583 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Do choices affect DAII's plot in the grand scope of things? No, except for the ending choice.

Mild DAII spoilers in post, not major ones.

But, think, its no different from DAO or any Bioware game. You cannot change the plot until the end. In BGII, you cannot change the plot, and has one ending, multiple endings in Throne of Bhaal. In Jade Empire, you cannot change the plot until the very end. In KOTOR, same thing. In both Mass Effects, consquences are only really promised in the third game. Very little choices change the plot. Hopefully in the third game, choices actually matter as we have to finally deal with the consquences.

DAII is no different from the average WRPG that is story driven. Planescape Torment had a set story and one ending despite anything you do...its always Blood War for the Nameless One. Deus Ex had a railroaded plot where choices mean little until the every end. Choice matter here in there, but not in the grand scope of things. DX: Invisble War while improved in choice and consquence, still had no plot change from choices until endgame. One ending in all main Ultima games (except for Black Gate which has two), with a set plot in all of them. Vampire TM Bloodlines...same, not until the end.

Its the games that have choices change the plot that stick out. The Witcher games is one example, with the second being even better than the first. Alpha Protocol while a busted game, was another. Fallout New Vegas is another, even better than the Black Isle ones at choices affecting things. A major JRPG example is Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together, where the decision whether or not to aid a horrific false flag operation leads you down two distinct paths where enemies in one path can be allies in another. Add another decision in the Chaotic route that splits into two more paths, a horrific decision in the Lawful Path (in the original not PSP version) in whether or not to kill a character that has every right to oppose you (you get the most important spell in the game by killing her, but she is far from an evil character who is trying to avenge her brothers death you had a hand in). Add the fact that characters killed in battle for the most part stay dead and the death of one particular character changes the ending as well as the moments leading up before.

And how is DAO allow you to change the plot with your decisions? It doesn't. Except for what fodder you bring to the final battle or the Fallout style ending card of a result you are told not shown, outside one instance in the midgame, your choices don't really matter until the very end. Its just like any other Bioware game. The difference to DAII is that DAII's choices are more personal instead of grand, and they present the consquences to you ingame instead of an ending card after the game finishes. Characters live or die based your choices. Characters may show up to thank you, write you a letter, or open of exclusive quests based on your decisions. The choice and consquence of DAII is more in the side quests than in the main quest, until the very end, just like most WRPGs and Bioware games. DAO was no different except for the fact that you are forced to play most of the side stories. Take "Night Terrors" in Act II for instance in DAII. The consquences can either be, a tranquil Fenryial in the Gallows, a possesed Fenryial roaming around, or Fenryial writing a thank you letter from Tevinter. Instead of showing an ending card of what happens to him, you are shown what happens.  The choice and consquences are more personal outcomes than epic society changing ones, which gives the illusion that choices don't matter at all.

What DAII could have had is have an opening choice in Act II and Act III alter the entire act. Imagine two different Act II's, one on the Chantry side and one on the Qunari side, and two different entire Act III's, Mages and Templar's respectively, but allow you to bunny hop after the climatic moment. Thats what DAII could have done. But its choice and consquence format is no different from any other Bioware game, with the only substantial choice of choices that affect the main plot being at the very end.

Criticizing the lack of choice and consquence in the main plot in DAII because it fails to match some RPG like The Witcher 2, that does have plot altering decisions, or to rise above the common Bioware stock is a valid criticism. But saying that DAII has less choice and consquence than most WRPGs is unknowledgable and hypocritical.

Bioware is far better with choices than with consquences..its always been like this. Hopefully Mass Effect 3 changes that.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 12 juillet 2011 - 03:05 .

[OdanUrr]

Uhh... how does DA2 compare to JE? At least JE has two very different endings as opposed to DA2's one. That's at least twice as much!

EDIT: Unfortunately, I see your point. BUT... and here's the icing on the cake... DA2 evolves over ten or so years! Most WRPGs that I know (I don't claim to know them all) follow the PC over a short and continuous period of time. Over ten years, choices should have visible consequences.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 12 juillet 2011 - 03:13 .

[txgoldrush]

OdanUrr wrote...

Uhh... how does DA2 compare to JE? At least JE has two very different endings as opposed to DA2's one. That's at least twice as much!

DAII had two endings and two endgames....there is no one ending for Hawke's story. For the outside frame, yes, for the inside of the frame, no.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I think it's less about the narrative impact you actually have but rather, how little the game (narrative being part of them) reacts to you and your decisions.

While branching narrative ala Witcher 2 is incredibly rare, Dragon Age 2 sticks out as particularly notorious for offering a choice, then disregarding it or otherwise make it blatantly obvious that there are other options available, but then deny the player access to them because "the plot demands it". I think the player's interaction with the Arishok and how to deal with the Qunari problem are the exception to this, but unfortunately, the Qunari were not part of the main narrative (that being Mage/Templar/Kirkwall conflict).

Other games, such as Origins first give those choices and then honors them. While the epilogue slides are probably the least satisfying method in which to accomplish this, it is still there.

I think that what people are arguing comes down to reactivity. Whether you are able to impact the gameworld (and by extension, the narrative) through your choices. Dragon Age 2 has little (if any) reactivity. Other games like Origins, while imperfect, are still superior to Dragon Age 2 in this aspect. Not saying that Origins was a reactive game where your choices felt like it really mattered (it wasn't really), but it felt more reactive than Dragon Age 2. There was some of this in Dragon Age 2, but there wasn't enough, frankly.

Though I've yet to see a game top Arcanum on sheer reactivity.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 12 juillet 2011 - 03:33 .

[Myzzrimm]

Indeed. I mean, as you said, planescape had but one ending. Same with baldur's gate and shadows of amn. You kill your half brother, and irenicus, respectively. And I *love* those games.

I really don't see why entitlement is so rampant in these forums when most of biowares games had little to no choices until the very end.

[OdanUrr]

mrcrusty wrote...

Though I've yet to see a game top Arcanum on sheer reactivity.

Seconded.

And we're talking about a game that was made over a decade ago, in less time and with fewer resources... just saying.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 12 juillet 2011 - 03:34 .

[Gallimatia]

The lack of player influence on the world is more blatant when you have the game take place in one area and over a long period of time. You won't expect what the Warden does in Orzammar to effect some dalish clan. You won't even expect chosing one King over another to have an immediate impact on Orzammar itself. Hawke is running around in the same place for a decade without effecting anything.

When they gave the hubs (here acts) a distinct place on the time line and a fixed order they created an opportunity to have choices matter that is fundamentally missing in previous titles because of their patchwork nature. They did not use it well.

[Myzzrimm]

To be fair, in the baldur's gate trilogy, you could literally take *years* to finish the main quest.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Yes, the problem is magnified from the small scope in location and the large scope in timeline.

One example, Ferelden refugees. Another, Coterie. One more, the Alienage. Another, the Nobility. Specific quests? Magistrate's Son. What else? The Bone Pit. And so forth.

The main narrative itself doesn't need to change, the game just needs to show reactivity to your choices (and offer them, for one). Origins was not stellar, but due to the scale in time and scope, Dragon Age 2 was much worse.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 12 juillet 2011 - 03:40 .

[Dave of Canada]

OdanUrr wrote...
Seconded.

And we're talking about a game that was made over a decade ago, in less time and with fewer resources... just saying.

Over a decade ago, games took less time, people and resources to make. Just saying.

[MeAndMySandvich]

Filament wrote...

I'm pretty sure Torment had multiple endings...

This. Also, as people mentioned, it's more about individual choices having impact on the game at all - the storyline doesn't even need to branch to accomplish this.

[MeAndMySandvich]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Over a decade ago, games took less time, people and resources to make. Just saying.

They made Witcher 2 on like a third of DA2's budget.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

The problem with Dragon Age 2 is that it liked to present itself as a game where the PC's choices would change Thedas forever.

And to be fair they do. It's just...no matter *what* your choices are (mage/templar), Thedas is changed in pretty much exactly the same way. It doesn't sit well. Origins might have had a 'The blight is over' finale, but thanks to Morrigan's choice it could end *very* differently for some players. And the boon scene implied further changes.

I don't need multiple endgames to have a good time. Some of my all time favourites don't even provide such. But when a game promotes itself as being reactive to choice, I expect it to be.

It's like 'Morrigan's secrets revealed!' with Witch Hunt, when they really weren't.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Filament wrote...

I'm pretty sure Torment had multiple endings...

It didn't. It was planned and there's even music for them, but only one ending made the final cut.

[erynnar]

What Filament,Shadow, and mrcrusty said.

[OdanUrr]

I felt that the OP merited a longer and more thought out reply so here it is.

On DA2's choices having less impact than in other Bioware titles...

The question we need to ask ourselves is, what kind of impact? Short-term or long-term? Small-scale or large-scale? Is it a choice that will ripple through time and have an impact on a large number of people? Perhaps it's more immediate and affects just a handful?

Before we deal with these questions, I believe we need to address another issue first, that is the one of the hero's journey as has been, so far, depicted by most (I can't comfortably say all) of Bioware's titles. In most Bioware titles there's a hero, the PC, and that hero is handed a mission, he's given a goal, something to pursue. Granted, that goal may change over time, like that twist in JE or what the hero's supposed to do once he has all the sword shards in NWN2, but the PC always has an endgame at any given point in time. It's why we play these games, because we want to get to what we think will be the end of our journey, whether that means defeating Darth Malak, overthrowing a cunning Emperor, or killing the Archdemon.

What happens when you take that away? When there's no clear endgame, when you're given some leeway over what your goal will be? Well, the player will undoubtedly seize this chance at freedom and forge a story of his own that will bank heavily on his choices throughout the game. Now we can talk impact.

When there's no ultimate goal in sight, choices should matter. How can we show this? How do we measure this? By the consequences of our actions on our surroundings, our companions. Granted, time places a restriction on the extent of these consequences, but DA2 can't really make this claim seeing as it spans ten or so years. Ferelden won't have changed much a day after you've killed the Archdemon, but it probably will in a year. A gift to a companion may lead to short-term friendship which can quickly devolve into apathy or even hatred if you belittle that companion's choices or points of view time and time again. But with no endgame to look forward to, we want, we crave, our choices to have powerful and lasting consequences on those around us. In the end, we want to matter in some sort of heroic or epic way.

Dragon Age II has a set of choices and consequences. It wouldn't be an RPG if it didn't. It's just that in the absence of the fabled hero's journey, we seek a way to compensate for this. What do we do then? We look to the mechanics of choices, and DA2's set of choices and consequences doesn't measure up. Yes, we can change the lives of those around us in some small way, maybe even a large way, but we can't change those events we yearn to change, like the loss of loved ones or the mass murdering of innocents. When that happens, it makes us angry, sad, unfulfilled.

In an RPG you want to be a hero. I know I do. Failing that, I want my choices to have some lasting and powerful impact in the world around me. With those two elements gone, you're left with a character that serves as a plot device, nothing more, a character that's more an observer, seeing events unfold around him and yet powerless to steer them in one direction or the other. This is not the reason why I play role-playing games set in fantastical worlds, the real world is filled with such stories as it is.

Perhaps future installments will advance Hawke's tale. Perhaps he will become that famed hero. Perhaps this is only the beginning of his journey. I hope so. I hope that somewhere down the road, the Champion of Kirkwall becomes the hero I know he can be.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 12 juillet 2011 - 04:19 .

[bobthecrusher]

Just want to get this out here: Whatever you choose [blank] goes crazy and kills everyone and [blank] goes crazy and kills everyone [blank] still blows up the [blank] and the only real choice is whether or not [a certain blank pirate] dies. Everything involving the [blank and blank] are completely set in stone, all of the [blank] dies, all of them, no matter what. A certain [blank ruler] always dies. And everything out of the frame {which is all that matters) is the same as well.

[upsettingshorts]

Despite the fact I agree almost entirely with the OP, the problem I think is that Dragon Age II ought to have been more reactive given the broadly fixed protagonist, narrowly focused setting, and timeskips. In fact, I expected so much prelaunch. That the game did not take advantage of these more static and predictable elements to make the game more reactive is disappointing.  This issue is compounded by the fact that in marketing the game, they explicitly claimed that it would be and failed to deliver.

There are plenty of interesting decisions for Hawke to make that either primarly have an impact on his or her characterization - something the Warden in my opinion rarely got to do - or other decisions which might have long term implications or might not, but since there are no epilogue cards to point out which ones these might be, we can't be as sure of our own impact on people and events as we might have been with Origins.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 juillet 2011 - 04:55 .

[DaggerFiend]

OdanUrr wrote...

... a character that's more an observer, seeing events unfold around him and yet powerless to steer them in one direction or the other. This is not the reason why I play role-playing games set in fantastical worlds, the real world is filled with such stories as it is. 

When I read this, I felt compelled to say "That's the point." I think you're 100% right on what you said, the lack of goal as a hero, the lack of influence on the world and the city, but that was ultimately the point, to show how the "Champion" got sucked into a conflict and "resolved" it. Notice the key words here. The game is about how. How Hawke handled the Qunari situation, how Hawke reacted to the issue with the mages, how Hawke is affected by his friends and family and whatnot. Really, the Role-Playing part of this game is deciding who Hawke is, and what choices Hawke makes, not the results of what happened. "Your precious Chantry has fallen to pieces..." It's a framed narrative, you're supposed to know the results more or less from the get-go.

Whether that's good or bad in an RPG, I won't argue.

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
While branching narrative ala Witcher 2 is incredibly rare, Dragon Age 2 sticks out as particularly notorious for offering a choice, then disregarding it or otherwise make it blatantly obvious that there are other options available, but then deny the player access to them because "the plot demands it". I think the player's interaction with the Arishok and how to deal with the Qunari problem are the exception to this, but unfortunately, the Qunari were not part of the main narrative (that being Mage/Templar/Kirkwall conflict).

This is how DA:O handled any choice it actually had to show in-game. If you refuse to join the Wardens, Duncan conscripts you. If you refuse to go along with the treaty plan, Flemeth and Alistair push you into it. It comes back to the same thing.

Other games, such as Origins first give those choices and then honors them. While the epilogue slides are probably the least satisfying method in which to accomplish this, it is still there.

Origins cheats, though, by not showing them in-game. DA:O got praise for the choice, even though it essentially had only an end-quest choice that was never referenced again in the game except for the epilogue and the praise that it got is what led Bioware to the "it's the choice that matters, not the consequence" approach of DA2. Because Bioware never was in the business of actually creating branching paths.

I think that what people are arguing comes down to reactivity. Whether you are able to impact the gameworld (and by extension, the narrative) through your choices. Dragon Age 2 has little (if any) reactivity. Other games like Origins, while imperfect, are still superior to Dragon Age 2 in this aspect. Not saying that Origins was a reactive game where your choices felt like it really mattered (it wasn't really), but it felt more reactive than Dragon Age 2. There was some of this in Dragon Age 2, but there wasn't enough, frankly.

I want to restate this, beacause I think the real problem with DA2 comes from thinking that DA:O was reactive. It really, really wasn't. It treated all origins the same after Ostagar and gave essentially identical content. It had lines of dialogue (as throwaways) but otherwise treated everyone the same, which paved the way for anti-reactive Mage Hawke.

[Anarya]

There could have been some compromise there. Upon finishing the game there were things I was so sure could have gone down differently and I was both surprised and disappointed to find out that what I'd done didn't ultimately matter.

Which I guess raises the question of whether that's acceptable for the average player, who plays a game one time (or doesn't even finish), and doesn't discuss the game on messageboards, and who therefore would never actually find out how much choice is actually allowed for in the game. I think the illusion of choice/consequence is there and it's only if you do some digging or discuss the game with friends that it breaks down.

Still I was disappointed. I felt like there could have been alternate outcomes for some of the side- and companion quests (Merrill's springs to mind) even if they wanted to keep some elements of the plot immutable (the ending, the Leandra questline).

Modifié par Anarya, 12 juillet 2011 - 05:05 .

[MeAndMySandvich]

DaggerFiend wrote...

When I read this, I felt compelled to say "That's the point." I think you're 100% right on what you said, the lack of goal as a hero, the lack of influence on the world and the city, but that was ultimately the point, to show how the "Champion" got sucked into a conflict and "resolved" it. Notice the key words here. The game is about how. How Hawke handled the Qunari situation, how Hawke reacted to the issue with the mages, how Hawke is affected by his friends and family and whatnot. Really, the Role-Playing part of this game is deciding who Hawke is, and what choices Hawke makes, not the results of what happened. "Your precious Chantry has fallen to pieces..." It's a framed narrative, you're supposed to know the results more or less from the get-go.

Whether that's good or bad in an RPG, I won't argue.

There is many ways to convey feeling of powerlessness without causality having to take it up arse. Look at Witcher 1 - your choices have real consequences, but you are drop in ocean that is ultimately powerless to change world. Conveys feeling of powerlessness while maintaining relationship between choice and consequence.

[upsettingshorts]

The Witcher 1 was even more fixed and even more linear than Dragon Age II, so it allowed for that.

It'd be much more difficult for the game to react to say, the decision to give the Squirrels the supplies by the river if you could have entered Vizima before completing the Outskirts. As it stands, you had to complete the Outskirts mainquest - which included said section - before entering the city, and the next chapter's state of affairs could reflect this.

Even then, someone still tries to kill the King at the end and Geralt stops him, correct?  I only finished the game once.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 juillet 2011 - 05:09 .