mrcrusty wrote...
But what you're arguing here is not about choices within the narrative, what you're asking for is a choice to be honored that contradicts with the premise of the narrative.
I'm not at all. It would be one thing if we
start the game post-Ostagar, as veteran Grey Wardens. But we don't. We start the game as something entirely different than a Grey Warden. Depending on the origin, you're either forced by circumstance or coerced by Duncan to go along with him - but there's no real reason given for your willingness to actually drink from the Joining chalice, especially after what happens with Duncan and Jory.
It's certainly against wha Bioware want the narrative to be, but not what they present as the narrative to the player.
To which I say is impossible in a story driven game. What if Hawke didn't want to go to Kirkwall? What if Geralt didn't want to run after Triss or Letho? What if the Nameless One didn't want to regain his memories?
But these are things that set the tone for the start of the game. A better parallel is, what if Hawke wants to do something about the Meredith once becoming Champion?
All story driven games are railroaded to some point, but how much freedom are you given within that narrative is the important aspect here. Personally, a cutscene along with a non-canon ending for such a decision would be appreciated, but unless you design an entirely player driven, open ended narrative, there will be railroading especially when it comes to the premise of the narrative. Even games like Fallout railroad you.
There is a difference between being railroaded by circumstance and by authorial fiat. Here's a great reason to undertake the Joining (no matter what): if you are a Dalish elf and so infected with the taint. It is literally do it or die.
You can railroad the player effectively and poorly. DA:O mostly did it poorly, and so did DA2. It was about having to do it and coming up with a reason, versus having the situation such that you
need to do it.
I agree but undoubtedly Origins handled it better, even if only through text because in that case, the game at least acknowledges the choices you made.
But DA2 does this! Even the biggest offender (The Act of Mercy Chain)
acknowledges what Hawke did, and you even get a different Act 2 sidequest for it (the mage board or the fugitive hunting). Characters reference your actions. But they're all overwritten by circumstance. DA:O was very anti-reactivity, and so long as that design is praised, then DA2 can't be criticized on grounds of lacking reactivty. At best, alll you can say is that DA2 had the wrong flavour of illusion of choice.
It also altered your endgame army composition, which can be pretty significant (or not, depending on how things pan out).
It's not at all. The army is entirely irrelevant story wise vis a vis your success, and gameplay wise if you're halfway compentent (never had to use the army on nightmare).
Neither game is very reactive, but Origins was more reactive in Dragon Age 2.
Again, disagree.
Also, I don't think a branching narrative is all that necessary. It's really a matter of choice and consequence. In the case of Origins, what I'd like to see was the Harrowmont/Bhelen choice could have affects on the economy, particularly from Dwarven merchants, your decision in the Brecilian Forest could lead to a couple of random encounters, or human refugees (Werewolves) in Denerim which you can talk with and so forth, with perhaps an "after the fact" type questline depending on your choices. Nothing that alters the greater narrative, but something much more significant.
Well, sure. But DA:O has none of this. I agree with you that branching narratives isn't needed (although I like that as a feature).
Neither Origins or Dragon Age 2 handles it well, but Origins at least tries to maintain that there are consequences to your choices.
So does DA2. It has consequences for Hawke - it's just the
player who knows the content is identical. What you're asking for is satisfying for the player, but DA:O didn't have satisfication for the player. The standard is very problematic.
Whereas in many areas, Dragon Age 2 dispenses with that completely (either by taking away choices or by removing consequence) and there are even people who claim that this is actually done intentionally to drive the thematic aspects of Dragon Age 2. I prefer unintended consequences, myself. A good implementation of this was Fallout 3's Tenpenny Tower quest when you get the "ideal" solution and convince the Ghouls to live in the Tower peacefully.
But DA:O just dispenses with it by not showing the consequence and writing a blurb about it. If DA2 had "Act Blurbs" where it described the consequences of what Hawke did do you think that would be somehow make DA2 more reactive?
Retour en haut
)
