35 réponses à ce sujet

[snfonseka]

Here I am trying to analyze how deep is the impact that the player can made to the DA2 story by select the choices that he/ she needs to take while playing the game. Before going into details I like to quote few lines from DA2 press release: “players will help tell that tale by making tough moral choices” and “The way you play will write the story of how the world is changed forever” are the key lines in that press release regarding the “impact of your choices”.

Let’s see how well this mechanism is implemented in DA2. First of all, let’s take the “Act closing main quests”:


The Last Straw (Act 3):

Here Hawke can take two different approaches; side with templars or side with mages. But the end result is almost the same: “No matter who the Champion sides with in the final battle, Hawke's name becomes a rallying cry for the mages. This sparks a successful rebellion at all the Circles against the Chantry, which it eventually loses control of. The templars also leave the Chantry to fight the mages in their own way” and both choices lead to “ the disappearance of Hawke from Kirkwall”. So basically the game ends in the same world state whether you have supported mages or templars.

So the players don’t feel “The way you play will write the story of how the world is changed forever” kind of feeling at the end. Because whatever the way you play the end result is the same thing.


Demands of the Qun (Act 2):

Whether you allow the Qunari to leave Kirkwall or whether you slaughter them, doesn’t make an impact on the rest of the story of the game. The players won’t see any impact of that decision at the later stages of the game, so the players won’t feel any importance of their decision. The only noticeable impact that you can make is to allow the Qunari to take Isabela with them. But even that won’t change the games’ storyline instead players won’t have access Isabela as a companion.


The Deep Roads Expedition (Act 1):

In this quest the player doesn’t have a choice that change the main storyline at all, but their decisions have the ability to decide the fate of Hawkes’ sibling. Regarding the “fate of the sibling”, the way that Bioware has developed that storyline is very exciting and it has the ability to surprise the player (specially the survival of
the sibling is not only depend on the decision to take the sibling with the Hawke, also the choice that Hawke made when selecting the team). I think it is the “best surprise” that players can face during DA2 storyline.
Also the importance thing is that player gets the feeling that the “fate of the sibling” was totally depending on the choices of the playerhas made.

But I was little bit disappointed that after seeing that all of the choices leads to almost same status when considering the availability of the sibling as a companion; either sibling is dead or gone away for a long time, where the purpose of all the available decisions to removes the sibling from a major part of the storyline. But
that is something I can overlook.


Based on above (emphasize on “The Last Straw” and “Demands of the Qun”), I don’t think the player will get the feeling of “The way you play will write the story of how the world is changed forever”, instead they feel “What ever the choices they make the world is change into the same status”. So in that sense DA2 main quests failed to give the player "the center of the universe" kind of feeling. Instead what the players feel is "Events happens anyway and Hawke is there to change the way those events happens. But that won't change the outcome of those events."

That is the way I see things regarding the main quests of DA2 and please share your opinion with us. Also I hope to extend this to other side quests as well, in the future.

Modifié par snfonseka, 07 juillet 2011 - 03:57 .

[snfonseka]

The Way It Should Be:

In here Hawke can decide whether to help Aveline or not. When I played my second play through I didn't help Aveline to finish this quest. Because during the first play through DA2 gave me the impression that Hawkes' decision whether to help or not for this quest will be the key component for Aveline to become guard captain. But I found out that is not the case, whether Hawke help her or not Aveline will become the guard captain. That was a disappointment for me.


Prime Suspect:

I have to that I was excited about this quest at the beginning but disappointed at the end. Because Bioware had the opportunity to link this quest with "All That Remains" quests, where the decisions of "Prime Suspect" make significant impact on the possibility of saving Hawkes' mother. Instead of what we get is a minor connection between two quests, where killing Gascard DuPuis doesn't make any important impact at the final outcome.


Offered and Lost:

In this quest there is no difference in siding with or against Varnell. But getting "The Fixer" quest based on the players' choice is an interesting approach. Also it is good to see that the decision to support Varnell will make an impact on the "Following the Qun" quest, it gives the player at least a minor satisfaction of seeing the impact of
their decisions. But personally I would like to see a direct impact with the relationship of "Petrice" and that relationship status to play a role in the status of the Qunari problem in Kirkwall. May be that is too much to ask from Bioware.


Best Served Cold:

I believe according to the DA2 standards, this is one of the better quests that show the impact of decision making. Specially regarding the hostage; where the hostage may change according to Hawkes'siblings' status/ Hawkes' love interest/ Hawkes' friendship status with the companions. Even though it is not a major impact for the ending of this quest or any other quest, it is good to see that some decisions that Hawke made before change the hostage. Specially some things like "love interest status" or "friendship status" are not the things that we usually expect to make an impact on an quest. I believe the minor decisions that Hawke made at the end of this quest will appear in DA3.

Modifié par snfonseka, 08 juillet 2011 - 05:21 .

[snfonseka]

Seriously , no one is there to make an opinion regarding this? I thought I may be able to hear some interesting different (or same) viewpoints regarding this....

[alex90c]

Well yeah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head - Hawke does crap all during his time in Kirkwall.

Modifié par alex90c, 07 juillet 2011 - 01:18 .

[whykikyouwhy]

There have been numerous discussions on whether or not Hawke actually makes an impact in the events in Kirkwall, with people asserting opinions that run the gamut. Blame or credit, however you look at it, has been given to the writing, the mechanics, advertising, etc. And as such, this sort of becomes a "I liked/disliked the game because..."

For me, I saw Hawke as a character focused on certain hazy goals (saving his/her family) who comes to Kirkwall due to circumstances beyond his/her control. In attempting to make the best of things, she touches the lives of many - the companions, people in need, random citizens. That's where the true influence lies - the profound effect is seemingly in the microcosm vs the larger events of Kirkwall as a whole. There are some characters that make significant changes due to Hawke's intervention (the young elf girl in the Magistrate's Orders quest comes to mind).

Yes, some things are inevitable. That's true to life. Yes, different options would have been nice. But this is the story as we know it. Still, I think Hawke serves as that catalyst for many changes in Kirkwall, setting things in motion or helping them along, though in many ways just moving with the tide in the process. But there is "movement" there, and that's significant, imo.

[jlb524]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

There have been numerous discussions on whether or not Hawke actually makes an impact in the events in Kirkwall, with people asserting opinions that run the gamut. Blame or credit, however you look at it, has been given to the writing, the mechanics, advertising, etc. And as such, this sort of becomes a "I liked/disliked the game because..."

For me, I saw Hawke as a character focused on certain hazy goals (saving his/her family) who comes to Kirkwall due to circumstances beyond his/her control. In attempting to make the best of things, she touches the lives of many - the companions, people in need, random citizens. That's where the true influence lies - the profound effect is seemingly in the microcosm vs the larger events of Kirkwall as a whole. There are some characters that make significant changes due to Hawke's intervention (the young elf girl in the Magistrate's Orders quest comes to mind).

Yes, some things are inevitable. That's true to life. Yes, different options would have been nice. But this is the story as we know it. Still, I think Hawke serves as that catalyst for many changes in Kirkwall, setting things in motion or helping them along, though in many ways just moving with the tide in the process. But there is "movement" there, and that's significant, imo.

I agree with all this.  Nothing really to add here.

[JerHopp]

Act 2 has an impact as it made Hawke 'the Champion' of Kirkwall... It doesn't make 'an impact' but he now has the status of Champion and people regard him/her as such...

Edit: so a small impact:)

Modifié par JerHopp, 07 juillet 2011 - 02:40 .

[Maria Caliban]

Hawke's choices seem to have little to no impact on the events of the story save for the Circle being annulled or not.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I question how significant Hawke's influence is on certain NPCs, where whatever Hawke does to a person, does not affect the plot in any significant way. So it's again choices with little consequences, or consequences that really happen out-game.

If that's what DA2 was supposed to be, then they needed a lot more reactivity in that regard, at least to sell me on the idea that influencing a few random NPCs is interesting. Otherwise, they are the same choices as say Shepard in ME1 with the baby medicine thing, or the Warden with the casteless mother. They are both interesting and add to the game, but I would not say either game was about that, nor would I say DA2 did anything differently to improve on it.

[por favor]

I stopped caring about what decisions I made after a while. Made almost no difference whatsoever.

[schalafi]

I was getting a little tired of the "I am the hero, and the only one who can change the world" type of pc in rpgs. I found Hawke to be a less effective protagonist in DA2, and I kind of liked the change. How many people in real life have you heard of that are world changers, other than the obvious dictators, scientists, or philanthropists? In a game where your pc is given the option to make good, neutral, or evil choices it seemed that all the choices had the same outcome in the end, but even though Hawke really didn't change Kirkwall for better or worse, he/she had influenced many of the city's people, and in some way changed their lives. Also made some difference in the lives of his/her followers. Being the *savior of the world* is a too often used theme in rpgs and I liked that DA2 was a little different in that respect.

[Kaiser Shepard]

There were some decent decisions you could make, but pretty much all the notable ones were restricted by Hawke's personality. Apparently Diplomatic or Sarcastic Hawke can't side with Petrice against the qunari, just because they're mostly nice (or sarcastic) to their friends and companions.

[Big I]

schalafi wrote...
I was getting a little tired of the "I am the hero, and the only one who can change the world" type of pc in rpgs. I found Hawke to be a less effective protagonist in DA2, and I kind of liked the change. How many people in real life have you heard of that are world changers, other than the obvious dictators, scientists, or philanthropists?

Isn't that the point of playing the Champion of Kirkwall? Being on of those world changing people? This wasn't sold as being the story of some nameless soldier or detective who's just trying to survive in a world gone mad, but as charting Hawke's "rise to power" from ignoble roots. I don't mind that Hawke wasn't needed to stop a Blight, or whatever. I did mind that Hawke was essentially a bystander to the events of their own life.


As for how much impact Hawke has I agree with the OP on acts 1 and 3, but not with act 2. Hawke could kill the Arishok, kill the Arishok and the qunari, or let them leave without fighting them. All that was missing was an option to help them take over. Furthermore, getting to that last fight could take one of several routes. You could earn the Arishok's respect, ignore him, or join forces with Petrice against him. It's the one main game plot in DA2 that allows player input.

[Leon481]

To be fair, there were a lot of choices that have the potential to have a drastic and long reaching effect on future titles. As long as at least the major choices have some impact in the sequels, I'll be happy.

[Plaintiff]

snfonseka wrote...

Here I am trying to analyze how deep is the impact that the player can made to the DA2 story by select the choices that he/ she needs to take while playing the game. Before going into details I like to quote few lines from DA2 press release: “players will help tell that tale by making tough moral choices” and “The way you play will write the story of how the world is changed forever” are the key lines in that press release regarding the “impact of your choices”.

I'm not seeing the issue here, if you play DA2 you do, in fact, get to do both of those things.

The Last Straw (Act 3):

Here Hawke can take two different approaches; side with templars or side with mages. But the end result is almost the same: “No matter who the Champion sides with in the final battle, Hawke's name becomes a rallying cry for the mages. This sparks a successful rebellion at all the Circles against the Chantry, which it eventually loses control of. The templars also leave the Chantry to fight the mages in their own way” and both choices lead to “ the disappearance of Hawke from Kirkwall”. So basically the game ends in the same world state whether you have supported mages or templars.

So the players don’t feel “The way you play will write the story of how the world is changed forever” kind of feeling at the end. Because whatever the way you play the end result is the same thing.

But that doesn't change the fact that you decide how the story plays out. It was exactly the same in Origins. No matter what you decided to do, the archdemon was destroyed and Ferelden is saved. As you said yourself, the game ends in the same world state regardless. The only notable differences (at least so far) are very minor.

Demands of the Qun (Act 2):

Whether you allow the Qunari to leave Kirkwall or whether you slaughter them, doesn’t make an impact on the rest of the story of the game. The players won’t see any impact of that decision at the later stages of the game, so the players won’t feel any importance of their decision. The only noticeable impact that you can make is to allow the Qunari to take Isabela with them. But even that won’t change the games’ storyline instead players won’t have access Isabela as a companion.

"Only"? Last I checked, losing a companion is kind of a big deal. No, they are not going to alter the game's storyline too much, just like how Origins doesn't let you skip town and leave Fereldan to become a lifeless Blightland, because that would be stupid.

Instead what the players feel is "Events happens anyway and Hawke is there to change the way those events happens. But that won't change the outcome of those events."

Which is all I was expecting from the game in the first place, I don't feel that it was misrepresented in any way. It is not feasible to be given absolute control of the game world. For the sake of coherency they cannot allow you to write the ending however you like, your choices will always be limited, at best. That's just commonsense. You are playing a character, not a god. You control what Hawke does, not what anyone else does.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 08 juillet 2011 - 12:39 .

[Areksu]

Dragon Age: Origins gave you choices that impacted events. This game does not. The closest this game comes to that is the end dialogue, where you are either the champion of the mages or templars. That's really it. No one is asking for Hawke to be a god. We're asking for Hawke to have some storyline impact. I feel they would almost be better off not making an expansion, but adding all the unfinished plot points, skill trees, and character emphasis (such as emphasizing Ander's dislike for the chantry a bit more so players who don't scrutinize every detail aren't left staring blankly when he nukes the chantry).

[snfonseka]

Second part is updated.

[FieryDove]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I question how significant Hawke's influence is on certain NPCs, where whatever Hawke does to a person, does not affect the plot in any significant way. So it's again choices with little consequences, or consequences that really happen out-game.

 

Well Hawke can save a few lives, Ella etc., but other than that I agree. Some people seem to think Hawke defined/refined the companions depending on how they were treated, maybe...on some. I still think for example Mr. Boom Boom would have happened and sticky fingers would be sticky even if Hawke died in the blightlands.

Maria Caliban wrote...
Hawke's choices seem to have little to no impact on the events of the story save for the Circle being annulled or not.

The way it plays out that doesn't seem to make a difference either. Hundreds are slaughtered by templars and some get away to warn the other circles no matter which side you are on.
/facepalm torture for Orsino is required

[silentStatic]

As I see it Hawke does have an impact on his/her world, but choices the players make don't change much.

Much of the time you run into Mortens fork. The world would have been different without Hawke, but with him in it, his choices doesn't really really matter as long as he survives to the end.

This is also true to an extent in DA:O (Spoiler: The Archdemon dies and the blight is defeated), but they had the advantage of having the world hinge on the Warden (and there was a clear plan of what had to be done), while in the second game Hawke is just trying to live his life in Krikwall, and just sort of bumbles from one situation to the next being used and using the people around him. I often got the impression that the Bioware wirters first wrote the scenario backwards: First figuring out what they wanted from a quest, and then writing backwards one scene at a time until they got at where Hawke got the quest, leaving some of the quest stages rather forced.

The first template is far easier to write since we know it by heart and all its sub-tropes (and it's a nice power fantasy), while the second one is largely unexplored and unfamiliar (and in this case also not very well executed). I think Bioware should be commended on experimenting and shying away from a lot of their clichés, but in the end it was unsatisfying.

Modifié par silentStatic, 08 juillet 2011 - 08:46 .

[Sith Grey Warden]

Plaintiff wrote...

But that doesn't change the fact that you decide how the story plays out. It was exactly the same in Origins. No matter what you decided to do, the archdemon was destroyed and Ferelden is saved. As you said yourself, the game ends in the same world state regardless. The only notable differences (at least so far) are very minor.

You consider who the ruler of Ferelden is a minor difference? You consider the boon chosen a minor difference (homeland for the Dalish, greater representation for the City Elves, freeing the Circle, etc.)? And that's just the ending.

[ThatMan2112]

In Dragon Age 2, siding with the Templars or Mages makes very little difference. You still fight Orsino. You still fight Meredith. The Mages rebel, there is a war between the Mages and Templars. Nothing Hawke did really affects anything that could happen after the game.

In Origins, however, there were a few of those decisions. Deciding the Ruler of Ferelden can have a huge impact. Anora and Alistair are not going to rule the same way. The Warden also has the opportunity to have the child with Morrigan. That definitely is going to have a huge impact.

Also, earlier in the game, preserving or destroying the Anvil of the Void can be a huge deal. Deciding the King of Orzammar is a major decision as well. The last major decision I can think of that makes is capable of making an impact post-game is the Urn of Sacred Ashes. If you keep it's existence to yourself, no one finds out if that legend is real or a myth which makes a difference to the Chantry, scholars and other people in need of healing. Even killing the High Dragon makes a difference. If you kill it, all the people searching for the Urn can reach it safely. If you don't, there are a lot of people who die searching for it.

[Plaintiff]

Sith Grey Warden wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

But that doesn't change the fact that you decide how the story plays out. It was exactly the same in Origins. No matter what you decided to do, the archdemon was destroyed and Ferelden is saved. As you said yourself, the game ends in the same world state regardless. The only notable differences (at least so far) are very minor.

You consider who the ruler of Ferelden is a minor difference? You consider the boon chosen a minor difference (homeland for the Dalish, greater representation for the City Elves, freeing the Circle, etc.)? And that's just the ending.

Yes, extremely minor. The series will likely never return to Ferelden, making its ruler rather a moot point and even if it does, your choices for Ferelden's ruler are stopgap measures at best. Anora is barren and Alistair's capability for siring children is severly reduced by exposure to the Darkspawn taint, so the throne of Ferelden will soon be up for grabs regardless.

The boon is also irrelevent because, as the epilogue slides show you, anything you ask for is soon undone (with the exception of 'land for the Greywardens, which happens anyway, to facilitate Awakening). The Dalish do not get to hold on to their homeland and the Chantry opposes the freedom of the Circle so vehemently that the King/Queen is forced to back down. So yes, minor decision.

We're talking about how our choices change the story, there is by no means any guarantee that a decision will have more impact because it involves a king instead of a peasant or a whole country instead of a village.

[whykikyouwhy]

Plaintiff wrote...
Yes, extremely minor. The series will likely never return to Ferelden, making its ruler rather a moot point and even if it does, your choices for Ferelden's ruler are stopgap measures at best. Anora is barren and Alistair's capability for siring children is severly reduced by exposure to the Darkspawn taint, so the throne of Ferelden will soon be up for grabs regardless.

The boon is also irrelevent because, as the epilogue slides show you, anything you ask for is soon undone (with the exception of 'land for the Greywardens, which happens anyway, to facilitate Awakening). The Dalish do not get to hold on to their homeland and the Chantry opposes the freedom of the Circle so vehemently that the King/Queen is forced to back down. So yes, minor decision.

We're talking about how our choices change the story, there is by no means any guarantee that a decision will have more impact because it involves a king instead of a peasant or a whole country instead of a village.

Yes, the throne may be up for grabs at some point. But it may not. Through magic or the Maker's intervention, there may be children born unto the line, who knows. And if you played a female Warden who signs on as Alistair's lover, there could be that means for continuing the lineage as well. Thrones change hands all the time, but who is on the throne can have a tremendous impact during his/her term. So your actions could have put other actions into motion.

As for the boon, that goes along with the domino analogy - just about everything can influence something else. Bodies in motion and all of that. As the Hero of Fereldan, you  may not have immediately seen the results of the boon, or the epilogue reveals some undermining of your efforts or desires, but the epilogues are summaries - they give highlights. All manner of things could come into play in the years ahead.

The story is malleable at this point because we don't know the ending. It's in flux. We're being given bits and pieces as we move along, so we may not be able to readily see the actual influence of characters like Hawke - not in a broad scope at least. But I'm sticking by the dominoes, the trigger effect - one action, or a series of actions, could promote the start of another series of actions, and so forth. Yes, that's all hazy and vague. But it's movement. Stagnation is what yields nothing. Hawke may not be the most proactive characters, but he/she did move and act.

[schalafi]

In Origins, can you have a choice NOT to kill the high dragon?

[whykikyouwhy]

schalafi wrote...

In Origins, can you have a choice NOT to kill the high dragon?

So long as you don't use Kolgrim's Horn, you can avoid the fight with the High Dragon.

Modifié par whykikyouwhy, 10 juillet 2011 - 11:39 .