27 réponses à ce sujet

[EternalPink]

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

Sorry but that is pure meta-gaming, you already know the outcome from a previous playthrough so you don't do something knowing its pointless.

While the chantry is a poor example to be honest and the only time its mentioned again in is in the epilogue its still a decision that your making, If we take something that has more impact within the game like what we do with the anvil, keep it since we need all power or destroy it since its morally wrong. If we keep it we get golems and a epilogue about how the dwarfs reclaim some thaigs, if we destroy it we don't get golems at the end and depending on which king you also choose (reformist or traditionist) they may or may not reclaim some thaigs by allowing the no caste to take up arms.

If we compare that to the side quest of the bone mine in DA2 regardless of whatever choice you make in the game everybody is dead, i couldn't find a single option for that quest that ended up with a different outcome, the only choice you get it whether to take possession of the mine or give it back to the merchant which has no affect ingame or at end game.

To be honest i'd rather be able to make meaningful differences in game that don't carry over than have no choice at all on the off-chance they make a sequel thats relevant since i'd actually replay the game for that, DA2 i doubt i will since in the end all i'm going to have to do is kill everybody

[Faroth]

@EternalPink

That was a major disappointment for me as I kept thinking being a partner in ownership of the mine would have more involvement in the game. I was expecting a sort of Awakenings style aspect with having some income or items or something available due to the success in the mine. After three years, my partner's just disappeared without a trace or thought given and then he pops back up with "they all died, go check it out."

Good job doing nothing whatsoever about the people you claimed to care about Hawke.

No matter what I did, chose, or tried, Hawke just sort of came across as incompetent from large important tasks to small miniscule ones. >_<

[morbusswg]

Ulicus wrote...

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.

History is written by the victors, and sometimes even the losers. I think its pretty evident the story of the Champion and the events in Kirkwall will differ in the retelling depending on who you ask. I think you can have either "grand scheme" type endings that people are talking about, and not impact future games. Why? Because the people supporting the Templars in Thedas and the ones supporting Mages are going to have their own versions they create to rally support for their side.

That is why the seeker is in Kirkwall, she needs the real story. She's heard the story the Templars are telling, and the story the Mages are telling, she needs the real deal to find out exactly what happened. So, if Bioware had made endings completely different, either ending would be able to be carried over into the next game, because I think its obvious no one outside of the Champion and his/her companions have any idea what went on. As Varric says "I want to tell this story. You're not the first one to get it wrong".

There wouldn't need to be some massive previous-story-support in the next game, the story would simply differ depending on which town you went to, and who they were supporting. You would probably have the "underground" in each city (either Mage or Templar) spreading word of the "real" story ... "The Champion killed Meredith, she was crazy, Orsino died during the battle as a martyr"... "The Champion killed Orsino, he was a blood mage, poor Meredith died during the battle as a martry"...  (think of the quest lines where you either side with the Nobles to beat up on the Templars, you side with the Mages to discredit that Templar and save that apostate, or you side with the Templars and clean out some apostates)

Its not like they have iPhones and youtube where any of the story could be recorded and dissimenated, and the truth be told... its all word of mouth, and as we know especially with rumors, its very unreliable... look at the letter you receive from Feynriel (if you let him live) from the Imperium, even the story of the Champion's battle with the Arishok has already taken on a life of its own...

All I'm saying is, Bioware could have given 2 very different endings in DA2, with the only affect on the subsequent games being who supports which side in the towns across Thedas, which, in my opinion, will be happening anyway. Towns with heavy Templar populations might be inclined to spread the story about the Mages being blood mages, and more rural areas, without much Templar control, might spread the other story. Even Cullen admits that Templars aren't popular anymore, and "you're more likely to have a door shut in your face than be offered a meal or warm bed."

P.S. Sorry this is so long :/