment for £9.99 is a good cost to entertainment value but i've gotta say worse ending ever for a game.

[CalJones]

I finished mine last night (also went with mages). Everyone acts like an idiot in this game. Anders and Isabela, I'm looking at you. Orsino and most of the mages I tried to save - I'm also looking at you.

Generally I like to try and find more diplomatic solutions. I came to this after playing Fallout: New Vegas where you pick and side and they have your back until the end. There are diplomatic solutions with most of the smaller factions (Khans, Kings, even the Powder Gangers) if you have the speech skills, and you can even talk down the enemy leader into leaving at the end of the final battle (even Lanius, though I always kill him).

After that, DA2 was just one instance of epic stupidity after another. Like it or not, you have to kill everyone, even those you are trying to help.

I did very much enjoy the game, right up until the end. However, I usually replay a game multiple times to get as much out of it as possible but with DA2, the fact you end up having to kill everyone anyway limits the replay value considerably.

[Pandaman102]

Technically the same can be said for Origins: you always wind up killing all the darkspawn in Denerim and the Archdemon. The difference doesn't lie in the plot resolution, but the choices and consequences that affect the stage leading up to your inevitable finale.

Of which DA2 had barely any.

Modifié par Pandaman102, 29 avril 2011 - 05:39 .

[frustratemyself]

As game finales go it was diappointing and a bit too easy the way it played out in the Gallows.
We could interpret it as a commentary about not being able to save people from themselves if they're determined not to let you. However this involves too much thinking and doesn't change the fact that Hawke does come off as a bit of a passenger/victim of circumstances no matter what choices s/he makes.

[CalJones]

I am wondering whether this is down to the fact Bioware have learned that trying to import multiple decisions over a series of games (Mass Effect) is more of a pain than they want to deal with in the Dragon Age series. Any variations should be minor (which characters survived to make cameos in future games, for instance) rather than major (if we weren't forced to kill both Orsino and Meredith, the future of Thedas would differ greatly depending on which path we had chosen).
Still, the execution left something to be desired.

[EternalPink]

frustratemyself wrote...

As game finales go it was diappointing and a bit too easy the way it played out in the Gallows.
We could interpret it as a commentary about not being able to save people from themselves if they're determined not to let you. However this involves too much thinking and doesn't change the fact that Hawke does come off as a bit of a passenger/victim of circumstances no matter what choices s/he makes.

Think that involves to much hind-sight justification since my hawke wouldn't have sided with the mages if they were all going to turn into blood magic using abominations and considering they've got the champion of kirkwall on there side by convincing him they aren't blood magic using abominations to then do that would just cause the champion in my case to go f*** this and get back on isabella's boat and leave them to it(which wasn't an option)

Also from the lore and so on its explained that mages can be possessed not that there is a demon waiting by on the off-chance every mage in existance is going to start screaming possess me possess me and even if there was from there training they know that there is no going back so how does getting possessed by a demon to win a fight sound like a good/viable option to them?

If i'd sided with the templars the mages doing what they did could be explained away but to do it when your on there side is stupid.

While i've not played the templar side and to be honest if i do replay i might just abandon when we get to the last mission i'm going to assume that we still have to kill meredith

Modifié par EternalPink, 29 avril 2011 - 03:39 .

[Ulicus]

CalJones wrote...

I am wondering whether this is down to the fact Bioware have learned that trying to import multiple decisions over a series of games (Mass Effect) is more of a pain than they want to deal with in the Dragon Age series. Any variations should be minor (which characters survived to make cameos in future games, for instance) rather than major (if we weren't forced to kill both Orsino and Meredith, the future of Thedas would differ greatly depending on which path we had chosen).

I'm almost certain this is the case.

So the question is: do people want major choices with wildly different and huge consequences within the game they're playing more than they want those consequences to be carried over from game to game?

Because you can't really have both at the moment. I mean, imagine if BioWare allowed DA2 to end completely differently depending on whether or not Hawke sided with the templars and mages and then said: "And, in DA3, we assume that Hawke sided with the mages".

People would be crying bloody murder.

Modifié par Ulicus, 29 avril 2011 - 07:17 .

[nicethugbert]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Technically the same can be said for Origins: you always wind up killing all the darkspawn in Denerim and the Archdemon. The difference doesn't lie in the plot resolution, but the choices and consequences that affect the stage leading up to your inevitable finale.

Of which DA2 had barely any.

People will say that choices in DA2 don't matter, but, they don't matter in DA:O either because no matter what happens, The Warden will save the world just as surely as The Champion will fail to save it.

I think DA:O was a longer game and that's why it seems to have more choices.  I don't think DA2 lacked choice.  I think people simply didn't like the choices.  DA2 is a dark story about the world going to hell in a hand basket no matter what anybody does and many people don't like that.  It's also a much subtler story than DA:O.  It's loaded with quiet clues implying the hopelessness of kirkwall, but, you can't do anything about it because it's a smaller scale story, no world saving allowed.  Plus, since DA:O is a Save The World Story, you can wave off lesser events and crimes because The Warden has Bigger Issues to Deal With.  In DA2, there are no Bigger Issues To Deal With.

People wanted a smaller scale, more personal story, and they got it.  Then they hate it because it's not the railroad they wanted.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 29 avril 2011 - 07:47 .

[EternalPink]

Why can we not have both?

The Origins import into DA2 seemed trivial at best, who we see, the dwarf protection quest, which king from ferelden so if the setting is anywhere other than kirkwall what we did or didn't do isn't going to matter.

How they address the different choices in ME3 from ME1 and 2 will be interesting but the tone of ME2 felt very different depending on what we did in ME1 so if they can do it on one franchise why not the other?

[CaolIla]

you can have both, but not with this schedule Oo
Still: I finished the game multiple times and even after siding with the templers you still get basically the same ending, even in small cutscenes and that's just lazy.

I don't think it was intended but even if you crawl up meredith's ass you get the same Cullen line "I think we agreed to arrest the champion" as a response to meredth's announcement to kill you.
That makes NO sense at all, why would he agree? He's even trying to save mages from meredith while you're Cleaning the gallows and you saved his ass, but it's fine that the champion gets arrested for being... well there ? Oo
He's either just a bad written character or the most dangerous man in Kirkwall Oo

As well as this tomboyish Seeker thing that keeps harassing Varric: why is he/she constantly threatening Varric? Why does he/she know all details when it's needed but doesn't know the simplest facts when it's good for a cheap effect?

He/She keeps blabbering about the bad things the champion did and what those things led to, even if you did everything "right" out of templer's sight, because nobody ever mentioned in any conservation or in any report he/she read that meredith was supposed to be bad **** crazy?
Even after the champion became viscount the templers never like send a messenger to the divine to clarify things about what the heck happened?

Just cheap... in germany we call "stories" of this caliber Groschenromane.

[AlexXIV]

In DA2 if you make a choice you basically get told 'well it wasn't a real choice, so we will just take you and put you on the right track again'. So basically the choice is only in dialogue but the game doesn't take notice. It is a fake choice. You make a choice, it doesn't change anything. I am pretty sure the only reason they put them in is because some people obviously fall for it. But if you put a bit more thought in it you realize that whatever you choose gets nullified. A choice without consequence isn't much of a choice. It's just fluff.

[frustratemyself]

Ulicus wrote...

So the question is: do people want major choices with wildly different and huge consequences within the game they're playing more than they want those consequences to be carried over from game to game?

Because you can't really have both at the moment. I mean, imagine if BioWare allowed DA2 to end completely differently depending on whether or not Hawke sided with the templars and mages and then said: "And, in DA3, we assume that Hawke sided with the mages".

People would be crying bloody murder.

This. It would end up unworkable in following games if we did get the huge consequences in DA2. The amount of hinting and teasing that went on in game it is setting the scene for circumstances down the track, I hope. Otherwise if it is just down to lazy writing and not enough development time I will make real tears when the next game arrives.

[Majspuffen]

I think the main problem is that the game was released far too soon.

July 2008: Dragon Age Origins Announced.
November 2009: Dragon Age Origins is Released.
March 2010: Dragon Age Awakening is Released.
August 2010: Dragon Age 2, the game and release date is announced.
March 2011: Dragon Age 2 released.

Between the lame starting area and Act 2, I was amazed by this game. Every quest you found was intriguing. You really felt like you wanted to gather all that gold to move onwards.
... But then you get the gold, and have an exciting, albeit short, adventure into the Deep Roads. And here is where you will encounter the only choice with any significant impact on the game.

You survive the Deep Roads, you get rich apparently, you buy back your family's house... then what? Still in Kirkwall? Killing bandits during the nights just as you did the previous act, only that the bandits now have different names? You see the same damn tunnels everywhere, same sewers... Darktown looked exactly the same during night and day...

The Qunari gets pissed off and starts a war which ended just as quickly as it had begun. You enter Act 3. Big whoop, still in Kirkwall. Still the same surroundings, even when leaving the town. Where can you go? Wounded Coast, Sundermount and the Bone pit? Then nothing happens until you get to the end of Act 3 - and no matter what choices you make, you'll still fight the same bosses in the same order.

Your choices have no impact. You are in the same areas all the time. In Dragon Age: Origins, you faced choices everywhere and what you chose mattered. More importantly; You travelled. What makes Half Life 1 such a good game? The gameplay? I'd say it is the environment. No area is the same as any other in that game. Dragon Age: Origins was like that in a way as well. I was hoping the Qunari would win their war so that Hawke would be forced to leave Kirkwall and then, somehow, get back and beat the snot out of them. But, alas.

I remember looking at the map in Act 1 and thought; "This doesn't look like much. I suppose the map will expand later in the game". It didn't. The story is all and well, but the gameplay suffered. The illusion of a choice feels like an insult. Why did they take time to create a new model for hurlocks and ogres, when they didn't even give Orsino a new model for his little Blood Mage trick in the end. The Flesh Golem model that they used already had a purpose - and it wasn't fitting in the end of Dragon Age 2.

The game was released too soon. Or, I hope that this is the case. If not, then I am beginning to lose faith in Bioware. :/

[Danjaru]

nicethugbert wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...

Technically the same can be said for Origins: you always wind up killing all the darkspawn in Denerim and the Archdemon. The difference doesn't lie in the plot resolution, but the choices and consequences that affect the stage leading up to your inevitable finale.

Of which DA2 had barely any.

People will say that choices in DA2 don't matter, but, they don't matter in DA:O either because no matter what happens, The Warden will save the world just as surely as The Champion will fail to save it.

I think DA:O was a longer game and that's why it seems to have more choices.  I don't think DA2 lacked choice.  I think people simply didn't like the choices.  DA2 is a dark story about the world going to hell in a hand basket no matter what anybody does and many people don't like that.  It's also a much subtler story than DA:O.  It's loaded with quiet clues implying the hopelessness of kirkwall, but, you can't do anything about it because it's a smaller scale story, no world saving allowed.  Plus, since DA:O is a Save The World Story, you can wave off lesser events and crimes because The Warden has Bigger Issues to Deal With.  In DA2, there are no Bigger Issues To Deal With.

People wanted a smaller scale, more personal story, and they got it.  Then they hate it because it's not the railroad they wanted.

Nah, wouldn't call saving an occupied city or swaying the side of something that would become a world war a Bigger Issue.

But really, calling Origins linear due to the fact that the Archdemon dies either way is really a straw man arguement.

[simonc4175]

Danjaru wrote...


But really, calling Origins linear due to the fact that the Archdemon dies either way is really a straw man arguement.

Origin's was linear you just had 3 choices which only effected which armies you had at the end.

Regardless of the race you choose the PC still went to the same areas each time, did the same quests each time and fought the same end bosses.

The only difference being the cirles at the end had different troops in them.

Both games are about decisions which effect the version of the universe you create.  If you don't kill Anders in DA2 then he vows vengence which will either come in an expansion or a sequal.

If people take those rost tinted glasses then they might release that nothing about the world really changed why you made choices in Origins either.

[Faroth]

nicethugbert wrote...

I think DA:O was a longer game and that's why it seems to have more choices.  I don't think DA2 lacked choice.  I think people simply didn't like the choices.  DA2 is a dark story about the world going to hell in a hand basket no matter what anybody does and many people don't like that.  It's also a much subtler story than DA:O.  It's loaded with quiet clues implying the hopelessness of kirkwall, but, you can't do anything about it because it's a smaller scale story, no world saving allowed.  Plus, since DA:O is a Save The World Story, you can wave off lesser events and crimes because The Warden has Bigger Issues to Deal With.  In DA2, there are no Bigger Issues To Deal With.

People wanted a smaller scale, more personal story, and they got it.  Then they hate it because it's not the railroad they wanted.

Whoa, whoa whoa....wait.  Origins was a longer game and had more choices because it HAD more choices.  DA2 is a fairly dark story, yes, but the cartoony ninja Templars that explode into blood at the swing of a sword hurts that dark realism found in Origins.  The scale of the story being smaller, restrained to a single city, would suggest your actions as a prominent figure of the city should have MORE impact, not less.

Dragon Age: Origins main plot, I agree, was on rails.  You're going to raise an army, rally the Landsmeet, and defeat the Arch Demon.  That's going to happen.  However...
Do you have werewolves or elves helping you?
Do you have templars or mages?
Did you lay the groundwork for a Chantry in Orzamar?  Did you lead a dwarf girl to study at the Circle?  And based on these choices, was an Exalted March considered on the dwarf city?
Did you set the course of a more tyranical king or a prosperous new direction for the dwarves?
Did you choose to eradicate the mages in the Circle, then hesitate in that decision? If so, Sten will not approve of your uncertainty rather than simply choosing the "heart" option when talking to him to make him like you (I feel this deepens the characters and strengthens the story, when they are more based on your actions and their response to them rather than dialogue with them)
Did you allow the traitorous Loghain to live, thus altering the path for Alistair's life?  Place Alistair on the throne? Did he wed Annora or, in some cases, you?

While these decisions may be little more than epilogue cards and may not all roll over into future games, it still makes for a more robust story within its telling.

Now, Dragon Age 2 was on rails entirely.  What decision altered anything? Not just the "hell in a hand basket" main plot.
Appease the Arishok or side with Isabella?  You'll still kill the qunari to become Champion.
Take your sibling to the Deep Roads or leave at home? You'll lose them either way.
Your mother's death?  Only one end to this plot thread.
Help Anders perform the ritual to separate himself from Justice?  Not only does it not matter, but once you gather everything it's completely abandoned and never mentioned until the climactic BOOM!
Side with Templars?  Kill the Head Enchanter and Knight Commander, war breaks out.
Side with Mages? Kill the Head Enchanter and Knight Commander, war breaks out.

There could have been different paths based on these decisions that resulted in the same grand scheme result, even if it altered your direct results in Kirkwall: The Circle of Magi no longer being under the Chantry's templars throughout Thedas.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the subtlety in the majority of fetch/deliver quests in DA2.  The main plot was okay, that Hawke rises to Champion of Kirkwall and is unable to stay out of the politics of the Mage/Templar rivalry that boils over.  All of that was fine.  But the devil's in the details and DA2 didn't have the details to mask the rails you were on.

I saved mages every chance I got, but at the last second I can flip and say "Nope, Anullment, kill 'em all!" at the drop of a hat.  It didn't FEEL like 10 years of development and work had attached Hawke to anything. The subtlety would have been if your actions in Act I helped pave the way for your path in Act III more than they did and without you realizing the connection.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the subtlety of the story of Kirkwall and Hawke's hopeless decade living in it.  Perhaps you'll inspire another in depth play through for me to dig deeper into what I'm incorrectly labeling as a weaker story.

[HogarthHughes 3]

Origins was a great game and all, but really some people seem to be exaggerating the significance of the choices the Warden made. For example, the warden decides who will rule Orzammar and whether the anvil of the void is still in use. These decisions likely have a huge effect on Orzammar, and maybe even the rest of Thedas. But will we ever see large storyline or gameplay changes because of these choices? The answer is no. We'll get a bit of epilogue text, a few different lines of dialogue, different npcs to fight for us in the big final battle, and maybe a minor mission or two in future games that acknowledge our choice.

The Wardens decision may have a huge impact on the fictional land of Thedas, but it won't be a huge difference we'll ever experience in a game. The most we can realistically hope for is minor changes, and those can be experienced just as well from minor decisions such as whether to help Feynriel get a grip on his powers, become tranquil, or become possessed. Its obvious Dragon Age 2 was rushed, I'm in full agreement there, but imagine if they tried to create diverging storylines dependent on who the Warden put on the throne of Ferelden.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely wish that the 3rd Act, especially the last 2 main story missions (only 3 in the whole act though :/) were different depending on your decisions. Thrask kidnapping someone close to Hawke to ensure his help, despite him being nothing but a stalwart supporter of the mages and helping them at every opportunity was pretty irritating.

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 30 avril 2011 - 01:36 .

[simonc4175]

Faroth wrote...



Dragon Age: Origins main plot, I agree, was on rails.  You're going to raise an army, rally the Landsmeet, and defeat the Arch Demon.  That's going to happen.  However...
Do you have werewolves or elves helping you?
Do you have templars or mages?
Did you lay the groundwork for a Chantry in Orzamar?  Did you lead a dwarf girl to study at the Circle?  And based on these choices, was an Exalted March considered on the dwarf city?
Did you set the course of a more tyranical king or a prosperous new direction for the dwarves?
Did you choose to eradicate the mages in the Circle, then hesitate in that decision? If so, Sten will not approve of your uncertainty rather than simply choosing the "heart" option when talking to him to make him like you (I feel this deepens the characters and strengthens the story, when they are more based on your actions and their response to them rather than dialogue with them)
Did you allow the traitorous Loghain to live, thus altering the path for Alistair's life?  Place Alistair on the throne? Did he wed Annora or, in some cases, you?

While these decisions may be little more than epilogue cards and may not all roll over into future games, it still makes for a more robust story within its telling.

Now, Dragon Age 2 was on rails entirely.  What decision altered anything? Not just the "hell in a hand basket" main plot.

/snip

DA2 had those choices but on a smaller scale.


Do you trust Isabella or hand her over.   Do you let Merril build the mirror and who do choose when Anders blows the up the chantry.

The only difference is that Hawke's choices are on a more personal level because he saving his city.

Leilanni mentions that the world in watching to see if Kirkwall falls to magic because the city is the tipping point in the Mage/Templar conflict.

The decisions you make in both games will effect the players version of Thedas over the course of the franshise and not just within a single game.

[Faroth]

I completely agree that the decisions in Origins wouldn't have a lasting impact (it's impossible to carry them over and diverge). My point is that these decisions have an impact within the story being told by that game and thus make it more robust.

The goal is to lead you to different endings with different plot points through the game itself while maintaining a central "grand scheme" plot conclusion.

For DA2:
If you sided with the mages, is it necessary for Head Enchanter to resort to blood magic?
No, you could have established Kirkwall as the first city to have a Circle free of Templars, which leads to other Circles seeking the same and rising up in war. Epilogue card (or Varric) could have mentioned the Head Enchanter found dabbling in blood magic later on, calling the wisdom of Hawke's decision into question and furthering the Templar's response.

If you sided with the Templars, was it necessary for you to kill the Knight Commander? Was the lyrium idol driving her mad necessary? At this time we don't know if that's of long term importance.
But at the moment, no. You could have sided with the Templars and enacted the Rite of Annulment. Not entirely unusual (and possibly done in Ferelden based on your decisions in Origins), but the Annulment was like no other. It was a blood bath throughout the streets that showed how far reaching the corruption of blood magic, demons, and tearing the veil had gone. Putting the mages down rippled throughout Thedas and the Chantry allowed the Templars even more authority to tighten their grip, causing the mages in other Circles to rise up.

Or Hawke could have been allowed to pursue the Resolutionist path, eventually siding with neither Templar nor Mage but having rallied the Resolutionists you resolve to stop the Templars' Rite of Annulment despite Anders' actions. Defeating the Knight Commander, you enter the Circle to find the Head Enchanter employing blood magic to stop the Rite himself. You are forced to kill him and Hawke is instrumental in placing a new Order in place, separate from the Chantry's strict interpretation, it sees a Circle of Magi that polices itself with assistance from the Templars, the two working together in a more equal relationship than an oppressive one. As the Chantry loses its grip on the Templars in Kirkwall, truly with no Chantry at all, other Circles begin to speak up in favor of this new Order of Templar/Magi cooperation, leading templars to respond with more aggression.

All three would be potentially different paths within the story of DA2, but would have the same "grand scheme" result for future installments. Simplistic examples, but hopefully it gets my point across.

It's all about diversion. Make the audience look left when you pull stings on the right.

Granted, you can turn over Isabella or she can run away, but that won't have an impact other than Isabella's presence.

Merril's building the mirror I suppose can result in the extermination of the Daelish clan, and at least their Keeper, and a smashed mirror (I was almost hoping for some sort of restored mirror leading to a cameo by Morrigan who gives a little indication of "Nope, not time yet." and destroys the mirror from "beyond the Fade" but I knew that was wishful thinking )  

But neither of these are Hawke plots, they're both companion plot points, more comparible to seeking Sten's sword, retrieving the Grimoire for Morrigan, and your decision with Zev and the Crows.

Modifié par Faroth, 30 avril 2011 - 01:55 .

[Majspuffen]

One could ask; Why do we need a lasting impact?

I am not helping Orzammar because of something that will happen in another game - I am helping Orzammar because I need their assistance in the current game. I couldn't care less if I do not get to see Behlen barking orders in a future product. Behlen belongs to Origins.

[Plaintiff]

The vast majority of choices in Origins were largely cosmetic and ultimately insignificant anyway. The epilogues serve mostly to retcon them. Started a Chantry in Orzammar? It gets wiped out. Saved the Anvil of the void? Branka locks herself and it in a fortress surrounded by golems and ceases to communicate with the outside world. Killed Connor? Eamon and Isolde have a daughter who turns out to be a mage as well anyway. I won't deny that they certainly pad the story out a great deal more, but the fact is that at the time Origins was being made, there were no concrete plans for the continuation of the series. They could give us a lot more freedom because of that. Now, they have to start thinking about continuity.

But as it is, we have no way of knowing which choices in DA2 will or won't be important. The far-reaching consequences of your choices in Origins don't become apparent until you play DA2 and meet people who were affected by your actions in the previous game. Decisions as seemingly insignifcant as saving Feynriel or fixing the Eluvian or even your relationships with your party members, could turn out to be pretty damn important.

Hawke's actions are merely the catalyst for issues that affect the world of Thedas as a whole. We can't make any sort of accurate call about the value of our decisions until we see the outcome of them.

[HogarthHughes 3]

Bioware did manage to create some differences depending on your choices, though they certainly could have done much better. It seems to me that it mostly has to do with lack of development time. There are some things that people seem to miss rather easily though. For instance when siding with the mages it is supposed to be a desperate situation. Admittedly they could have done a better job expressing that in the gameplay (maybe making the templars super tough, or having too many of them to realistically fight, then maybe harvestor Orsino could chomp through a few of them before trying to eat your party). People just argue that Orsino turned into the Harvester for no reason other than being insane and/or evil.

@Faroth - I'm not really arguing with your point though, I understand it and agree. I'm just griping about people who glorify Origins as though the decisions changed the game world radically then turn and say that all of our choices in DA2 had no impact whatsoever.

[Faroth]

Plaintiff, your beginning to argue there should be no choices in the game whatsoever and it should be entirely linear. Yes, they can't have every decision hold over into the other games, yes they're superficial changes, but they are still there, they still offer a more in depth experience and more changes for different play throughs.

Fixing the eluvial only to have it destroyed...I doubt will be a long reaching decision. Relationships with party members? Maybe if they re-appear but I'm going to pray Hawke isn't the protagonist of DA3. I wouldn't mind his/her appearance, but I'd prefer a new protagonist.

Or a new protagonist who finds Hawke and the Warden drinking in a bar.
Hawke: Man, f'r a hero y'ain't g't an' good stories...y'don' talk much at all.
Warden: *shrugs*

Hehe

But here's the thing. Hawke's actions are NOT the catalyst for the issues that affect Thedas. If you remove Hawke from the equation entirely...nothing changes. Anders is the catalyst. Without Anders decision to tip the scales beyond the point of middle ground, Hawke would be more likely capable of living out his/her days in Kirkwall.

@hogarthHughes 3
If so many are indeed overlooking the desperate situation for Orsino to resort to blood magic, then you're right; Bioware did a horrid job of conveying that, especially when I recall splattering the entire group of Templars with my first attack and then mowing down the second wave.

Origins had more decisions and they had more impact on the game and its epilogues, even if they were unable to be used going forward. The importance is how well was the lack of impact veiled.

Smoke and mirrors, sir. It's all about smoke and mirrors.

And bear in mind, this is coming from a Warden who accepted the Dark Ritual and went with Morrigan in Witch Hunt to raise the kid. Do I expect the kid to be in future DA stories? Not at all, actually. But I still find that, even with the plot point not holding over, more interesting than not having it included at all.

[Pandaman102]

nicethugbert wrote...

People will say that choices in DA2 don't matter, but, they don't matter in DA:O either because no matter what happens, The Warden will save the world just as surely as The Champion will fail to save it.

I think DA:O was a longer game and that's why it seems to have more choices.  I don't think DA2 lacked choice.  I think people simply didn't like the choices.  DA2 is a dark story about the world going to hell in a hand basket no matter what anybody does and many people don't like that.  It's also a much subtler story than DA:O.  It's loaded with quiet clues implying the hopelessness of kirkwall, but, you can't do anything about it because it's a smaller scale story, no world saving allowed.  Plus, since DA:O is a Save The World Story, you can wave off lesser events and crimes because The Warden has Bigger Issues to Deal With.  In DA2, there are no Bigger Issues To Deal With.

People wanted a smaller scale, more personal story, and they got it.  Then they hate it because it's not the railroad they wanted.

Did you even read my post? What, exactly, did you think I meant by "The difference doesn't lie in the plot resolution, but the choices and consequences that affect the stage leading up to your inevitable finale"? Where did I ever say the story had to be another "save the world" plot? Did you interpret my statement as anything other than the tired (and frankly pathetic) generalization of "I didn't like DA2, I want more DA:O"?

My argument was that the choices and consequences in DA:O doesn't affect the outcome of the main plot, just like in DA2. What DA:O did was have a railroaded "save the world" plot, but your choices decided what kind of "world" you were saving. DA2 had a railroaded "rise to power, get blamed for revolution", but there was no choice on how Hawke rises to power or why Hawke gets blamed.

What would have given DA2 an illusion of choice was allowing the players to choose how Hawke rose to power. For example the game should let you choose if you leave the mercenaries/smugglers at the beginning of Act 1, then:

• If you don't leave the mercenaries then maybe Varric hires them (and as a result you) to provide protection for the expedition;
• If you don't leave the smugglers then maybe they get absorbed into the Carta and Dougal sends you join the expedition;
• If you leave maybe you start your own business and Varric approaches you to help convince other businesses to help fund the expedition;

The Act 1 side quests can be related to the plot by influencing how successful the expedition is - you'll always get the idol, but your personal success and reputation can be influenced by your choice of side quests:

• As a mercenary you help other mercs out by doing their jobs, thus allowing more mercs to join the expedition;
• As a merchant you help out other merchants with their problems and get better funding/supplies;
• As a smuggler you help Dougal out and he decides not to extort you at the beginning of Act 2.

That would have given Act 1 a much more immersive experience and a better illusion of choice, but wouldn't have changed the fact that a) you get rich and the idol is retrieved and on its inevitable way to Meredith. The same could have been done with Acts 2 and 3. DA2 would have had the same railroading, but with a better illusion of choice that doesn't conflict with the personality system or your interaction with companions.

That's what I meant by DA2 lacked choices. Do you honestly think that's any different from the "personal story" you think I'm not asking for?

Modifié par Pandaman102, 30 avril 2011 - 10:46 .

[Danjaru]

simonc4175 wrote...

Origin's was linear you just had 3 choices which only effected which armies you had at the end.

Regardless of the race you choose the PC still went to the same areas each time, did the same quests each time and fought the same end bosses.

The only difference being the cirles at the end had different troops in them.

Both games are about decisions which effect the version of the universe you create.  If you don't kill Anders in DA2 then he vows vengence which will either come in an expansion or a sequal.

If people take those rost tinted glasses then they might release that nothing about the world really changed why you made choices in Origins either.

You affected the world, the choices you made affected who lived and who died and what happened after the archdemon was slain.

Sure, going about it through pure game mechanics the only differense is the armies you bring (and the armies you bring are the ones you helped, it does alot for immersion). But story wise your choices matters to a very large degree and you get the illusion that your choices actually mattered.

People even treated you differently depending on your race, even though you had to do the same things, your experience would vary.

Saying you had as many choices in DA2 as Origins by trying to downplay Origins choices is just false. As DA2 you only affected which ones of your companions lived and died, the rest of the game your character doesn't affect at all no matter what you choose. (albeit you get to choose to spare Feyndriel and Emile, but that's about it).

Modifié par Danjaru, 30 avril 2011 - 11:09 .