91 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

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.

The anvil choice had no effect really and won't have any effect on the series. 

Boiny Bunny wrote...

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?

In an epilogue slide yes. And clearly Bioware reserve the right to change these. 

Modifié par Morroian, 09 mai 2011 - 03:01 .

[Icy Magebane]

I'd say that a meaningful choice is one that has an impact on the storyline and conclusion of a single game, but that has far-reaching effects in a series.  The ruler of Orzamaar might qualify as such, but only if it's revisited in DA3 or another game... I mean yeah, we see Harrowmont's nephew in DA2, but will that ever matter again?  Does it matter if you aided or killed him?  We'll see...  Maybe a better example is whether or not the Architect was spared.  This quest seems to be part of an ongoing background storyline, since Nathaniel Howe mentions him and some kind of secret research.  Thus, the player's decision in Awakening will eventually have an impact on something down the line.  Of course, the quest is bugged, so even if you kill him, it's very likely that he's alive anyway.  So maybe there are no long-term, meaningful choices as long as import errors persist.  I cannot stress enough that Bioware needs to figure this out if they plan to continue making games with save import.  It's a real kick in the crotch to find out 20+ hours into a sequel that the original game's import is bugged and now whatever your "canon" run was designed to be like is now irrelevant.

I hold onto the hope that there are other, small decisions that eventually matter, and therefore will have meaning we just don't realize right now.  Things like Dagna studying at the Ferelden Circle, or giving the Green Blade back to ... whatever that kid's name in Redcliffe was... he supposedly went on the be a great hero in an epilogue slide, and even if those have now been negated, he could still be a potential party member or show up in some capacity in the future.

But to answer Biony Bunny's last question, the Mage/Templar war was going to happen no matter what Hawke did.  Personally, I find it hard to believe that the endgame decision mattered at all, given the fact that the Templars decided to break from the Chantry even if you supported them in Kirkwall.  Then, the Champion disappears and you're back to square one.  You have a lead-in for Bioware's next game, and you've contributed nothing to the world state.  Frankly, I find that boring, and it's the reason I don't play JRPGs anymore.  Maybe that's simpler for them to pull off, but if that were the case, they shouldn't have made promises they knew they wouldn't be able to keep.

I'm not sure if any decision in DA2 is significant to future games, but within the context of DA2 itself... eh... I'd say that decisions regarding party members (who you recruit, avoid, kill, betray, etc) matter.  These direcly impact the quests you can recieve... and... not much else.  You can side with the mages all game long and then betray them at the Gallows, or vice versa.  You can mix and match whatever results you want and create a schizophrenic Hawke that is hailed as a hero and liked by the entire party.  I don't see how anything you do in this game makes that much of a difference...

[Pandaman102]

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

Since when does posting in a thread constitute a moral obligation to read every post in it?

I'm open to being proven wrong (in fact, I'd be thrilled)

So you would like to be proved wrong, but you don't want to bother reading anything before you swoop in and behave like one of those

condescending jackasses.

you take such high grounds against.

There might be a reason why you tend to get such abrasive responses, I suggest looking in a mirror. Seriously, how do you expect people to react when good arguments are made and you follow up with some irrelevant generalization?

Modifié par Pandaman102, 09 mai 2011 - 03:22 .

[1483749283]

Great thread. A lot of good arguments. Flemeth says, "Is it fate or destiny?"

I felt my choices had greater impact in DAO... the king of these being determining who's alive, who's married, and who's dead at the end. How can this not be compelling, at least from the point of view of getting you to try multiple playthroughs.

However, I had a lot more fun playing DA2 than DAO. Despite the greater freedom, a lot of DAO combat felt like cookie-cutter encounters. DA2 challenges were varied and I think you'll agree the toughest yet in a Bioware game.

In DA2 I felt like my companions never ran out of things to say and were just more interesting. I was more loyal to them. In DAO, once the dialogue trees were exhausted, we basically didn't hear from anyone again.

[Big I]

To me a meaningful choice is one that either affects gameplay (secret companion, unlockable quests etc) or that affects the setting (king of orzammar, mages or templar, etc).

[Zeevico]

A "meaningful choice" is a choice that fits with the logic of the game world and is available to the player, as an alternative to another choice that also fits with that logic.

Obvious examples:
1. Killing Grace;
2. Killing Sister Petrice.

To the extent that these kinds of choices are unavailable, the storyline suffers. The story changes from one that involves the player to one that the player is forced to make.

[Demon Velsper]

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

Really? Cause I could have sworn there was an ending where I died and one where I didn't in Origins?

I also remember there being a crapload of nuances to the ending.

What do we have in DA2? One ending with two nuances, one where you disappear and one where you become viscount then disappear without anything coming of that difference. Epic.

[Tommyspa]

Origins let you know what happened after, DA2 did not. So we don't know how meaningful most choices in DA2 really are.

[MyKingdomCold]

Demon Velsper wrote...

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

Really? Cause I could have sworn there was an ending where I died and one where I didn't in Origins?

I also remember there being a crapload of nuances to the ending.

What do we have in DA2? One ending with two nuances, one where you disappear and one where you become viscount then disappear without anything coming of that difference. Epic.

yes, the ending where you died was so meaningful that you came back to life in Awakening.

[IanPolaris]

MyKingdomCold wrote...

Demon Velsper wrote...

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

Really? Cause I could have sworn there was an ending where I died and one where I didn't in Origins?

I also remember there being a crapload of nuances to the ending.

What do we have in DA2? One ending with two nuances, one where you disappear and one where you become viscount then disappear without anything coming of that difference. Epic.

yes, the ending where you died was so meaningful that you came back to life in Awakening.

That's not the fault of DAO.  That's the fault of DAA and Bioware who's been trying to take away meaningful choice ever since DAO was published.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 10 mai 2011 - 07:42 .

[Boiny Bunny]

MyKingdomCold wrote...

Demon Velsper wrote...

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

Really? Cause I could have sworn there was an ending where I died and one where I didn't in Origins?

I also remember there being a crapload of nuances to the ending.

What do we have in DA2? One ending with two nuances, one where you disappear and one where you become viscount then disappear without anything coming of that difference. Epic.

yes, the ending where you died was so meaningful that you came back to life in Awakening.

To be fair, that retcon was only to avoid a large number of very annoyed fans who would have to potentially play through the entire game of Origins all over again, just to make a different decision at the end and lead into the expansion.

Whilst I like the idea of being able to sacrifice one's self at the conclusion of a game, the actual ability to play an expansion shouldn't be affected by any in game decisions.  Well, that's my view anyway.


It's interesting to see the divide between those who say lore changes matter (e.g. who is crowned king of Ferelden, or if a King is crowned at all) against those that say only gameplay changes matter.

Out of interest, has anybody ever played the SNES game Seiken Detensu 3?  I swear Origins stole the idea of having 6 origins from that game.

The difference was, that game had 6 origin stories, with pre-set characters.  They all intersected across the game as it played out, their stories changing slightly to always make the player character the most important.  BUT, the most fantastic thing about it was, there were THREE entirely different end-game scenarios.  Three entirely different final dungeons, bosses, and plot twists.  Extremely well executed, for a SNES game.

DA2 could have had something similar!  Imagine if, instead of the way the end of DA2 played out, the following happened:

A) Side with Templars.  Start in the Gallows, fight your way to the top of the circle tower (as in, don't fight through the templar quarters or dungeon), with the assistance of the templars and Meredith.  Once you near the top, have Orsino appear, and slay Meredith like a child in a cutscene, then turn into the Harvester, and have you fight it.

 Side with Mages.  Start in the dungeon.  Fight your way out, through the templar quaters, etc. with Orsino at your side.  When you reach the Gallows, Meredith slays Orsino easily with her sword, and you have to fight her.

The DIFFERENCES between what this approach does, and what the game ACTUALLY does are:

1) Different final dungeons depending on your choice (filled with different enemies).
2) Having the person you sided with, and some of their troops with you, actually makes it feel more like an epic battle, and like your choice of side matters.
3) Having Meredith/Orsino slain before the final battle reinforces this.  Rather than leaving the player feeling like their choice was utterly pointless because they were going to get backstabbed either way, and have to kill both either way, in theory makes the player more emotionally involved by killing the person they sided with, then having them face a monster (different choice, different consequence).

Results in the same ending as DA2 had, but with a lot more gameplay (and a little more story) flexibility reacting from your choices.

[dreadpiratesnugglecakes]

Pausanias wrote...

Great thread. A lot of good arguments. Flemeth says, "Is it fate or destiny?"

I felt my choices had greater impact in DAO... the king of these being determining who's alive, who's married, and who's dead at the end. How can this not be compelling, at least from the point of view of getting you to try multiple playthroughs.

However, I had a lot more fun playing DA2 than DAO. Despite the greater freedom, a lot of DAO combat felt like cookie-cutter encounters. DA2 challenges were varied and I think you'll agree the toughest yet in a Bioware game.

Don't agree with that at all.  I felt DAO had limited enemies to fight against but the encounters were varied; I rather liked the variety from the older series (BGII, NWN or NWN II) in terms of the creatures you encountered.  DA2 had even less interesting adversaries..and the mechanics behind the encounters were stupid.  Running out of enemies in a 'tough fight'?  Just drop some more in on your head.  All that's missing are the little parachutes.  The spawning would have made more sense in DAO where you were fighting, literally, a horde.  In DA2, the number of thugs and robbers I killed would have depopulated a small modern city.  Who needs the guards to fight the Qunari?  There's about 150 thugs hanging around waiting to mug me after dark.  Defend your city boys.  There was little logic to the fights; just grinding for experience.

In DA2 I felt like my companions never ran out of things to say and were just more interesting. I was more loyal to them. In DAO, once the dialogue trees were exhausted, we basically didn't hear from anyone again.

The 'walking around' conversations were longer but I think the 'come see me at home' type conversations were of similar length to the number of conversation trees you could have in camp.  I also didn't really care for romantic options with almost every character.  Seemed like overkill.

[GavrielKay]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

The DIFFERENCES between what this approach does, and what the game ACTUALLY does are:

1) Different final dungeons depending on your choice (filled with different enemies).
2) Having the person you sided with, and some of their troops with you, actually makes it feel more like an epic battle, and like your choice of side matters.
3) Having Meredith/Orsino slain before the final battle reinforces this.  Rather than leaving the player feeling like their choice was utterly pointless because they were going to get backstabbed either way, and have to kill both either way, in theory makes the player more emotionally involved by killing the person they sided with, then having them face a monster (different choice, different consequence).

Results in the same ending as DA2 had, but with a lot more gameplay (and a little more story) flexibility reacting from your choices.

I really like that idea.  I felt that having both Meredith and Orsino turn on you in the end game felt weird.

[Sammyjb]

My favorite choice in the game was the Arishok confrontation. This one truly felt like an Origins decision. Three distinct options- Kill the Arishok, Let him return, or let him take Isabela.


In Origins, the meaningful choices felt real, even in the moment. Influencing if Bella or Kaitlin marries Teagen, while arbitrary is a brilliant addition. Does the epilogue count as a meaningful response? I'm going to say no. But even in the moment, I felt like my decisions mattered. Maybe because the choices are larger in scale than DA 2

[Plaintiff]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

Since when does posting in a thread constitute a moral obligation to read every post in it?

I'm open to being proven wrong (in fact, I'd be thrilled)

So you would like to be proved wrong, but you don't want to bother reading anything before you swoop in and behave like one of those

condescending jackasses.

you take such high grounds against.

There might be a reason why you tend to get such abrasive responses, I suggest looking in a mirror. Seriously, how do you expect people to react when good arguments are made and you follow up with some irrelevant generalization?

Note that my view is "recently formed". I didn't come to this forum expecting jackasses, posters like you behave like jackasses and make me think that's all this forum has to offer.

Generalizations aren't necessarily false and it certainly wasn't irrelevant. I never claimed to be speaking from anything other than my own experience. I offered my opinion, you chose to attack it in a fairly insulting manner when you could've ignored it. Maybe I'd have a better view of the Bioware fan community if posters didn't go out of their way to pick fights with me.

[Pandaman102]

Plaintiff wrote...

Note that my view is "recently formed". I didn't come to this forum expecting jackasses, posters like you behave like jackasses and make me think that's all this forum has to offer.

Generalizations aren't necessarily false and it certainly wasn't irrelevant. I never claimed to be speaking from anything other than my own experience. I offered my opinion, you chose to attack it in a fairly insulting manner when you could've ignored it. Maybe I'd have a better view of the Bioware fan community if posters didn't go out of their way to pick fights with me.

I'll admit that my initial post may have been unnecessarily dismissive and I certainly could have ignored it, but on the other hand you have to recognize that going into a thread that tries to explain why people thought it lacked choices and stating that you think (while ignoring posts that would contradict your opinion) they're just annoyed because of some generalization was every bit as offensive as me calling you out on that.

Does what I said make me wrong? No. It's a fact that you didn't bother reading the arguments that came before you voiced your opinion, you may not have an obligation to do so, but it would have given you a more informed view on the subject and might have made you refrain from saying something that was already proven incorrect.

Does how I said it make me an ass? Yes. I may have reinforced your opinion of the personalities of the community here, but that has absolutely no relevance to any arguments made on the subject of DA2's choices. I certainly hope you're not making that mistake here.

So while my tone may have been abrasive, at the core I was simply pointing out your opinion is contradicted by previous posts. You chose to focus on my attitude and defend why you didn't read the posts instead of ignoring me or - ideally - reading said posts and explaining why you didn't think those specific examples contradicted your generalization (I recognize this is unlikely, as few people chose to answer rudeness with politeness).

We both chose the low road. Welcome to the community.

[Buerschle]

Plaintiff wrote...
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?

Sorry, but you missed my point completely.

I agree with you that it is nice to allow some decissions carry on from one game to the next. That is all fine an square with me. For fans of the whole series its a nice touch to see. However, as long as BioWare is not selling the complete package of Dragon Age (DA1+expansion+dlc, DA2+expansion+dlc, DA3+expansion+dlc,....) it is a pretty empty point to tell a player that a decission in DA2 will influence something in DA3.
--sarcasm--BioWare could make it easy then and just programm a Paypal button into their game offering the players to either pay more money and directly get added consequenzes for their action or not pay and having the game progress as designed by the current programmer--/sarcasm--

For a story to feel engaging, some of your choices should provide you with consequences within the actual game that you are playing at the time. I agree that the DA1 choices weren´t really all that earthshattering, however compared to DA2 I agree with others here on the board that DA1 offered me more choices that lead to differences within the progressing of the story.