91 réponses à ce sujet

[Pandaman102]

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.

Good job ignoring all the posts that came before yours and arguing against a disingenuous generalization.

[In Exile]

Boiny Bunny wrote...
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).

No. I would say that these choices aren't meaningful because they have NO major story/lore impact.

Whether or not this particular Dalish clain lives or die isn't particularly relevant to actual existence of Thedas, let's say, at the end of the Dragon Age(by which I mean the time period, not the series). We can actually extend this to about every choice except for Bhelen/Harrowmont and potentially Alistair/Anora (except both are potentially sterile and so IMO Ferelden will fall into the same struggle for independence regardless of who rules).

I think DA:O did a very good job making those choices feel important and the devs. thought that for DA2 what really mattered to players was their RP going into the choice (e.g. the mental state of the character and why do X over Z etc.) instead of any actual tangible consequences. The problem is that people actually like the feeling of importance.

IMO that's where DA2 failed, so I would say Origins was the better executed version of false choice, but I don't think DA:O actually had meaningful choice.

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.

These are just throwaway epilogue slides. Fenryiel as an abomination could ostensibly (according to DA2 lore) threaten all of Thedas as the worst horror since the 5th Blight, but it's really just a footnote the writers sweep under the rug. Like these minor epilogue swaps.

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 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)?

It has to actually occur and have predictable consequences for Thedas (and ideally) we have to see it happen.

You read the Dwarven Chantry slide as (Exalted March chance, 90%). I read it as political threats from the Chantry, empty and toothless (e.g. Exalted March chance, 10%).

I happen to think the ending of DA2 was utterly meaningless. Acknowledging that is only a problem if you actually want to defend DA2 as being better than Origins instead of failin in the same way design-wise but not flavour-wise.

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!)

Look at Alpha Protocol - have the gameworld actively change as a result of your actions.

Say you side only with the mages in DA2. Have that weaken Meredith so much that she's overthrown at the start of Act III and then make Act III about holding Kirkwall against an Exalted March (and that starts the rebellion; a Tevinter-like Free City ruled by Magisters). Or if you keep helping Meredith, it you go down the ROA Route and have Kirkwall Massacred (that leads to rebellion). Or you can be neutral, and so the game progresses like usual, but then you keep the option to be neutral and so save the people against both Meredith and Orsino.

That's what meaningful choice is: choice that changes the story thread.

[GenericPlayer2]

I would just be happy with my choices having an effect on the dialog. If I help Grace escape, assist the mages and undermine the templars at every turn, the dialog for 'Best Served Cold' is identical. Another example is the Magister's Son. If Hawke kills the kid then it pisses off the Magistrate. If Hawke saves the kid's life he derides the Magistrate and kills any chance of cashing in that 'favor'. Either way the choice is solely designed to increase rivalry/friendship with companions and serves absolutely no other purpose - and that is just not good enough.

[Dormiglione]

In Exile wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...
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).

No. I would say that these choices aren't meaningful because they have NO major story/lore impact.

Dont agree with you. Its still a choice that has impact on the story. Not on the final, but it changes the story.
a) Kill Witherfang / Zathrian lives / Dalish Clan survives
 Help Witherfang / Zathrian release Witherfang and the other people from the curse / Dalish clan survives
c) Side with the werewolfes / kill the Dalish clan / the curse remains

So this choices have an impact on the story. Call them less important or absolute minor choices, call them as you wish. But they are still choices.  

As for the final that you described "Alpha Protocol", i dont even know one game where the choices had such a big effect like you described.

[Giltspur]

Meaningful choices. I like having to make a decision and then seeing feedback from the game that causes me to reflect on the earlier decision I'd made.

I'll give two examples from Origins.

Bandits in Lothering - The Minor Example
In Lothering you get ambushed by bandits  What will you do with them.  My first reaction was exceedingly soft.  I figured times were tough and people do stupid things.  I didn't want to get bogged down in violence. So I let them go.  I then walked into the town and saw their victims.  They still didn't have their things or their money.  I felt terrible.  I had been too easy on the criminals.  That was the end of that decision's impact on the game. But I got feedback in the form of seeing their victims and that caused me to reflect upon the decision I'd made.  And the result of the reflection was regret.

The Dark Ritual - The Major Example
This one is more of a moral dilemma.  My character is in a romance with Morrigan and now she's not giving the full truth to the Warden.  And in an equal romance you expect a partner to give you the full truth on, well, just about anything. But that's not happening here.  Do you do what she wants or deny what she wants even though denying a partner can be painful.  I ended up going along with her.  And I stayed on the lookout for feedback on the decision.  What the game gave me was 1) the pre-Denerim speech 2) the ring epilogue 3) the portal dialogue and decision in Witch Hunt.  Basically, the question in the back of my mind is always "Am I crazy?"  And all of those events caused me to revisit that question.  So that was compelling.

The first example was something I didn't think much about until I saw the consequences.  In the second example, I felt genuine dread over having to make the decision.  

Dragon Age II

Now in Dragon Age II, there are decisions as well.  Like I can decide whether to spare or kill Castillon and that impacts whether Isabela gets a ship and stays a free spirit or if she becomes more amenable to settling down.

So I don't think the problem with Dragon Age II was a lack of decisions so much as it was the immersion-breaking nature of the some of the non-decisions.

Take Shepherding Wolves. On the one hand, it's a candidate for my favorite quest in the game.  On the other hand, it's kind of maddening.  No, I do not want to escort your Saarebas, Petrice.  It's obvious that you're trying to use me.  But that's just not an option.  So you feel Bioware's invisible hand on your back shoving you into the quest.  And since Bioware doesn't exist in Thedas, it breaks immersion.  And it disconnects you from the quest because my reaction was "Not my Hawke!".  As in, I wouldn't do that.  It's not all bad.  That quest leads to one of the most dramatic and satisfying moments in the game: Ketojan's self-immolation.  That quest has the promise of Dragon Age II and the betrayal of Dragon Age: Origins all wrapped up in it: it's dramatic but lacking in interaction. 

I think there's enough good in Shepherding Wolves that Bioware should go "Okay, we did a lot of good things there."  But I also want Bioware to go "And yet clearly there were mistakes."  I don't want the damn conversation wheel to be what makes me feel like I'm on rails.  If you're going to force me to do something I want to feel the events of the game are forcing me to do it.  It felt like a mechanic (like a dialogue wheel with too few options) was locking me into a path.  When you resist Petrice is like "Shush you.  This is a main quest.  Run along now!"  So instead of giving me a lack of options...take away my options explicitly.  Make me blame an in-game character instead of Bioware for my lack of choice.

I think you have to anticipate the likely choices people will want to make and give them an in-game reason for not being able to make them.

So if Hawke is refusing to help Petrice, the conversation could go like this...

Petrice's Guard:  "We know about your apostate sister, Hawke.  Justice need not remain blind to her."

Petrice:  What my guard means to suggest is that we've been helping you even if you were not aware.  The Chantry has eyes everywhere.  We heard about an unusually competant mercenary from Ferelden that had come into the employ of Meeran.  Did you really think she and your allies like the healer from Darktown and the Dalish living in the Alienage could use magic in the streets of Kirkwall without the Templars noticing?  

Hawke: Then why you haven't you arrested them?  Or you have been planning to use me all along?

Petrice: This isn't a fantasy world.  We don't have the resources to capture and house every apostate that comes through Kirkwall.  We keep track of you all and decide which ones benefit us the most as examples to others.  So far we have believed you more valuable to us as an ally. That is why I offer you this choice.

Hawke: Not giving me any good choices hardly sounds like the beginning of an appealing alliance.

Petrice: And yet that is how most alliances are formed.  The choices are these: 1) Aid me in this task and earn the Chantry's favor 2) Refuse and lose the protection the templars have thus far afforded you 3) Kill me now.  Now, in the event you find killing me a favorable option, understand that I have templars posted near your house in Lowtown.  If they do not hear from me in a certain time, they will assume that I have come into harm.  Your mother Leandra is a known harborer of apostates and of a family that has earned enemies among the nobles in Kirkwall.  Justice would not look kindly upon her if her son was involved in the murder of a Chantry sister.  So I ask you, Hawke, will you help me in this?

Hawke: It appears I have little option.  Understand though that you have made an enemy on this day.

Petrice: You have my thanks regardless.  As you come to better understand Kirkwall, you will learn that we are not in fact enemies.  May the Maker guide your path.

Granted, I like actual choices that cause branching in the storyline.  I like seeing the impact of decisions I've made--something like seeing DAO epilogues playing out within the game (say in a later act) as opposed to a text card at the end of the game.  We didn't see much of that in DAII, but it would have been cool.  But the story won't allow you to make choices at every step.  That's a given.  But when the story requires that a character do a certain thing especially a non-heroic thing that you might have to in a darker story like Dragon Age II, I think Bioware needs to do a better job of anticipating and handling natural objections than they did in Dragon Age II.  Lack of choice from time to time is fine--so long as I blame Thedas instead of Bioware.

[MyKingdomCold]

with the bandits in Lothering, I don't really see that as a meaningful choice. If you pay them to pass and go back later, you don't see any more people who've had to pay them to get past. if you kill them, the only people who get their goods back, supposedly, are those elves. It's not like you can go tell everyone in town, "Hey, those bandits are dead! Go and get your things/money!"

It doesn't affect the story at all. Let them live/kill them doesn't matter.

[Foolsfolly]

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.

Remember way back when about three months ago when the game hadn't come out. Remember BioWare specifically saying "You get named Champion, but who names Hawke Champion?"

Well, that's another non-choice. You have no way to not be named Champion and there's only one event that names you Champion.

Originally, when I first played the game I thought there were hidden numbers keeping track of my actions. I had thought Magistrate's Orders was one of these quests. I can get the Magistrate in my favor, or I can get the smallest people in the city (in status) in my favor.

I thought the nobles or the people of Kirkwall would elect me into Champion later, detrimed by my actions throughout the early part of the game. I also thought the Mage/Templar thing fit into it and that there was a way to get nobles and mages, regular people and mages, and the same for the templars.

So when you bring up Magistrate's Orders, I can't help but think of what could have been. That quest was extremely well done, but its impact on the game is nothing. What a waste.

[MyKingdomCold]

I know. I would've thought killing the magistrate's son would trigger something later on. But I guess the magistrate didn't really care about his son after all.

[Foolsfolly]

In Exile wrote...

Say you side only with the mages in DA2. Have that weaken Meredith so much that she's overthrown at the start of Act III and then make
Act III about holding Kirkwall against an Exalted March (and that starts the rebellion; a
Tevinter-like Free City ruled by Magisters). Or if you keep helping
Meredith, it you go down the ROA Route and have Kirkwall Massacred (that
leads to rebellion). Or you can be neutral, and so the game progresses
like usual, but then you keep
the option to be neutral and so save the people against both Meredith and Orsino.

That's
what meaningful choice is: choice that changes the story thread.

Holy crap, you have no idea how much better the ending would have been if that happened.

I especially like the lack of stupid Tiki Idol making Meredith crazy and stupid 'And Now I Go Harvester' making Orsino crazy. Two human perspectives on a human issue makes a huge difference, the game recongizing your loyalties makes a world of difference.

Brilliant idea, In Exile.

[In Exile]

Dormiglione wrote...
Dont agree with you. Its still a choice that has impact on the story. Not on the final, but it changes the story.
a) Kill Witherfang / Zathrian lives / Dalish Clan survives
 Help Witherfang / Zathrian release Witherfang and the other people from the curse / Dalish clan survives
c) Side with the werewolfes / kill the Dalish clan / the curse remains

So this choices have an impact on the story. Call them less important or absolute minor choices, call them as you wish. But they are still choices. 

Then DA2 gets to say the same with Grace & the Starkhaven mages. They spend three years in the forest (or not); a templar dies (or not) and Hawke then gets further pro-mage quests or pro-templar quests.

These are also still choices. It changes the story - Hawke is given different quests, gets different letters.

Now, DA2's execution is bad; even worse than DA:O. But I am not defending DA2. I am rejecting that DA:O was all that good.

As for the final that you described "Alpha Protocol", i dont even know one game where the choices had such a big effect like you described.

It had a rather variable structure. Different characters showed up at different points, different conversations, characters lived or died at different times, etc. It wasn't as massive in scope like I descried, but that to me is meaningful.

[In Exile]

Foolsfolly wrote...
Holy crap, you have no idea how much better the ending would have been if that happened.

I especially like the lack of stupid Tiki Idol making Meredith crazy and stupid 'And Now I Go Harvester' making Orsino crazy. Two human perspectives on a human issue makes a huge difference, the game recongizing your loyalties makes a world of difference.

Brilliant idea, In Exile.

If it was me, I'd cut Act I (because all it does is give us the idol, and like you said, that thing is better off not in the game) and just have the Amells stay rich and powerful. Hawke starts in the estate in "Act 1'' and the qunari are already there. ''Act 1' (our current Act II) has the qunari main plot and the subplot of mages vs. templars. Then in Act III the game changes drastically enough (same locations, but totally different characters) that you basically get 3 major threads. So that way the game evolves, Kirkwall changes, but Bioware gets to save resources.

With the Amells stupidly wealthy you can actually justify whether Hawke as a mage is caught or not.

Everyone wins.

The real secret to having a game as good as DA:O on the shortened timeline is to make a short game with lots of choice (because high replay value will offset the perceived total quest time) versus an alpha-build of a 60 hr game.

[Morroian]

An rpg should have choices where you make a choice and see/deal with the consequences and choices which branch the story. DA2 had the former but not the latter at least not to a great extent, there were a couple but they weren't significant.

Whether they're larger choices affecting the world as a whole is irrelevant or at least should be. Role playing is about defining and playing a character, not about being important.

[TEWR]

In Exile wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...
Holy crap, you have no idea how much better the ending would have been if that happened.

I especially like the lack of stupid Tiki Idol making Meredith crazy and stupid 'And Now I Go Harvester' making Orsino crazy. Two human perspectives on a human issue makes a huge difference, the game recongizing your loyalties makes a world of difference.

Brilliant idea, In Exile.

If it was me, I'd cut Act I (because all it does is give us the idol, and like you said, that thing is better off not in the game) and just have the Amells stay rich and powerful. Hawke starts in the estate in "Act 1'' and the qunari are already there. ''Act 1' (our current Act II) has the qunari main plot and the subplot of mages vs. templars. Then in Act III the game changes drastically enough (same locations, but totally different characters) that you basically get 3 major threads. So that way the game evolves, Kirkwall changes, but Bioware gets to save resources.

With the Amells stupidly wealthy you can actually justify whether Hawke as a mage is caught or not.

Everyone wins.

The real secret to having a game as good as DA:O on the shortened timeline is to make a short game with lots of choice (because high replay value will offset the perceived total quest time) versus an alpha-build of a 60 hr game.

But.... but.... but that would mean no Athenril!

[Pandaman102]

Morroian wrote...

Whether they're larger choices affecting the world as a whole is irrelevant or at least should be. Role playing is about defining and playing a character, not about being important.

Perhaps if you were playing Warhammer where your base stats and appearance were randomly generated or LARPing as an artisan or other "unimportant" person, but most of the systems on the market specifically appeal to the "I want to be important" desire in gaming. Character developlment is a large part of RPGs, but it's ridiculous to say wanting the character (and by extension the player) to be important isn't when upper-level content (or even low-level content for some of the more exotic settings) tend to have them become veritable walking gods, often with built-in mechanics to manage large numbers of followers and estates.

That aside, Hawke is a noble and Champion of Kirkwall, by nature he/she is important and by advertising he/she should be affecting the story. You're arguing for something that is completely contrary to what the game promises (but fails to deliver).

Modifié par Pandaman102, 08 mai 2011 - 02:09 .

[TiaraBlade]

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.

Anders is not cannonized as a Warden but in fact alters depending on the data is read into the DA:O save (or the choices made at the beginning if there is not save data).

That said, yes it does take away other choices like Leliana and Zavren being alive even if  killed in DA:O. I heard the same happens with Nathan from Awakenings. I'm not sure about Anders since I don't know if there is any ending where either dies or disappears forever.

I do not think that DA2 had meaningful choice since regardless of what you choose, stuff still happens.
*
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
*

Your mother is still murdered, you never find a peaceful solution to the Templar-Mage problem, both Meredith and Osiris go crazy and you have to kill them, and Anders blows up the Chantry. Everyone's favorite hornheads still go crazy and kill the town leader, etc...

WTH??!?!?!

You are railroaded to the same conclusion. At least in DA:O you can decide you allies, who is king in the kingdom, if the Circle remains or is put to the sword, etc...

[MyKingdomCold]

actually I think zevran is supposed to be dead if you killed him in Origins.

Same thing with Nathaniel. He's glitched as well I think. Sometimes he won't show up even if he's alive. But if he's dead, he won't show up/

[TiaraBlade]

Look at Alpha Protocol - have the gameworld actively change as a result of your actions.

Say you side only with the mages in DA2. Have that weaken Meredith so much that she's overthrown at the start of Act III and then make Act III about holding Kirkwall against an Exalted March (and that starts the rebellion; a Tevinter-like Free City ruled by Magisters). Or if you keep helping Meredith, it you go down the ROA Route and have Kirkwall Massacred (that leads to rebellion). Or you can be neutral, and so the game progresses like usual, but then you keep the option to be neutral and so save the people against both Meredith and Orsino.

That's what meaningful choice is: choice that changes the story thread.

You mentioned Alpha Protocol: great idea but Obsidian has always had execution problems. I would have loved a sequel.

I love your idea above. I'm not sure how easy or hard to program it but Bioware is suppose to be the gaming gods so let's see it! That would be true choice.

I am interested to see how ME3 handles choice and if it will be as dynamic as above. I fear it will not be however.

[TiaraBlade]

Foolsfolly wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Say you side only with the mages in DA2. Have that weaken Meredith so much that she's overthrown at the start of Act III and then make
Act III about holding Kirkwall against an Exalted March (and that starts the rebellion; a
Tevinter-like Free City ruled by Magisters). Or if you keep helping
Meredith, it you go down the ROA Route and have Kirkwall Massacred (that
leads to rebellion). Or you can be neutral, and so the game progresses
like usual, but then you keep
the option to be neutral and so save the people against both Meredith and Orsino.

That's
what meaningful choice is: choice that changes the story thread.

Holy crap, you have no idea how much better the ending would have been if that happened.

I especially like the lack of stupid Tiki Idol making Meredith crazy and stupid 'And Now I Go Harvester' making Orsino crazy. Two human perspectives on a human issue makes a huge difference, the game recongizing your loyalties makes a world of difference.

Brilliant idea, In Exile.

That was a problem with the game, the "stupid Tiki Idol."

Bioware said the game was supposed to be about shades of grey rather than a single evil big bad ala the Arch Demon. Interesting to be sure but then they undercut it with Meredith and Orsino acting like children, O going crazy for no visible reason in the game (we were kicking Templar butt), and Meredith having an excuse for acting nuts with the sword.

[HSHAW]

TiaraBlade wrote...

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.

Anders is not cannonized as a Warden but in fact alters depending on the data is read into the DA:O save (or the choices made at the beginning if there is not save data).

That said, yes it does take away other choices like Leliana and Zavren being alive even if  killed in DA:O. I heard the same happens with Nathan from Awakenings. I'm not sure about Anders since I don't know if there is any ending where either dies or disappears forever.

I do not think that DA2 had meaningful choice since regardless of what you choose, stuff still happens.
*
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
*

Your mother is still murdered, you never find a peaceful solution to the Templar-Mage problem, both Meredith and Osiris go crazy and you have to kill them, and Anders blows up the Chantry. Everyone's favorite hornheads still go crazy and kill the town leader, etc...

WTH??!?!?!

You are railroaded to the same conclusion. At least in DA:O you can decide you allies, who is king in the kingdom, if the Circle remains or is put to the sword, etc...

Were you honestly expecting that you could block every major plot development from happening when you bought the game?

[Plaintiff]

TJPags wrote...

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?

Well I'm using "potential" in the context of decisions whose impact can and may be explored in future content. To me, a decision isn't meaningful until we see the impact it had in the long-term: eg saving Zathrian's clan is meaningful, but only because we see Danyla's daughter taking revenge on a former werewolf in DA2. That is long-term impact, whether it affects many or one doesn't matter. For an in-game example, killing the magistrate's son results in Lia choosing to join the city guard. You can meet her later in the game, and she thanks you for what you did (I think you might need to have Aveline with you to see this dialogue). That also counts as long-term impact.

So to me, choices that could be potentially meaningful include:

Feynriel's Fate: Tranquility isn't promising, but going to Tevinter/becoming an abomination both have potential.

Companion's Fates: It's been said that future DLC will be very centred around Hawke, it's likely that his companions, if not already with him, will make cameos. And how he left things in DA2 would affect their interactions with him. Particularly Sebastian, as we've been told he still has a part to play in the larger story of Thedas.

Repairing/Breaking the Eluvian: It's a doorway to a new realm, enough said.

Dealing with the Arishok: Qunari are almost certainly going to show up in future content and whether Hawke handed over the tome, dueled him honorably or "cheated" and used his whole party will affect how they perceive Hawke.

And yes, siding with the Mages/Templars: I know, I know "GAME ENDS THE SAME EITHER WAY BAWWWW". But in future DLC/Games, the way Hawke is treated/spoken of by members of both groups would be affected, much in the same way that an imported Hero of Ferelden is treated with respect in Awakening, while an Orlesian Warden is regarded with suspicion.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but there's probably more. Whether or not they WILL be meaningful remains to be seen, which is why I use the qualifier "potentially".

Pandaman102 wrote...

Good job ignoring all the posts that came before yours and arguing against a disingenuous generalization.

Since when does posting in a thread constitute a moral obligation to read every post in it? Is the answer 'never'? Because I'm pretty sure it's 'never'.

Secondly, I wasn't 'arguing' against squat, I was commenting on the general attitude I've perceived since joining these forums. I'm open to being proven wrong (in fact, I'd be thrilled), but your post does nothing to dispel my preconceived notions, serving only to strengthen my recently-formed view that most Bioware fans are condescending jackasses.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 08 mai 2011 - 03:39 .

[Urazz]

A good example of a meaningful choice in DA2 if they went that way would've been allowing you to ally with Thrask and Grace's templar/mage rebel group to take down Meredith instead of just killing them because Grace gets upset that we killed her boyfriend. I personally don't think things would've changed all that much in the ending if they were left to live other than Meredith and her templars would've been weaker at the end when she enacts the Right of Annulment.

[TJPags]

Plaintiff wrote...

TJPags wrote...

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?

Well I'm using "potential" in the context of decisions whose impact can and may be explored in future content. To me, a decision isn't meaningful until we see the impact it had in the long-term: eg saving Zathrian's clan is meaningful, but only because we see Danyla's daughter taking revenge on a former werewolf in DA2. That is long-term impact, whether it affects many or one doesn't matter. For an in-game example, killing the magistrate's son results in Lia choosing to join the city guard. You can meet her later in the game, and she thanks you for what you did (I think you might need to have Aveline with you to see this dialogue). That also counts as long-term impact.

So to me, choices that could be potentially meaningful include:

Feynriel's Fate: Tranquility isn't promising, but going to Tevinter/becoming an abomination both have potential.

Companion's Fates: It's been said that future DLC will be very centred around Hawke, it's likely that his companions, if not already with him, will make cameos. And how he left things in DA2 would affect their interactions with him. Particularly Sebastian, as we've been told he still has a part to play in the larger story of Thedas.

Repairing/Breaking the Eluvian: It's a doorway to a new realm, enough said.

Dealing with the Arishok: Qunari are almost certainly going to show up in future content and whether Hawke handed over the tome, dueled him honorably or "cheated" and used his whole party will affect how they perceive Hawke.

And yes, siding with the Mages/Templars: I know, I know "GAME ENDS THE SAME EITHER WAY BAWWWW". But in future DLC/Games, the way Hawke is treated/spoken of by members of both groups would be affected, much in the same way that an imported Hero of Ferelden is treated with respect in Awakening, while an Orlesian Warden is regarded with suspicion.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but there's probably more. Whether or not they WILL be meaningful remains to be seen, which is why I use the qualifier "potentially".

Okay, well, you and I think of "meaningful" in different ways.  I want to see something different about my game.  I don't want to wait until another game to see the effects.  because there's not guarantee you'll see the effect.  As example, put Anora on the throne - she doesn't appear in DA2, and you hear nothing about her, nothing about Ferelden.  Then you have the issues with options being discarded (Leliana dead, Anders or Justice not recruited, as example*).

Nothing wrong with your approach.  I guess I'm more instant gratification in that regard,


* I know there have been many explanations bandied about by fans, and some dev comments indicating there are explanations.  I don't like them, though.

[GavrielKay]

I agree with Giltspur... meaningful choice is one way to put it, but really what I felt was that I couldn't pick a personality for my Hawke and then play it out. I couldn't be just the most protective older sister ever, I couldn't be the most ruthless jerk ever, etc etc... because there were too many points in the storyline where that just wasn't an option.

I wanted my Hawke to kill Cullen and his guard and save Bethany from being taken to the circle. I wanted to murder-knife Petrice and Varnell the instant I returned from Shepherding Wolves. There were all these points in the story where my Hawke would never do or not do something - but there it was anyway.

I didn't feel that nearly as much with Origins. There were big choices and little ones, even ones that were 'lesser of two evil' style choices, but I rarely felt like the options forced me out of character. In DA2 there were just too many places where as Giltspur mentions, you feel the hand of BioWare on your back pushing you to comply with the story like a good little player.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 08 mai 2011 - 04:11 .

[GavrielKay]

MyKingdomCold wrote...

with the bandits in Lothering, I don't really see that as a meaningful choice. If you pay them to pass and go back later, you don't see any more people who've had to pay them to get past. if you kill them, the only people who get their goods back, supposedly, are those elves. It's not like you can go tell everyone in town, "Hey, those bandits are dead! Go and get your things/money!"

It doesn't affect the story at all. Let them live/kill them doesn't matter.

But even in that small thing you could stay immersed in the role playing.  You could be ruthless or forgiving as your Warden preferred.  The fact that it only influenced the next few minutes of game play is fine, because at least you didn't sit back in your chair, look around your desk and think - uh, why did my character just do that?

[Buerschle]

Plaintiff wrote...

TJPags wrote...

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?

Well I'm using "potential" in the context of decisions whose impact can and may be explored in future content. To me, a decision isn't meaningful until we see the impact it had in the long-term: eg saving Zathrian's clan is meaningful, but only because we see Danyla's daughter taking revenge on a former werewolf in DA2. That is long-term impact, whether it affects many or one doesn't matter. For an in-game example, killing the magistrate's son results in Lia choosing to join the city guard. You can meet her later in the game, and she thanks you for what you did (I think you might need to have Aveline with you to see this dialogue). That also counts as long-term impact.

So to me, choices that could be potentially meaningful include:

Feynriel's Fate: Tranquility isn't promising, but going to Tevinter/becoming an abomination both have potential.

Companion's Fates: It's been said that future DLC will be very centred around Hawke, it's likely that his companions, if not already with him, will make cameos. And how he left things in DA2 would affect their interactions with him. Particularly Sebastian, as we've been told he still has a part to play in the larger story of Thedas.

Repairing/Breaking the Eluvian: It's a doorway to a new realm, enough said.

Dealing with the Arishok: Qunari are almost certainly going to show up in future content and whether Hawke handed over the tome, dueled him honorably or "cheated" and used his whole party will affect how they perceive Hawke.

And yes, siding with the Mages/Templars: I know, I know "GAME ENDS THE SAME EITHER WAY BAWWWW". But in future DLC/Games, the way Hawke is treated/spoken of by members of both groups would be affected, much in the same way that an imported Hero of Ferelden is treated with respect in Awakening, while an Orlesian Warden is regarded with suspicion.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but there's probably more. Whether or not they WILL be meaningful remains to be seen, which is why I use the qualifier "potentially".

If I need to buy another game/DLC to see the results of decission I made in one game, then they are not meaningful for my current game. Allowing decissions to carry over to further games can be a great service for fans of a series that buy every little thing that is on offer.
But whoever come up within a gaming company with the idea of "hey lets have the players buy further content so that decissions have meaning" should be fired on the spot.