91 réponses à ce sujet

[Boiny Bunny]

I've noticed a lot of discussion lately about 'meaningful choices' in Bioware games.  The discussions usually go something like:

Person A: DA2 has no meaningful choices.  DA:O had so many more.  DA:O was better.

Person B: DA:O had no meaningful choices at all.  They were all cosmetic and illusions.  DA2 is better.

It seems that most people discussing this topic fall into one of the above frames of mind.  So, to the people who think that DA:O was filled with meaningful choices, what were they?  How did they manifest themselves?  What about them made them meaningful?

To the people who thought the choices in DA:O were an illusion/cosmetic, what do you actually mean when you say that?

I assume you are referring to choices like whether to help the elves or the wolves - resulting in a major story/lore impact, but gameplay wise, does almost nothing (lets you summon wolves instead of elves or vice versa in the final battle).

Or many of the choices you make through DA:O that result in a few conversations and a few slides in the epilogue.  For example, choosing Bhelin or Harrowmont.  Your choice there has an incredibly large impact on Orzammer and its future direction (for example, Bhelin disbands the assembly, and does away with the concept of casteless - while Harrowmont closes off trade and communication with the upper world entirely.

Even one of the minor quests, to help open a Chantry in Orzammer, can have a huge story/lore impact.  If you help, the dwarven chantry manages to attract many members, thenthe dwarf who opens it is slain in a protest, resulting in the Divine contemplating an exaulted march on Orzammer (this would involve Orlais moving its massive army straight through Ferelden) - and could actually (if it happened) be the most significant choice in the game - even though you had no idea of its implications when making it.

So, we have some examples.  I put it to you, what is a meaningful choice?

Does it have to have a dramatic effect on the gameplay?  If so, what kind of effect?  Adds/removes a party member?  Changes the way that people percieve you around the world and results in different events and combat (e.g. to a minor extent, helping Harrowmont results in Bhelin assassins attacking you around Ferelden).

Does it have to have a dramatic effect on the plot?  If so, what kind of effect?  Do massive story/lore impacts not count if they are in epilogue slides?  If so, does this not imply that the entire ending of DA2 was utterly meaningless (seeing as the mage/chantry war is only revealed and discussed in an epilogue slide itself)?

Are there any other kinds of impacts that can make choices more meaningful?  What are they?  Seeing as it seems like a good deal of people feel that all the choices in all BIoware games ever made are meaningless, I'd love to know what you think a meaningful choice in a game actually entails.

(I'm sure the Bioware team might like to know the answer to this question too!)

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 07 mai 2011 - 12:44 .

[TJPags]

To me, a "meaningful choice" is one that alters something about the game play or the world going forward.

So yes, using your examples, wolves v elves is meanigful.  Although you still fight the AD at the end with an army, who you get changes.  Killing the elves also effects your access to goods, particularly eflroot.  Ending the curse and then letting the wolves go also effects DA2.

The Chantry in Orzamar gives a different option for another side quest in that game - the woman with the baby in dust town can go live there.  There is also the obvious epilogue slide issue, but I'm not sure I can consider that, given how meaningless epilogues are.

Who you choose to support as King of Orzamar changes your quests, and also has an effect in DA2.

Obviously, what you do with Loghain has a huge impact on your party and world state.

I really didn't see any of these kinds of choices in DA2.  Sure, one conversation option at the beginning of Act 3 gets you a different quest or two.  Your approval rating effects how your companions react to your final choice.  But otherwise, nothing I did in DA2 really seem to have any impact.  Meredith and Orsino both give you the Best Served Cold quest, no?

DA2 also canonizes (is that a word?) Leliana as alive, and Anders as a GW, 2 things that you could have chosen to be otherwise in DAO or DAA, respectively.

So, when I say DA2 had no meaningful choices, I mean the choices lacked  the in-game impact I saw in DAO.  Now, maybe they have greater world state impact - we don't know, and won't for a while.  But it doiesn't FEEL that way, since whether I side with Templars or mages, there's still a revolt, a war, etc.

[Foolsfolly]

Meaningful choice would be having the option to change something in game. And that thing changes depending on your choice.

If you have the choice to save character X or kill character X then the outcome needs to be different depending on that choice. And most importantly, the player has to experience the change in that thing.

Choices in Origins still lead to the player coming to a very similar finish, like DA2. But the fact that you got different allies and experienced changes in politics, armies, and everything else those choices felt more important than any of the DA2 choices.

Example: in that Act 1 mission with Grace, you can turn her in, lie to Thrask, or agree to kill Thrask. Regardless of choice you cannot kill Grace, you cannot kill Trask, and Grace will be captured by the Templars. And then attack you in Act 3.

It's not a choice at all. DA2 is full of non-choices.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

So, when I say DA2 had no meaningful choices, I mean the choices lacked  the in-game impact I saw in DAO.  Now, maybe they have greater world state impact - we don't know, and won't for a while.  But it doesn't FEEL that way, since whether I side with Templars or mages, there's still a revolt, a war, etc.

I agree with this. I think the difference is that The Warden was proactive while Hawke is reactive. 

The Warden could determine whether the villagers of Redcliffe would survive or perish, he could determine whether the Right of Annulment would be invoked against the Circle of Ferelden, he could end a centuries old curse and dramatically change the fates of both werewolves and elves, and he could determine whether the civilization of Orzammar thrives under Bhelen or faulters under Harrowmont while destroying or sparing the Anvil to give the dwarves an army that brought peace to their kingdoms for over a hundred years. The Warden was proactive in changing the course of history for all these societies, and even putting a ruler on the throne of the nation. Should the Hero of River Dane be spared and given a chance to atone for his mistakes, or should he be killed for what he's done? There was choice, and there were repercussions for those choices.

In contrast, Hawke is reactive. Does he help the disenfranchised people of Darktown? No. Does he help the impoverished elves of the Alienage? No. Does he gather allies among the mages and the templars to go up against Meredith? No. Does he gather support from different nobles to move against the de facto dictatorship of Kirkwall? No. People around Hawke act, and he reacts. I thought Hawke was going to have agency and change Kirkwall over the course of ten years, but instead we're given seven years and Hawke's influence is barely felt around the city-state.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 07 mai 2011 - 04:37 .

[IanPolaris]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Example: in that Act 1 mission with Grace, you can turn her in, lie to Thrask, or agree to kill Thrask. Regardless of choice you cannot kill Grace, you cannot kill Trask, and Grace will be captured by the Templars. And then attack you in Act 3.

It's not a choice at all. DA2 is full of non-choices.

Indeed.  A good example of this is in a game I played years ago, "Spellforce2" who's publishere were innundated with the same complaint:  Lack of meaningful choice (in this case in character construction).  In that particular case, while you had a choice as to whether or not to pick a certain skill on the tree, it turned out that to advance on the tree, you had to pick the choice you rejected just to advance on the tree anyway about three levels later.  That meant that for most of teh game, all fighters and mages (for example) were really exactly the same.

It was a non-choice.  Same here.

-Polaris

[Maria Caliban]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Are there any other kinds of impacts that can make choices more meaningful?  What are they?  Seeing as it seems like a good deal of people feel that all the choices in all BIoware games ever made are meaningless, I'd love to know what you think a meaningful choice in a game actually entails.

(I'm sure the Bioware team might like to know the answer to this question too!)

When I sleep with Isabela, I should get a debuff to my con. I should be able to spread this debuff to other companions I sleep with.

[Myusha]

Dragon Age decisions arn't good.

Dragon Age: Origin decisions weren't effective enough to carry any true change to their across-the-sea neighbor, Kirkwall and few are referenced.

Dragon Age 2 had no choices, but this might be to make Dragon Age 3 easier to make with a defined plot.

[TEWR]

The thing is, with DA:O we knew exactly where the story ended (prior to DLC that is). We knew that after we killed the Archdemon, we would see what happened.

With DA2, we were told that Hawke's journey took place over a ten year period. We've only seen 7 years of that period, so what effects our decisions may cause have yet to be seen. We still have 3 years. Some of Act 1's quests dealt with Origins' decisions, so don't expect much. Others dealt with the Kirkwall storyline.

I suspect that maybe some Origins' related quests may have effects. Renvil Harrowmont maybe, as he is seeking asylum in Kal-Sharok.

The point is though, Hawke's tale isn't over and we have yet to see what his choices did to the world. Right now they're limited, but maybe there will be a ripple effect. Or something. I don't know I'll just stop talking now.

[Dormiglione]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Example: in that Act 1 mission with Grace, you can turn her in, lie to Thrask, or agree to kill Thrask. Regardless of choice you cannot kill Grace, you cannot kill Trask, and Grace will be captured by the Templars. And then attack you in Act 3.

It's not a choice at all. DA2 is full of non-choices.

Thats a great example.

[AlexXIV]

My take is that the game recognizes your choices. It almost doesn't matter how. Simply if you make a choice and the game goes on as if nothing happened it wasn't significant. A significant choice does not have to be world changing or having a big impact, but ... someone needs to notice.

For example this quest where you can kill or turn in the magistrate's (murding bastard of a) son. The old elf tells you he never thought an elf could get justice in Kirkwall and he will never forget it. Truth is, the game forgets it. I mean it is never gonna be mentioned anywhere later. If there is a flag for being compassionate/helpful towards elves it never shows. If you fight the Qunari later (despite approving with everything the Arishok says) you even have to elven supporters of the Qun. I mean there was a chance. Like making Hawke's actions towards elves influence their willingness to support the Qun. It ... wasn't done.

Or what about helping fellow Fereldans? You can give 5 gold and never receive as much as a thank you. You can help one of them who obviously sold out the owner of the mines and you can send them into mines to be eaten by dragons. As an alternative you can skip the quests. Anyway, there is nowhere mention of these things after you have done it.

Basically it's like ... quest done, next one. The only objective seems to be to do quests. Without much thought about the world or people in it. One of the strongest points is probably the mage vs templar thing. You can help mages or templars through all the game, it does not give you one more option in the final encounter. It is like it never happened.

The whole game probably suffers from the writers thinking it is a good idea to make choices for the player. Maybe they thought we are too lazy anyway and it would be much more comfortable to just click through the game without thinking much. I don't know, but I have the strong feeling most - if not all - Bioware devs underestimate their clientel. Mind you, it doesn't count for all of us, but many ... we are not stupid, and we take insult if someone tries to insult our intelligence. Even more so if we pay for it in good faith.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 07 mai 2011 - 08:42 .

[TJPags]

AlexXIV wrote...

My take is that the game recognizes your choices. It almost doesn't matter how. Simply if you make a choice and the game goes on as if nothing happened it wasn't significant. A significant choice does not have to be world changing or having a big impact, but ... someone needs to notice.

For example this quest where you can kill or turn in the magistrate's (murding bastard of a) son. The old elf tells you he never thought an elf could get justice in Kirkwall and he will never forget it. Truth is, the game forgets it. I mean it is never gonna be mentioned anywhere later. If there is a flag for being compassionate/helpful towards elves it never shows. If you fight the Qunari later (despite approving with everything the Arishok says) you even have to elven supporters of the Qun. I mean there was a chance. Like making Hawke's actions towards elves influence their willingness to support the Qun. It ... wasn't done.

Or what about helping fellow Fereldans? You can give 5 gold and never receive as much as a thank you. You can help one of them who obviously sold out the owner of the mines and you can send them into mines to be eaten by dragons. As an alternative you can skip the quests. Anyway, there is nowhere mention of these things after you have done it.

Basically it's like ... quest done, next one. The only objective seems to be to do quests. Without much thought about the world or people in it. One of the strongest points is probably the mage vs templar thing. You can help mages or templars through all the game, it does not give you one more option in the final encounter. It is like it never happened.

The whole game probably suffers from the writers thinking it is a good idea to make choices for the player. Maybe they thought we are too lazy anyway and it would be much more comfortable to just click through the game without thinking much. I don't know, but I have the strong feeling most - if not all - Bioware devs underestimate their clientel. Mind you, it doesn't count for all of us, but many ... we are not stupid, and we take insult if someone tries to insult our intelligence. Even more so if we pay for it in good faith.

Yes, good example.  Why don't elves change the way they attack towards you if you let the kid go?  Or why don't they help you or offer you quests if you DID kill him?  Same with the Fereldens - help them, don't help them, nothing changes.

I know DAO had a LOT of choices, and it's likely hell to implement all those options into the next game.  But, as with a lot of things, it seems to me that DA2 went way overboard in the opposite direction . . . trouble importing so many different world states?  Make it so NOTHING changes no matter what you do.

Quest done, next quest is a good way to describe it.

[Plaintiff]

I thought there were plenty of meaningful, or potentially meaningful choices in DA2. I think people who say there are none are just annoyed because for once they don't get to tell heads of state what to do. It's not a meaningful choice unless entire countries hang in the balance, apparently.

[TJPags]

What meaningful choices did you see, Plaintiff?

I saw a few potentially meaningful ones, as I described earlier, but none that actually seemed to effect anything.

Which ones did you see as meaningful? And why?

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

I thought there were plenty of meaningful, or potentially meaningful choices in DA2. I think people who say there are none are just annoyed because for once they don't get to tell heads of state what to do. It's not a meaningful choice unless entire countries hang in the balance, apparently.

Plantiff, I'd say you fail to meet the standard of the OP request. They asked not only if you thought there were meaningfull choices in DAO and DA2, but what your definition of a meaningful choice was.

Since the vast majority of people have said that a meaningful choice to them is a decision that has in game consequences or results, whether through gameplay mechanic changes, story-line options, character interaction or even epilogue slides, I would agree with many other posters that DA2 has few, if any, meaningful choices.

So I was curious as to your personal definition and why this would allow you to state there are "plenty" of said choices.

[Sabriana]

The magistrate's son episode didn't stop there in being weird (grateful daddy elf). Hawke is told that she would have to face dire consequences by the soldier (twice), and later by the magistrate himself. I waited, and waited, and waited, but nothing ever happens.

That was a waste of dialogue, and totally useless/meaningless threats.

To make it meaningful, why wasn't Hawke made to face any consequences for defying the oh so powerful magistrate, and even killing his son?

Modifié par Sabriana, 07 mai 2011 - 01:10 .

[Paeyne]

Meaningfull choices don't have to be earth shaking. 


Here is how it is done in DA2.

Quest giver:  Oh great Champion of Kirkwall.  Would you mind picking up my dry cleaning for me?

Diplomatic:  Happy to help citizen!
QG:  Thank you Champion.  Here is two gold for your trouble.

Sarcastic:  I probably can find the time between dealing with the Qunari, Mages, Templars, Chantry, Viscount and small army of bandits.
QG:  Thank you Champion.  I know you are busy.  Here is two gold for your trouble.

Aggressive:  Fine you lazy sot.  Its not like you can waddle accross the street to do it yourself.
QG:  Thank you Champion.  Walking that far always leaves me breathless.  Here is two gold for your trouble.


Here is how it should be done.

Quest giver:  Oh great Champion of Kirkwall.  Would you mind picking up my dry cleaning for me?

Diplomatic:  Happy to help citizen!
QG:  Thank you Champion.  Here is two gold for your trouble.  (New quests open up with other nobles in the city.)

Sarcastic:  I probably can find the time between dealing with the Qunari, Mages, Templars, Chantry, Viscount and small army of bandits.
QG:  Thank you Champion.  I know you are busy.  Here is four gold for your trouble.  (No new quests as your obviously too busy or maybe the QG has a lousy sense of humour.)

Aggressive:  Fine you lazy sot.  Its not like you can waddle accross the street to do it yourself.
Questgiver runs off crying and you don't get this quest or his quest for the "Sword of ulimate Killzallz" in act 3.


Reactions can be different depending on the person you are talking too, but you get the idea.


Meaningfull choices doesn't mean that the world revolves around you.  It just means that there are consequences for your actions.

[Sabriana]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Sabriana wrote...

The magistrate's son episode didn't stop there in being weird (grateful daddy elf). Hawke is told that she would have to face dire consequences by the soldier (twice), and later by the magistrate himself. I waited, and waited, and waited, but nothing ever happens.

The consequenses to your choices got streamlined out of the game. Did we fail to mention that? lol, sorry

Oh. I see. Lately I'm getting an eye-twitch when hearing "streamlined" and "mainstream"

Thank goodness that didn't happen in the "other" game. In DA:O I was always careful with choices, because they did have consequences most of the time. Even just an apparently meaningless side-quest had far reaching consequences. I'm talking about the dwarven priest who wanted my Warden's help opening a chantry.

Of course not all choices had consequences. That would have been silly. But many did, on different levels. Sometimes only personal consequences, sometimes they involved entire villages and even a kingdom. But I never knew how things would play out.

A meaningful choice is one that features an impacting consequence.

[Sabriana]

Yeah, Ali. I didn't do that to Fenris (I couldn't do that to any pixel doll, lol), but I saw a clip. What startled me the most? The reactions, better make that non-reactions of the companions. Anders reacted, and really showed the weirdness that was his character.

The consequence should have been that the at least some, or even one, companion utterly looses it, and leaves Hawke on the spot.

[Arcan57]

Meaningful choices (or at least the illusion of) help us care about the way our hero interacts with the world. Decisions in DAO were shown to have consequences and so more time is spent trying to make the "right" decision. I agonized over a couple of the DA2 decisions early on, only to realize that it didn't matter because I was being herded down a pre-determined path. By Act III, I didn't care what my character did as my actions weren't changing the plot. Despite helping the mages every time I could, most of Act III still involved mages turning into abdominations and attacking me. I can understand there may be a couple of mages that turn because of the stress. But DA2 doesn't set that up well enough to justify every mage attacking me on sight despite all the work I did for them.