91 réponses à ce sujet

[lobi]

Buerschle wrote...
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

yes

[lobi]

Bad writing aside for the moment.
The constant breaking of immersion seems to be Bioware trying to turn games into movies. The main char is no longer us. We no longer make the chars personality our own we make a choice from three archytypes. A poorly implimented voiced main char.
Bioware said Hawk is an individual not the player, and it set off alarm bells. I shouted about it in youtube comments and on some forums but people misstook it for paranioa.
Also
The Paragon Renegade paths is damaging to immersion and a stupid idea. It may streamline by removing the dialogue tree but, it also removes choice. We make our own story within parameters that are decreasing with each Bioware release.
In origins we had the perfect gauge for the wardens personality the reactions of those around him. Approve Disapprove. It was simple and immediate. Now we chase Renegade Paragon like it is an Achievment,
I loved it when Alistair totally lost it with my warden, there was passion. DA2 is yawnfest compared to Alistair yelling at me. There was a consequence immediate and simple.

Modifié par lobi, 08 mai 2011 - 08:01 .

[Lumikki]

Meaningful choise means something what you did as choises has affect later in game. Meaning something has change because your choise. Illusion of choise is that you can make choise, but it doesn't affect to anyting, everyting will happen anyway the same way, doens't matter what choise you make. Illusion of choise "says" change to "lore" without any other affect, real meaningful choise has gameplay affect to player path.

Example you choose king. Lore may say one is kind ruler while other is cruel. How ever, what you as player see the game world, nothing has changed at all, everyting is same. That's illusion of choise. Real choise would have changed something in the game world where player travels, like example one has slaves and others doesn't after the choise.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 mai 2011 - 08:03 .

[Lord Gremlin]

Meaningful choice in game is when you choose an option from a list and later on it affects gameplay and story. For example, in Origins you can side with werewolves.
Gameplay: In final battle you can summon AI werewolves to help you.
Story: You meet werewolf emissary at camp, you meet Lady of the Forest in Eamon's estate, also references in codex and epilogue slides.
There are more examples, just name 1 example in DA2 where your choice affect gameplay and story. There are none. FFS Fallout 3 had more choice, and Fallout 3 is pathetic when it comes to choices.

[Lumikki]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

There are more examples, just name 1 example in DA2 where your choice affect gameplay and story. There are none.

BS, both games has both kind of choises. DAO just has more meaningful choises than DA2.

Examples DA2:

Deep Road, do you take you siblings there with you have real meaning.
Act of Mercy and Wayward Son, what companions are with you in that quest has meaning.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 mai 2011 - 08:14 .

[lobi]

Meaningful is how my choices make me feel about my PC. The reactions of other npc is crucial to this. I dont wanna save the world or the galaxy, I dont wanna free the oppressed. I want the approval of those I like and really annoy people I dislike. Those moments when Morrigan or Alistair was incredibly mad or really really loving. When Isolde was weeping and in mourning or relieved but guilty. When lily was happy, when Trian was being an ass. These things added to the texture and gave my decisions personal meaning and made the game rich. All the DA2 npc are phoning it in. If I wanted to create a city state independent of companion interactions I would play Europa Universallis not Dragonage. Da2 chars are not very interesting.
I miss Wynnes finger wag, even if I did annull her five out of seven playthroughs.

Modifié par lobi, 08 mai 2011 - 08:23 .

[GavrielKay]

Lumikki wrote...

Deep Road, do you take you siblings there with you have real meaning.
Act of Mercy and Wayward Son, what companions are with you in that quest has meaning.

But whether you take them to the Deep Roads or not, and whether you have Anders with you or not - whatever sibling was with you in Act 1 will be gone in Act 2.  Dying in the Deep Roads is a non-immersion breaker to me because at least it makes perfect sense with the story.  Leaving Bethany at home and then just standing there while Cullen takes her away breaks immersion for me because none of my characters would have let the Templars take their sister to the miserable place.

Act of Mercy doesn't let you kill Grace even if you're playing a hard-line pro-Templar Hawke.  And Grace is on rails anyway and hates you by Act 3 no matter what you do.

The overall story is very linear with a few branches thrown in at less significant places to give a bit of choice.  But major immersion breakers happen fairly often and take the role playing out of it more than I thought happened in DAO.

[Lumikki]

Meaningful choise is affect what you choise caused happen in later game, like consequence of choise.

Deep Road, sibling is affected you gameplay later, do you have sibling or not or can sibling be same side than you. That's choise based affect.

Act of Mercy, I wasn't talking about Grace, I was talking end battle in that quest (templars), do you have it or can you avoid it. That choise is based your companion choises before you even enter the quest.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 mai 2011 - 08:54 .

[Plaintiff]

Buerschle wrote...
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.

The whole point of the Dragon Age series is that choices you made will carry over and affect future content. A meaningful choice is one that is seen to carry onwards. Zathrian's clan never shows up again either way, so who gives a crap? Not me. Even Alistair's fate is only good for one cameo.

There's nothing wrong with providing a deeper gaming experience for those willing to shell out the cash, but suggesting that the "imported save" mechanic was only created for that purpose is moronic. The series was likely going to continue beyond Origins anyway, being able to import your Origins save doesn't cost you any extra money. People are already pissed about some choices being retconned, would you prefer that the DA2 writers disregarded everything entirely?

[Demon Velsper]

DA2 is just a remix of the old "But thou must!" trope. In that there's is only one solution but rather than be upfront about it and keep asking till you make the right choice it pretends that you actually had a choice and have all responses lead to the same outcome.

[Sabriana]

Demon Velsper wrote...

DA2 is just a remix of the old "But thou must!" trope. In that there's is only one solution but rather than be upfront about it and keep asking till you make the right choice it pretends that you actually had a choice and have all responses lead to the same outcome.

Or as forumite Mrcrusty put it "many doors that all led to the same room."

[lobi]

Meaningful choices is a loaded phrase. To me meaningful is an emotional word, not a power word.
Meaningful is how my choices make me feel about my PC. The reactions of other npc is crucial to this.

When Conner is dead by Isoldes Hand or mine or freed. When I saw her again Isolde was weeping and in mourning or relieved but guilty. Alistair was incredibly mad or really happy and loving. I felt like what I did affected the world my PC inhabited.
Things like this made my choices meaningful.
 DAO choices were visceral, the companions and NPC chars were essential to that effect, thats why it worked thats why it was EPIC!
All the DA2 npc are not very emotional or interesting (except Arishock).
I miss Wynnes finger wag, even if I did annull her five out of seven playthroughs.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Meaningful choice is a subjective term. What I am more concerned about is whether Hawke's decisions have impact on the story. Most have cosmetic impact only, like dialogue line chances, mail delivered to the Hawke Estate, a cameo, or at best a conditional quest that doesn't change the main story at all. It is even worse in the main story. Instead of Hawke making the decisions, Hawke merely responds to the story. No matter what side you've chosen everything plays out much the same.

That is not what is promised at all by the marketing team. You'll find in the ad for the game the following line:

"Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make."

OK... The marketing went over the top. So, it is maybe best to trust someone from BW - who better than DA2's lead designer and creative director Mike Laidlaw? This is what he said in the first official DA2 podcast:

In Dragon Age 2 it is the player who decides what happens, rather than it being this pre-determined plot."

I think that BW didn't deliver that at all. I also think that BW knew that when they promised that. That makes it very hard to trust anything BW tells me.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 08 mai 2011 - 10:50 .

[Plaintiff]

Sabriana wrote...

Demon Velsper wrote...

DA2 is just a remix of the old "But thou must!" trope. In that there's is only one solution but rather than be upfront about it and keep asking till you make the right choice it pretends that you actually had a choice and have all responses lead to the same outcome.

Or as forumite Mrcrusty put it "many doors that all led to the same room."

So it's different from Origins... how? Because Origins has slightly more doors? The doors come in different colours? How is Origins exempt from this analogy?

Seriously, this argument keeps going around and around in circles.

"DA2 sucks because the ending is the same no matter what happens."

"Uh... Origins ends the same, no matter what happens."

"OMG DON'T YOU KNOW IT'S THE JOURNEY THAT MATTERS AND NOT THE DESTINATION?"

"But... there are divergent paths in DA2."

"BUT THE END IS THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS"

And so on ad nauseum.

[Morroian]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Meaningful choice is a subjective term. What I am more concerned about is whether Hawke's decisions have impact on the story. Most have cosmetic impact only, like dialogue line chances, mail delivered to the Hawke Estate, a cameo, or at best a conditional quest that doesn't change the main story at all.

OK but they don't really in DAO either, ultimately it doesn't really matter whether the werewolves or the elves, the golems or the dwarves are at the final battle. The story branches slightly at some points but ends at the same destination, heck whether you support Bhelen or Harrowmount you ultimately do almost all the quests in Orzammar.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

OK... The marketing went over the top. So, it is maybe best to trust someone from BW - who better than DA2's lead designer and creative director Mike Laidlaw? This is what he said in the first official DA2 podcast:

In Dragon Age 2 it is the player who decides what happens, rather than it being this pre-determined plot."

I think that BW didn't deliver that at all. I also think that BW knew that when they promised that. That makes it very hard to trust anything BW tells me.

Ouch I agree that was poor wording from Mike, thats not really defensible.

[Morroian]

Demon Velsper wrote...

DA2 is just a remix of the old "But thou must!" trope. In that there's is only one solution but rather than be upfront about it and keep asking till you make the right choice it pretends that you actually had a choice and have all responses lead to the same outcome.

Actually I'd argue that the game itself is relatively upfront about what it is, moreso than DAO which presents much more of an illusion of choice. Its the marketing that is the issue.

[Sabriana]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Meaningful choice is a subjective term. What I am more concerned about is whether Hawke's decisions have impact on the story. Most have cosmetic impact only, like dialogue line chances, mail delivered to the Hawke Estate, a cameo, or at best a conditional quest that doesn't change the main story at all. It is even worse in the main story. Instead of Hawke making the decisions, Hawke merely responds to the story. No matter what side you've chosen everything plays out much the same.

That is not what is promised at all by the marketing team. You'll find in the ad for the game the following line:

"Embark upon an all-new adventure that takes place across an entire decade and shapes itself around every decision you make."

OK... The marketing went over the top. So, it is maybe best to trust someone from BW - who better than DA2's lead designer and creative director Mike Laidlaw? This is what he said in the first official DA2 podcast:

In Dragon Age 2 it is the player who decides what happens, rather than it being this pre-determined plot."

I think that BW didn't deliver that at all. I also think that BW knew that when they promised that. That makes it very hard to trust anything BW tells me.

Ali wrote...
I'd have to agree.

"You'll be able to shape a story that takes place over a decade. Every one of your choices has a consequence" - Mike Laidlaw.

What a load of crock

Yes, that was misleading. Personally, I thought the choices I made in DA:O were meaningful, because it meant something to me. I could choose between Harrowmont or Bhelen, and I was allowed to make that choice - and it stuck. DA:O didn't give me the opportunity to make a choice only to railroad me into *their* choice in the end. The same goes for the Dalish/Werewolves, Isolde/Connor/both, Circle/Templars/both.

It's subjective, but for me DA:O did the trick. DA 2 didn't.

[AlexXIV]

Lumikki wrote...

Lord Gremlin wrote...

There are more examples, just name 1 example in DA2 where your choice affect gameplay and story. There are none.

BS, both games has both kind of choises. DAO just has more meaningful choises than DA2.

Examples DA2:

Deep Road, do you take you siblings there with you have real meaning.
Act of Mercy and Wayward Son, what companions are with you in that quest has meaning.

Deep Roads and Wayward Son are the ones who have most-impact choices. One decides the fate of your sibling, and one is probably carrying over to the next game, since the half elf mage (forgot name) seems to be very important. Act of Mercy? The Qunari die and the Saarebas dies as well. No matter who you take with you. This is exactly the difference between a meaningful choice and a mere dialogue choice. To have different dialogue options is all nice and fine but not much of a meaningful choice. If you could for example avoid to kill the Qunari or the Saarebas it would be a choice. Or if at least the Arishok would mention how you dealt with it. Other than that you only get different dialogues for different people you bring, which does have a sort of replay value, but only if people can be arsed to play the game again just for that. And I doubt most can.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 08 mai 2011 - 12:35 .

[Sister Helen]

It's entertainment, people.  There seems to be an incredibly high expectation than a game will be all things to all people, and that's just not possible, by the nature of the limited medium.  You don't always get what you want.  (Mick Jagger, get out of my head!)

To put it in perspective:
1)  You paid $60.00 for DA2. 
2)  Take your hourly wage and multiply it by how many hours you spent playing DA2. 
3)  Add in the hours you spent on the forums, posting about your love-hate-ambivalence about DA2.
4)  If the result is $60.00 or more, you got your money's worth, whether or not you finished DA2.

I always get a laugh from reading the DA2 forums, particularly when the posters go on and on about how they hated parts in the middle and the end of the game.  Obviously, they spent a lot of time playing the game to get to that point.  If they truly hated it, they wouldn't have finished it, or posted about it, or whatever.  It's the classic case of, "The food is terrible here! And the portions are too small!"

It's rare for me to stop reading a book I purchase, but when I do, I cut my losses and toss the thing.  Ask me about the last book I tossed?  I couldn't tell you who the writer was, the title, or the publisher.  I could tell you that it was a slipshod attempt to repackage Wuthering Heights as military science fiction.

However, I have never tossed a video game.  I have received value from every game I have ever purchased, even those that I failed to finish.  I continue to use my Hellboy coaster and plan to leave it to my future offspring in my will.

Modifié par Sister Helen, 08 mai 2011 - 10:47 .

[ForgeDark]

I think in origins there were a lot more 'big' choices than in DA2, however I think the quests in origins dragged out far more and felt like there was a lot more grinding to get to the choices. In DA2 I think there are a lot more choices along the way, and until you play the game twice you don't realise that you aren't really making a choice. The game seems to drag a lot less even though I did spend nearly the same amount of time playing it - and I think it is why I have played DA2 more than once, but only got halfway through a second playthrough in origins because I got bored in the deep roads etc.

I also think in DA2 you have far more choices with how you interact with your companions, I really like the companion quests in comparison to origins. In origins only Sten and Leliana's quests stood out to me. I think you get to know the companions a lot more in DA2, and have a lot more affect on them rather than in origins where they just follow you around. Choices like whether to kill Varric's brother, whether to hand Fenris over etc. These are big choices, and yes they don't cause a massive change to the overall 'templar/mages' plot but for me it made the game much more enjoyable than origins. I know a lot of people don't like that you can't have a random conversation like in origins (and it would be nice to still be able to do this) but I do prefer DA2's way of handling it. I guess its becuase the game is set over 10 years, so you can have a more evolving story with your companions.

However, I feel Act 1 is really weak as you are forced into doing too many quests. Act II and III I didn't have so much of a problem with, there were reasons for going along with most of the quests there, but Act 1 could have been written better. I don't mind so much that the choices you make do seem more superficiaon the second playthrough, because really in origins it didn't matter either. My only criticism is that regardless what choice you make, things seem to work out for the best, which makes choices like what to do with Fenryiel feel a bit of a cop out.

[Iosev]

I think the term "meaningful" is rather subjective.  People derive meaning, significance, or value from different things, so what is meaningful for one person can be different from another. 

Personally, I find the friendship and rivalry differences to be the most meaningful choices in Dragon Age 2. While the differences do not drastically alter the central plot, it shapes how you experience the plot, especially at a personal level, in addition to possibly altering these characters if they return in future games.

For example, a friendship romance with Isabela will result in her seeing you as a kindred spirit; someone that she wants to have with her in her adventurous life as a pirate. Contrastingly, a rivalry romance results in Isabela wanting to change herself, stop acting selfishly, and be more helpful to others, so that she could become a better person for you.

Another example is Merrill and her use of blood magic and the Eluvian.  If you pursue a friendship with Merrill, she blames her clan for not wanting to accept her help.  If you pursue a rivalry with Merrill, she blames herself, and shatters the Eluvian.  Obviously there is no immediate impact on the plot, but it illustrates a tremendous change in how Merrill perceives her own actions, which could potentially have ramifications if she returns in a later game.

Dragon Age: Origins offered the player a small amount of choice in shaping your companions, but it was largely limited to Alistair and Leliana (via hardening), and with much less dialogue to illustrate it.

To me, having choices that affect and shape your companions is far more meaningful than choosing a leader, supporting werewolves/elves, or destroying/preserving an Anvil.  One of the primary reasons why I enjoy Bioware games is because of the companion interactions, so I personally place far more significance in the ability to shape your character's relationships than in shaping the entire game's world.

Modifié par arcelonious, 08 mai 2011 - 06:02 .

[Alex Kershaw]

Is it not pretty obvious? Choosing the ruler of Ferelden is a meaningful choice. As is destroying/keeping the anvil of the void, etc, etc. Meaningful choices can affect gameplay or story.

[In Exile]

TiaraBlade wrote...
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.

I think it comes down to recycling the right assests. I don't think people would care so much if Kirkwall was small city if everything changed around because of your choices. The problem was that Bioware thought was people liked was the actual process of traveling or making RP choices with no consequences.

I think people will prefer smaller and custom areas with lots of variable content even if it means a shorter game.

[Boiny Bunny]

Good discussion so far.  So summarise most of what I've read so far, it seems that the general consensus (with some deviation) is:

Meaningful choices have to have an in-game effect.  This does not necessarily translate into a gameplay effect, but the result should be noticable within the game itself.  Does this mean that anything in an epilogue or ending cutscene is utter garbage and counts for nothing?

Is that to say, the only impact of Hawke's decision to side with mages or tempars was a temporarily divergent path that has converged before the game concludes?  The actual mage templar war arising from the end of Act 3 doesn't exist because it is in an epilogue slide?

Would you agree with this? 

If you feel that the Origins epilogue slides did not count, then neither do the DA2 ones.

What would you say are the most significant decisions in DA2?