583 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
Something to think about. I find myself agreeing in theory, but my own experiences of the games were vastly different.

How much did you buy into the plot of DA:O? I find you feel the most railroaded when you don't buy into the premise.

Perhaps it's better presented, or there are enough consequences in key areas to hold it together?

Honestly, I think it's 3 things:

1) The choices all happen at the end of the quest - there's nowhere else to go or see, and you can't wait around for your consequences (there's no expectation of this!). So DA:O isn't under pressure to perform.
2) The choices all seem like they should be impressive. Whatever it is that Hawke does with Act of Mercy or Night Terrors, it isn't choosing who rules the dwarves or who rules Ferelden.
3) DA:O had epilogues, and references the major decisions + some minor random ones; that creates the sense that the story continues, even though really the game doesn't acknowledge any of these things. 

Because I did feel like my choices in Origins were being honored, whereas Dragon Age 2 took a lot of that away.

I really liked DA:O after playing it with my mage, until the dark ritual (and the bit about what it means to be a Grey Wardem before it). That was such a huge "gotcha!" that it nearly broke the game for me. It soured me on my mage so I re-rolled a human noble. Same basic character concept, though. 

I end up getting kidnapped by Duncan, forced through the Joining, and since I'm running with relunctant hero this time, I find out the plot is pretty badly railroaded. The content is basically the same minus 1-2 mage dialogues, but I'm cool with that. I'm waiting for my epic showdown with Arl Howe, and my chance to be King of Ferelden.

.... only that never happens. Anora offers you the chance to marry her and be her boy-toy, but that's it. You can't (for example) try to depose her and convince Alistair to support your claim directly. And the Landsmeet has no unique content for you. Worse yet, even Arl Howe has no new content for you.

That's what made DA:O feel very not-reactive.

It would be similar to Landsmeet giving you a choice in how you defend yourself, how you deal with Loghain and all the related areas like the Ritual, the Throne, etc. Then having all of that play out almost exactly the same regardless of what you do, with the only difference being in whether your Warden stayed afterwards to help rebuild Denerim or not. That would certainly ****** me off and tar my perception of Origins as a whole.

But that's pretty much what happens. You get a slightly different ruler... but otherwise that's it, minus the epilogue slides. 

[In Exile]

Gallimatia wrote...
What happens with Jory has always been what explained my willingness to drink from the chalice. If you don't Duncan will cut you down, without a second thought or trying to reason with you. In fact I think this is Jory's reason for living. He exists to show that it's a drink or die situation for everyone, not just the dalish.

Or you can just try to kill Duncan and Alistair. You already know Alistair isn't much better at the stabbing thing than you, so it really means it's just you vs. Duncan. And Duncan isn't that impressive. There's no reason why drinking the poison you just saw killl a man makes more sense than trying to kill the murderer.

[Gallimatia]

Wouldn't there be more Wardens present? This can't be the first Joining to go down badly and I have to imagine they would be prepared. Even if that's not the case I'm not likeing my odds in a 1vs2 against Duncan and Alistair. I wouldn't have used it but I suppose it could have been a nice option, if nothing else a unique game over could have been the consequence.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Filament wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

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

Oh... is there some kind of mod for that? I could have sworn... there was a discussion somewhere about its multiple endings, one where you're stuck in the Blood War, one where... maybe I'm thinking of some other game.

"..." One more ellipsis to really drive the point home.

There has been discussion--I remember it too AFAIK those were the planned scenarios that didn't make it. Only endgame that made it was the Blood War one, I think. Been a while.

I don't know if there are any mods to remedy this, unfortunately. :/  A quick check of Youtube only yielded the one endgame.

[Corto81]

Comparing DA2 to pretty much any of the well-known titles is silly... be it BG, BG2, Origins or TW2.

Putting the obvious out of the way (Witcher 2 where your decisions actually change the game you play), BG2 and Origins and KOTOR were done so much better than DA2 it's not even remotely comparable.

IMO, you can't argue it in limbo, it has to be put into context.

BG/BG2, KOTOR, Origins, etc.... vs DA2:
- overraching plot vs a string of events that happen around Hawke
- big worlds vs tiny Kirkwall
- a chance to explore certain areas vs running from exclamation mark to exclamation mark on the same re-used map
- believable worlds vs a world that feels it's there cos you need to level and gain xp
(MMO comparison: EQ vs Rift... a world where you can explore anything, compared to a world where the doors are painted on, no NPC exist just because he's there and going around his business, only traders/quest givers etc... a completely "fake" feeling to the world)
- most importantly, as far as choices go: from Act 1 onwards you get shoved down your throat in a most obvious manner that you're to choose between mages and templars... and when you do, it doesn't effect anything...
While choices in Origins, for example, were mostly cosmetic, they were there... And in a limited CRPG, choices in Origins were enough to give you an illusion of being a part of that world

(or you can take things out of context and play dumb and say you wanted to kill Duncan etc... Games are limited and you know it.... It's possible in paper DnD with your buddies, but computer games will be limited)

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

mrcrusty wrote...

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.

Ever played Ultima 7: The Black Gate? The entire plot is driven towards stopping this extradimensional being of awesome and evil power entering the world via a gate constructed by his minions. Destroying that gate is the canon ending. You get a cinematic, and the sequel to the game follows from there.

But there is also a non-canon ending. You can choose to enter the gate yourself and return to your own world--the only way home there is, apparently. Doing so gives you a short sequence of text summarising that you go home and never hear from the world you abandoned ever again.

Which was awesome. It was so *little* but that tine bit of freedom to see 'what would have happened' was special because the devs thought the choice should be there...and the villain was tempting you to choose in order to prevent you from being the sacrificing hero.

It's why I wish you could have refused the Joining, even if it means Duncan kills you. Game over, but YAY, choice and consequence! RPGs seem to shy away from letting the hero perish in any way but combat these days.

[csfteeeer]

Corto81 wrote...

Comparing DA2 to pretty much any of the well-known titles is silly... be it BG, BG2, Origins or TW2.

Putting the obvious out of the way (Witcher 2 where your decisions actually change the game you play), BG2 and Origins and KOTOR were done so much better than DA2 it's not even remotely comparable.

IMO, you can't argue it in limbo, it has to be put into context.

BG/BG2, KOTOR, Origins, etc.... vs DA2:
- overraching plot vs a string of events that happen around Hawke
- big worlds vs tiny Kirkwall
- a chance to explore certain areas vs running from exclamation mark to exclamation mark on the same re-used map
- believable worlds vs a world that feels it's there cos you need to level and gain xp
(MMO comparison: EQ vs Rift... a world where you can explore anything, compared to a world where the doors are painted on, no NPC exist just because he's there and going around his business, only traders/quest givers etc... a completely "fake" feeling to the world)
- most importantly, as far as choices go: from Act 1 onwards you get shoved down your throat in a most obvious manner that you're to choose between mages and templars... and when you do, it doesn't effect anything...
While choices in Origins, for example, were mostly cosmetic, they were there... And in a limited CRPG, choices in Origins were enough to give you an illusion of being a part of that world

(or you can take things out of context and play dumb and say you wanted to kill Duncan etc... Games are limited and you know it.... It's possible in paper DnD with your buddies, but computer games will be limited)

Well to be fair, BG2 is located in a City (i can't remember if BG1 was too), although they are much bigger, not to mention that just one section feels more alive (yeah, a game from 10 years ago feels more alive than a game from 2011...) and Interesting that the HOLE city of Kirkwall, which was boring and lifeless.

Modifié par csfteeeer, 12 juillet 2011 - 07:40 .

[txgoldrush]

mordarwarlock wrote...

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.

ummm no

you choose templars?, well, you kill orsino AND you kill meredith

you choose Mages?, well..you kill orsino AND you kill meredith

stop with that nonsense, there's only one outcome to anything you do in DA2, no matter which side you pick you get the same ending, the same people to kill and the same reason for you to kill them

Wrong.....in the Templar end you become viscount...in the mage end, you become an outcast. You are either a rallying cry for mages freedom or oppression.

Orsino and Meredith destory themselves and turn on their own side due to their vices, just because you fight both doesn't mean the endings aren't different.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
snip

Fallout 1 has the exact same thing, where you can decide to join with The Master. A short clip plays of you being dipped in a vat of FEV. It then cuts to a clip of your Vault being mowed down by a group of Super Mutants.

But that's exactly that, a non-canon ending. What I think In Exile wants is a way for the canon narrative to react to such a decision. I did say previously in the thread, that a short clip of the Blight overrunning Ferelden with your Warden escaping through the mountains or something would be appreciated.

[upsettingshorts]

Corto81 wrote...

- overraching plot vs a string of events that happen around Hawke

Define what you mean by this.

Corto81 wrote...

- believable worlds vs a world that feels it's there cos you need to level and gain xp

Another way to put this is "a world I buy into vs. a world I don't buy into."

Corto81 wrote...

or you can take things out of context

Heh, the irony.

[Theagg]

In Exile wrote...

Gallimatia wrote...
What happens with Jory has always been what explained my willingness to drink from the chalice. If you don't Duncan will cut you down, without a second thought or trying to reason with you. In fact I think this is Jory's reason for living. He exists to show that it's a drink or die situation for everyone, not just the dalish.

Or you can just try to kill Duncan and Alistair. You already know Alistair isn't much better at the stabbing thing than you, so it really means it's just you vs. Duncan. And Duncan isn't that impressive. There's no reason why drinking the poison you just saw killl a man makes more sense than trying to kill the murderer.

Yes, on my first playthrough when this moment came up my impressions were leave, get out and more to the point, Duncan is a psychotic blood cult leader and I want some way to punish him for what I just saw him do to Jory..

No such options were presented

[Theagg]

Gallimatia wrote...

Wouldn't there be more Wardens present? This can't be the first Joining to go down badly and I have to imagine they would be prepared. Even if that's not the case I'm not likeing my odds in a 1vs2 against Duncan and Alistair. I wouldn't have used it but I suppose it could have been a nice option, if nothing else a unique game over could have been the consequence.

Well, look at it like this, you have seen a man die from drinking the stuff, then a man hacked down for not drinking it.

So at that point, racing through your mind are probably two thoughts.

1]With no other evidence to the contrary, it looks like drinking the stuff is immediately fatal.

2]However, you might fancy your chances in a fight in order to neccesitate an escape. You might die in the process but you may well think its the least dangerous of the two options.

[Theagg]

txgoldrush wrote...

Wrong.....in the Templar end you become viscount...in the mage end, you become an outcast. You are either a rallying cry for mages freedom or oppression.

Orsino and Meredith destory themselves and turn on their own side due to their vices, just because you fight both doesn't mean the endings aren't different.

Yes, people seem to be forgetting that. Now had an epilogue card appeared for both of those events, the discussion would be somewhat different. Its those epilogue cards in Origins that are maintaining the illusion of choice in Origins.

[Corto81]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

- overraching plot vs a string of events that happen around Hawke

Define what you mean by this.

Corto81 wrote...

- believable worlds vs a world that feels it's there cos you need to level and gain xp

Another way to put this is "a world I buy into vs. a world I don't buy into."

Corto81 wrote...

or you can take things out of context

Heh, the irony.

Overarching plot?
A story that connects the start to the ending, something to strive for and aspire to...
Not just stumble about like in DA2, very reminiscent of recent MMOs like WoW and Rift.. Not even a huge quest to aspire to like in EQ with epic weapons of something.
No quest takes longer than 10-15 minutes, you port somewhere, you kill some stuff where the exclamation point is, you go back. The quests are disconnected in their stories, simplified, there's no exploration or reseach, etc.
Anyway, yeah... It's very MMO-type, even to the scripted silly boss-battles.

Believable world?
No, I don't think it has anything to do with me "buying into or not buying into a world", especially not on any agenda I might have - which I don't... I loved Origins, I wanted to love DA2.
BG, BG2, Origins, Witcher 2, etc.... Feel like worlds that exist and you happen to be born into it and live out your adventure.
DA2 feels like it was created for you to quest in and gain XP and levels. There are no areas to explore, no "meaningless" NPC who just go about their day, barred doors everywhere you go, etc.
Not sure what's so hard to understand there tbh.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...

Honestly, I think it's 3 things:

1) The choices all happen at the end of the quest - there's nowhere else to go or see, and you can't wait around for your consequences (there's no expectation of this!). So DA:O isn't under pressure to perform.
2) The choices all seem like they should be impressive. Whatever it is that Hawke does with Act of Mercy or Night Terrors, it isn't choosing who rules the dwarves or who rules Ferelden.
3) DA:O had epilogues, and references the major decisions + some minor random ones; that creates the sense that the story continues, even though really the game doesn't acknowledge any of these things. 

I agree on points 1) and 3). It does kind of come down to how much you can buy into the narrative and how it's presented.

These are areas that Origins did just enough to cover, while it's solid gameplay and genuinely enjoyable narrative/cast of characters was usually enough to keep you engaged and captivated. I see Landsmeet as emblematic of the extent of the game's reactivity. Narrative wise, nothing really changes, but there are a ton of decisions that can be made, with a varying set of consequences that are significant and not ignored by the game later on, though not nearly to the extent to which it should have changed things.

However, these problems in structure and design were highlighted in Dragon Age 2. Instead of improving on them, they made it worse in many cases. Offering a choice in principle, then wholly ignoring it.

Because of the game taking place in one location, because of the 10 year time span, because of Hawke's status, his/her interaction with the various characters, you expect the game to be more reactive. Whether this reactivity is the influence over narrative direction, whether it is the fate of various factions, whether it means allowing Hawke to be proactive in his/her portrayal or whether it's the simple reactivity that "hey, in a story that's about the conflict of Mage and Templar, shouldn't Templars notice your Mage?"

Quest(line)s like the Magistrate's Son and The Bone Pit stick out as particularly bad, too. Now, Origins probably would've some dialog here and there, as well as an epilogue slide or two depicting what happens. Maybe a set of unique quests later. It's not too reactive but it's enough to make the player feel like they have an impact. Dragon Age 2 had a little of this, but not nearly to the extent it should have considering the setting, scope, scale and story of the game. You spend, what, 90% of the game's timeline doing ? and the time you're actually shown to be doing something, it's not all that impactful.

I will always take tangible consequences and reactivity over an epilogue. Origins had little of the former and plenty of the latter. However, Dragon Age 2 had even less of both the former and latter.

No surprise which one I think is better in this area.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 12 juillet 2011 - 11:27 .

[Aaleel]

Main difference between the two games for me was that things that were plot driven in Origins just happened, you weren't given a choice.  In DA2 they gave you a choice and just ignored it.

Example of Origins:

Elf Treaty Choices:

A) Wipe out Elves
Wipe out Werewolves
C) Cure the Curse

Outcomes:

A) Elves Die
Werewolves Die
C) Neither Side Dies

Three choices, three different outcomes

Example of Dragon Age 2

A) Let someone have the relic
Don't let someone have the relic

Outcomes:

A) Person takes relic
Person takes relic

Two choices, both with same outcome

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on this.  If it's plot driven just make it happen.  Having my choice ignored bothers me a lot more than not having a choice in the matter at all.

Modifié par Aaleel, 12 juillet 2011 - 11:45 .

[TEWR]

Theagg wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Gallimatia wrote...
What happens with Jory has always been what explained my willingness to drink from the chalice. If you don't Duncan will cut you down, without a second thought or trying to reason with you. In fact I think this is Jory's reason for living. He exists to show that it's a drink or die situation for everyone, not just the dalish.

Or you can just try to kill Duncan and Alistair. You already know Alistair isn't much better at the stabbing thing than you, so it really means it's just you vs. Duncan. And Duncan isn't that impressive. There's no reason why drinking the poison you just saw killl a man makes more sense than trying to kill the murderer.

Yes, on my first playthrough when this moment came up my impressions were leave, get out and more to the point, Duncan is a psychotic blood cult leader and I want some way to punish him for what I just saw him do to Jory..

No such options were presented

In fairness, Jory drew his blade first and he struck first. Duncan just defended himself.



But were I able to as my Warden I would've used the pommel of my sword (or use my staff) to knock Jory unconscious and pour the blood down his throat. Were I Jory I would've just asked Duncan if he could make sure my wife and soon-to-be child were taken care of should I die.

[telephasic]

Excellent post. I was thinking of posting exactly the same thing, but I wanted to address some other points which similarly reflect back on other Bioware games, such as DA2 isn't the first bad game Bioware has done (Neverwinter Nights was worse in virtually every manner), and recycled maps (BG1 had this with peasant houses, BG2 had a bit of this, Mass Effect did this repeatedly on side-quests, as did DA:O for random encounters).

Really, I think DA2 offered more choices which had in-game impact than DA:O did. Basically because except for the final battle, and companions leaving or attacking you, there was nothing much that happened in the game which had any effect during the game (as in, a decision unlocking a different quest). The only thing I can remember offhand is a spirit you summon in the Mage's tower, which you later run into in a random encounter. Even in this case, there is only one way to complete the first quest, so it can more be thought of as the final completion of what you started. A great example of a false choice was killing Flemeth. You could in the game either kill her or lie to Morrigan and say you killed her. Either way, it had no effect upon the game, and no effect upon Dragon Age 2.

DA2, for all the poor implementation, did have quest lines in Acts 2 and 3 which were contingent upon decisions in Act 1. Not many, but they were there. To me, this is far more important than the endgame, as it's something we experience, instead of just being told.

Edit:  One thing about Dragon Age: Origins however was that most players thought there was an ideal way to solve most major decisions.  Usually there was due to badly thought-out quests.  For example, saving Connor from possession has no down side, provided you sided with the mages and the First Enchanter is available to help.  In places in DA2, like the death of your ___, they appear to have taken away the choice because they knew all players would avoid making the less ideal choice.  In a lot of other places, they gave us two crappy options because those not playing stupid evil tended to all make the same decision in DA:O.  I think this was a one step forward, two steps back situation. 

Modifié par telephasic, 12 juillet 2011 - 02:44 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
I agree on points 1) and 3). It does kind of come down to how much you can buy into the narrative and how it's presented.

To a degree, yes. 

These are areas that Origins did just enough to cover, while it's solid gameplay and genuinely enjoyable narrative/cast of characters was usually enough to keep you engaged and captivated.

I disagree. Like I said: I can understand liking DA:O more - it was a better game on a lot of fronts. But I just don't see it being much more reactive at all.

I see Landsmeet as emblematic of the extent of the game's reactivity. Narrative wise, nothing really changes, but there are a ton of decisions that can be made, with a varying set of consequences that are significant and not ignored by the game later on, though not nearly to the extent to which it should have changed things.

DA2 does the same thing quite often. Ignore that there is an Act 2 (or an Act 3) for a second - do you suddenly see how the player could think choices have major consquences? That's basically the problem with DA2's design - it leads you on so much.

Hell, the best example of how Bioware does this is how the DA:O choices are actually featured in DA2. Most of them get funneled so that there's no differnet content, unless they don't appear in-game at all (and most don't).

However, these problems in structure and design were highlighted in Dragon Age 2. Instead of improving on them, they made it worse in many cases. Offering a choice in principle, then wholly ignoring it.

Oh, absolutely. But that's because of what DA:O was praised for. Let me give you one example:

After DAO was released, I complained about the origins essentially not changing the game at all - it's the same content with a few minor alterations; it really bugged be because Bioware hyped up the origins even more than it did the framed narrative. It was something like a 12 on 2 monster debate (even on the DA2 forums, pre-release).

And the defence for the origins was this: "It doesn't matter how much content is different: it matters that my character madea  different choice. And anyway, you sometimes have 1-2 quests differently and different dialogue options."

So this is exactly what DA2 does. With Act of Mercy, with the "difference" in picking sides at the start of Act III...

Because of the game taking place in one location, because of the 10 year time span, because of Hawke's status, his/her interaction with the various characters, you expect the game to be more reactive. Whether this reactivity is the influence over narrative direction, whether it is the fate of various factions, whether it means allowing Hawke to be proactive in his/her portrayal or whether it's the simple reactivity that "hey, in a story that's about the conflict of Mage and Templar, shouldn't Templars notice your Mage?"

Well, DA:O didn't have anyone really notice you were a non-human despite the fact that everyone was ostensibly prejudiced against them (elves, if not dwarves). It goes right back to how DA:O handled reactivity and the defences players used for it.

But here's the thing: DA:O is supposed to take place during Ferelden during the Blight. But the areas are fixed and independent. Let's say I go to Redcliffe first and I end up with the choice to save Connor. I could then beat every other area in the game and Connor just stays suspended in time, waiting for me to wander back to the Tower. 

Everything is just as static in DA:O. The seasons are static, there's no mention of time passing at all beside the map being coloured differently and Wynne saying it once or twice...

... DA:O has these problems in spades. But people praised it and no one mentioned how bad this design was.

And then DA2 goes out and adds in lots of contentious features (VO, new combat) and suddenly players revolted against Bioware.

Quest(line)s like the Magistrate's Son and The Bone Pit stick out as particularly bad, too. Now, Origins probably would've some dialog here and there, as well as an epilogue slide or two depicting what happens.

It (like for example the lyrium smuggling quest) you would have had no more dialogue than the quest ending dialogue and no epilogue either.

Maybe a set of unique quests later. It's not too reactive but it's enough to make the player feel like they have an impact.

DA:O did not have this. Very, very few quests have consequences later on.

Dragon Age 2 had a little of this, but not nearly to the extent it should have considering the setting, scope, scale and story of the game. You spend, what, 90% of the game's timeline doing ? and the time you're actually shown to be doing something, it's not all that impactful.

I will always take tangible consequences and reactivity over an epilogue. Origins had little of the former and plenty of the latter. However, Dragon Age 2 had even less of both the former and latter.

No surprise which one I think is better in this area.

DA:O talked about consequences, but your content was identical. I'll elaborate in my post below:

Modifié par In Exile, 12 juillet 2011 - 02:47 .

[In Exile]

Aaleel wrote...

Main difference between the two games for me was that things that were plot driven in Origins just happened, you weren't given a choice.  In DA2 they gave you a choice and just ignored it.

Example of Origins:

Elf Treaty Choices:

A) Wipe out Elves
Wipe out Werewolves
C) Cure the Curse

Outcomes:

A) Elves Die
Werewolves Die
C) Neither Side Dies

Three choices, three different outcomes

No, that's not what happens. What actually happens in game is this:

1) Get Quest from Keeper.
2) Crawl through identical dugenon regardless of choices and kill the exact same enemies.
3) Meet Witherfang
     i) Kill Witherfang
    ii) Help Witherfang
   iii) Convince Witherfang to kill the elves
4) Fight almost identical boss fight in the same area
5) Re-visit identical starting area
   iv) Only iii) shows some unique content because of the werewolve models replacing elves

The game then ignores this entirely.

Example of Dragon Age 2

A) Let someone have the relic
Don't let someone have the relic

Outcomes:

A) Person takes relic
Person takes relic

Two choices, both with same outcome

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on this.  If it's plot driven just make it happen.  Having my choice ignored bothers me a lot more than not having a choice in the matter at all.

That choice actually ends differently based on how you treat the person. Our outcomes really are:

1) Low approval: person dissapears
2) High approval: person returns with the relic to try and fix things.

What you then see in Act III is your epilogue.

The in-game differences are the same - very slight content changes and different dialogue. But then DA:O writes this epilogue (which is not in-game!) and suddenly the choice is deep and matters? 

[Theagg]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


In fairness, Jory drew his blade first and he struck first. Duncan just defended himself.



But were I able to as my Warden I would've used the pommel of my sword (or use my staff) to knock Jory unconscious and pour the blood down his throat. Were I Jory I would've just asked Duncan if he could make sure my wife and soon-to-be child were taken care of should I die.

Technically you were not a warden at that point

But its amusing to also note I was given no option to ask what was meant when Alistair said "Those who survive the Joining" minutes before this wierd cult leader handed over the chalice to Daveth.

And to be fair to Jory, although he did draw his sword first it was in fear after watching Daveth gag and choke it, followed by Duncan's rather sinister dispassionate "I'm sorry Daveth", immediately followed by him bearing down on Jory with the same poisoned chalice in an obviously threatening "your turn to die" manner. Yes, Jory drew his sword but Duncan looked far from defenceless..

Personally my Warden to be would not at that point have been conking Jory on the head and crying out "Come on lads", whilst forcing him to drink, (considering I was up next, my Warden wasn't exactly ms Bravado) or casually remarking "oh well, tell Laura I love her" :innocent:

Also, as an aside, The Joining is dangerous, supposedly about a 1 in 3 survival rate.. Heck, too many people since then have been surviving the process in my opinion.

[Stanley Woo]

There's some excellent discussion going on here. Thank you for your participation, everyone, and thanks for keeping it mature and free of insults and name-calling. We appreciate it.

[Myzzrimm]

As much as I enjoy a good debate on jory ( he drew first, attacked, duncan parried and counter attacked, imo), that is neither here no there.

On topic, I find ,yself agreeing with In Exile. The thing about origins was that the choices were mostly purely cosmetic, changing what troops you had for the final battle, for the overarching plot.

Honestly, I'm getting rather tired of the constant save thenworld/universe/whatever plot of almost every rpg. I noticed consequence in da2, but it was personal to hawke. That's the thing. Some choices, such as your sibling, a certain snarky pirate, or hell, the fate of a dalish clan have consequences for the main character on a closwr level than changing the very face of Thedas. I applaud what bioware tried to do with this game, and given some more time, think it truly could have been great.

Some of my favourite books as a kid were the Tales set of dragonlance novels, detailing rather short stories of a rogue saving his village, or a mage escaping from the high clerist. This is why I enjoy da2. They tried something different. I do bope this bodes well for a future installment.

[Wulfram]

In Exile wrote...

The in-game differences are the same - very slight content changes and different dialogue. But then DA:O writes this epilogue (which is not in-game!) and suddenly the choice is deep and matters? 

It's not about the epilogue, or in game differences.  It's about having decisions which effect Ferelden and the people in it.  You don't need an epilogue to see that the major decisions in Origins are ones which would do that.

[Myzzrimm]

Wulfram wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The in-game differences are the same - very slight content changes and different dialogue. But then DA:O writes this epilogue (which is not in-game!) and suddenly the choice is deep and matters? 

It's not about the epilogue, or in game differences.  It's about having decisions which effect Ferelden and the people in it.  You don't need an epilogue to see that the major decisions in Origins are ones which would do that.

But by that note, da2 does have a choice and possible impact of a rather major turn, regarding hawke's station depending on who you side with. None ingame, but forseeable in the future.