83 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolfborn Son]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't ever recall the developers of Dragon Age ever intending it to be the fantasy version of Mass Effect. Origins was designed to be the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate II, not an epic multi-game saga. Had it not been as successful, chances are we'd not have even seen Dragon Age II. The fact that \\any\\ of our choices carry over into the second game is ultimately little more than fan service.

I expect, however, that the choices made in Dragon Age II will have more impact in any future sequel, simply because whether or not you like the direction the series is going, it has an identity of its own now.

As for the topic at hand, I'd have liked Friendship/Rivalry to have more effect in game but does anyone really think that Anders plot to destroy the Chantry could really have be avoided outside of killing him before he had the chance?

Anders was a radical. He believed that the mages had to be freed from their oppression by any means necessary and sharing a body with a spirit of justice turned vengeance, chances are even if you convinced the man what he was doing was wrong, the spirit would take over and make sure that it happened.

My two copper.

[TEWR]

I would think that it is possible to stop Anders' plans. All you have to do is tell Cullen, and I don't think Anders needs to be present when you do that.


Then, you could try and convince both Anders and Justice that their plan would just make things worse for the mages. Then when word arrives to Kirkwall about an Exalted March, you tell him that this helps the mages out even better because the Chantry is taking such a grave offense to the fact that mages worked together with citizens and Templars to make the Circle better. Which would call for the revolution for the mages because they find out that nothing they do will ever be tolerated.


And considering the Divine seems to be a mage-hater in her own right given what Leliana said, if she was told Kirkwall fell to magic by another mage-hater, well.... you get the picture.

[TEWR]

Anybody else want to chime in on this idea?

[Nerdage]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Anybody else want to chime in on this idea?

After you plugged this thread in the friendship/approval one? Alright. 

I don't see why the player's avaliable choice should be tied to their approval with a companion. In your Anders example, would a rival not be able to help him with his plan? Or would a friend not able be to sabotage it? If that's the case then why? How I treat Anders shouldn't be used by the game to dictate how my character feels about mages, or indeed how they feel about blowing up a chantry. And if that isn't the case, then how is friendship/rivalry relevant? Unless the choices avaliable are exclusively tied to your friendship with that character then aren't you basically just asking for more choices in quests?

[TEWR]

It wouldn't be tied to being pro-mage or pro-templar. That was one of the flaws with the system. You could be pro-mage and still Rival Anders and he acts like you're anti-mage.


What this would do is should you warn Cullen the bomb is discoverd and disposed of. That doesn't have to do with pro-mage or anti-mage.


Basically it is about more choices lol. Whether Hawke sides with the mages or the Templars in the Jenga spectacle wouldn't have anything to do with this.

[Nerdage]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

What this would do is should you warn Cullen the bomb is discoverd and disposed of. That doesn't have to do with pro-mage or anti-mage.

But you should have the option to do that as a friend or a rival. Maybe it would act like Merrill and the Arulin'Holm, where making the rivalry choice as a friend would convert all of your friendship to rivalry, but the option to make the choice should be there either way. I just don't see how restricting the player's choices based on their relationship with a companion is a good idea.

[TEWR]

That could be interesting. It would still affect the story but there isn't a limitation on when you can do it. That would help replay value.

[LobselVith8]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

The destruction of the Chantry is such a gigantic plot element that allowing any variation would basically mean that it could never be addressed again in any future sequels. Do you really want to see the mage/templar conflict get the OGB treatment?

Some things have to be static.

Bolded: Yes

Underlined: I respectfully disagree.

I agree completely. Choices should matter and have an impact on the story.

ipgd wrote...

The OGB could have been a much bigger plot element than it was, were it not variable. As is, we'll probably never hear anything about it again other than one or two throw-away lines, which I personally think is pretty disappointing.

I'd also like the destruction of the Chantry to not be something nobody ever mentions again, considering the potential it has. 

Considering the stupidity of Orsino and Meredith that followed the destruction of the Chantry, I'd prefer never to hear about it again. I don't need to hear "Orsino became a Harvester for no sensible reason" and "Meredith was possessed by a macguffin" in the DLC, the expansion, or the third installment.

And considering that The Warden may be the only one who even knows that the dark ritual was performed (outside of Morrigan), why would anyone else mention it?

[TEWR]

What I like about this idea is that it allows for you to reach the same conclusion through different paths.


And Orsino has the potential to survive.


I wonder why Bioware can't account for mages surviving. Other games account for NPCs surviving. Fire Emblem comes to mind. If you saved 3 soldiers in a certain quest they rewarded you with a gem worth 2500 gold.