583 réponses à ce sujet

[xkg]

Myzzrimm wrote...

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.

wow really ? ONE world affecting choice ? that is quite a lot compared to DAO.

Oh there is one more - Dalish - another choice which affect anything more that Hawke and/or his companions.

That is TWO. Very impressive.

Modifié par xkg, 12 juillet 2011 - 05:41 .

[Myzzrimm]

In a game I think was designed more on a personal level, it's two more than I expected!

[xkg]

^ I have always thought that DAO supposed to be a franchise about Thedas not about single person. But i can be wrong.

[Myzzrimm]

Good point. Guess we'll just have to wait and see, eh?

[The dead fish]

There were so many things said about it, I do not even have any more the strength to repeat everything.

The decisions do not affect the story, so this is an illusion. Time passes and nothing changes.

You say one thing, one said you yes, but nothing happens some time later. This factor chosen doesn't matter, everything is going the same way as if you decide otherwise.

  You select an option, and no matter what you say, it will be exactly the same thing. So there is still just a different way to ask who brings exactly the same thing.

There is some choices. DAII is different. It involves choosing from friends of Hawk, not really story. And when they relate to the story it is more or less sloppy or without consequences.

The only consistent choices relate to our companions, their personal stories, not the plot.
The story can take place without Hawk. Not in Mass Effect, not in dao.

And, who likes losing companions ? Who likes to kill the only healer in his team ? Anders  despite the hatred is often saved because of that. Is it really a choice, when there is no other healers ? In nigtmare mode ? <_<

In the end, it's better to have everyone for maximum damage. If that's the real choice, the companions, it's very bad.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:10 .

[Skaden]

ademska wrote...

i did very recently find out there's a way to keep seamus dumar from (spoilers), so that was a pleasant choice-reactive surprise.

How did you do this? I really liked Saemus and wanted to throttle Petrice after she (spoiler)!

Modifié par Skaden, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:12 .

[JaegerBane]

mrcrusty wrote...
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.

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. Ultimately. DA:O wasn't *that* far ahead of DA2 in terms of allowing the player to affect the plot, but through a mixture of addictive narrative and doing *just enough* to give a sense of achievement and choice to the player, it was able to pull off the illusion that you were dictating the plot, which made it a far richer experience than DA2.

DA2's biggest weakness wasn't the fact that it didn't allow the player to decide anything worthwhile per se - it was the fact that it may no effort whatsoever to bring the player's choices into the plot. IT doesn't matter who you side with, you're always essentially doing the same thing, but in DA2's case this was blatantly highlighted by, as you say, the reduced cast and the fact it was all happening in the same place.

I mean, take DA:O's landsmeet. You always essentially do the same thing - settle the problem and decide the leader. Where DA:O really did earn it's payslip is the amount of atmosphere that it injected into that choice - the player could easily craft a situation where Loghain essentially goes through a Darth Vader-like redemption, and that comes almost out of nowhere. The player is put in the situation of having to decide whether to sacrifiice his friendship with his best bud for the good of the kingdom, while showing compassion to his biggest opponent, or take the risk and assume the role of kingmaker and executioner. It was a fabulous instance of gameplay that gave the player a feeling of *enormous* responsibility, despite it being, technically, a glorified cutscene with a pre-determined ending.

Compare that to the embarassment of DA2's Act 3. You don't get any more choice here than you did back in the landsmeet, but instead of a brilliant piece of plot exposition, you get treated to a comically bad section which has the figureheads of the two opposing sides instantly mutating into superhuman monsters in the middle of what is supposed to the be climax of the confrontation that is the basis for the entire story. I almost felt like I was watching Plan 9 From Outer Space. It was so hilariously bad I honestly thought it was going to turn out to be another one of Varric's 'embellishments', which I'm willing to wager *was not* how the writers wanted it to come across.

The same goes for many other situations. The situation with the trapped demon in Honnleath versus the flagrantly absurd conclusion to Varric's Act 3 quest. The build up to the battle of denerim versus that daft section with your team mates before you have to battle the fearsome armour of... a dozen templar mooks. The spectacular search for the Urn of Ashes versus the arcade-like Bone Pit, complete with random collections of enemies from across the game. DA2 lacked, most of all, good writing. Without that, the player is directly exposed to the limitations of games like these, and preventing that is Bioware's major strength.

Phew, didn't intend for that to turn into such a sermon

[The dead fish]

Let's remember the descriptions before the release of the game.  We were told that Hawk would be able to influence policy in Kirkwall, but it's completely false as well. Hawk doesn' matter, can not change the situation nor the factions, he  is a powerless spectator. :innocent:

Modifié par Sylvianus, 12 juillet 2011 - 07:07 .

[T764]

I think that your disappointment in DA2's choices and reactivity is more to do with what you took from Origins.

I personally was disappointed with the way the story in Origins was written, i rarely had the choices that i thought my Warden would make and i found the world very static.

I went into DA2 expecting that the world would ignore me, that i wouldn't have the choices i want and that the writting would be incosistent so i was far less upset with what i got.

[Theagg]

Myzzrimm wrote...

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.

Of course, it wasn't exactly about Jory, rather the lack of personal choice being presented to the PC at that point as to how he or she might want to react in that situation. Ie, no choice.

But yes, as you elude to, choices that are personal to the player and unfold in game for me trump any grand world scale illusory choices that have little effect on the player.

Sure, I decided who came to rule Orzammar..and then what ? I lifted the curse off the werewolves but nothing thereafter regarding that choice had any effect on me in game. In fact, the effect on me as the player would have been the same from that point had I killed them all. And so on.

There is also seems to be a sense of entitlement running through some of the arguments, insomuch as there is the belief that the player should be by default this great instigator of change. That the world of Thedas should shape around each and every of their 'important' actions.

Which, of course, is nothing like real life.

[ademska]

since people have already brought up that hawke's story was a more realistic one that doesn't come with the entitlement of being able to change everything in the world with a single decision and a well-placed blade or stave, perhaps we can emphasize this level of personal change vs world-altering change and bring it into perspective a little better.

in dao, you were presented with four romance options, but no matter the path taken, nothing in-game actually changes. morrigan still leaves, and alistair's ruling options remain the same, though there is the barest of dialogue changes. as with every other major choice, the real consequences that aren't cosmetic happen in the epilogue (or, please note, in da2).

before the game came out, the dev team in interviews talked about how in this game hawke's choices would have a much deeper impact on his companions.

obviously the romance arcs in this game react significantly more than dao. you may not have enjoyed them, but no matter who you woo you initiate a storyline that transcends acts and affects their later actions. friendship and rivalry also reacts similarly. depending on his choices throughout the game, not just a singular decision (a la sacred ashes), hawke's companions can have wildly different reactions to endgame events. this is hard to discuss without spoilers, but the fact that half your party can leave depending not just on your choice at the end of the game, but on how you treated them throughout the entirety of the game, is a choice on a much grander scale imo than anything they provided in dao.

to really get into this, we've got to look at the most striking example of personal choice effects: anders.

anders' entire characterization is contingent on how hawke treats him. on the friendship path, hawke encourages anders to assimilate with justice, and their relationship isn't contentious, it's harmonic. at the end of the game, he does what he does, but his reaction to it is one of unification and complete lack of regret. if hawke spares him and fights for mages, he's almost happy, definitely hopeful.

on the rivalry path, however, hawke convinces him over those six years to fight back against justice, and their relationship is antagonistic. at the end of the game, he still does what he does, yes, but his reaction to it is COMPLETELY different; he's upset, begs for death, feels deep regret. if spared and convinced to side against mages, he implies that he's going to kill himself.

this goes beyond the endgame, though; every single conversation with him in act 3 is different depending on whether he's been friended and rivaled is completely different. in act 2, depending on your choices, his reactions still differ significantly on either path. this is to say nothing of the differing effect romancing him has.

a lot of people equate change and consequence with, say, picking a leader or annihilating a large clan, like what dao offered (and, i might add, what da2 offers endgame and with the dalish), but in my opinion? the kind of change hawke effects on that personal level is far more detailed and actually game-effecting in da2 than any of the major choices in dao.

Modifié par ademska, 12 juillet 2011 - 08:20 .

[Iosev]

In my opinion, the consequences in DA 2 were more personal, which I honestly enjoyed. What is the fate of your surviving sibling? Does a certain pirate retain her lawless and careless ways, or does she slowly want to change herself to become a better person? Does one of your companions continue to uncover their ancestor's history despite the dangers that she may face, or does she blame herself for the problems that occur along that path of discovery?

I personally care more about the fate of my character's friends and family more than choosing one political leader over another.

Modifié par arcelonious, 12 juillet 2011 - 08:22 .

[JaegerBane]

Theagg wrote...
There is also seems to be a sense of entitlement running through some of the arguments, insomuch as there is the belief that the player should be by default this great instigator of change. That the world of Thedas should shape around each and every of their 'important' actions.

Which, of course, is nothing like real life.

I don't think it's so much a sense of entitlement, it's more that it's pretty difficult to actually get engaged in the story of an RPG if you're playing a bystander that never affects the story. You don't necessarily need a 'save-the-world' story, but the player's sense of accomplishment atrophies quite a bit if they just coast through blowing stuff up.

Admittedly this isn't the case of all genres, but since RPGs generally require the player to invest time and thought into the character, having to make that effort while effectively feeling like your character is going nowhere will likely never generate as much acclaim as one that rewards the player's dedication with an involving plot where the player actually feels they're 'playing' a part of the environment itself.

And, not to be facetious or anything, but people generally don't play RPGs to experience how things work in real life.

[Iosev]

ademska wrote...

this goes beyond the endgame, though; every single conversation with him in act 3 is different depending on whether he's been friended and rivaled is completely different. in act 2, depending on your choices, his reactions still differ significantly on either path. this is to say nothing of the differing effect romancing him has.

To add to this, I enjoyed how Isabela will act very differently during the Final Straw, depending on whether she was a friend or a rival.  For example, as a friend, she'll still exhibit reluctance in getting involved with the magi and templars, whereas as a rival she will be much more eager to help out the magi.

[Wulfram]

Myzzrimm wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

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.

Unfortunately, DA2 rather went out of it's way to tell you that this choice would have no lasting importance, with Hawke bundled from the Viscount's palace almost as soon as they unpacked.

[ademska]

JaegerBane wrote...

I don't think it's so much a sense of entitlement, it's more that it's pretty difficult to actually get engaged in the story of an RPG if you're playing a bystander that never affects the story. You don't necessarily need a 'save-the-world' story, but the player's sense of accomplishment atrophies quite a bit if they just coast through blowing stuff up.

Admittedly this isn't the case of all genres, but since RPGs generally require the player to invest time and thought into the character, having to make that effort while effectively feeling like your character is going nowhere will likely never generate as much acclaim as one that rewards the player's dedication with an involving plot where the player actually feels they're 'playing' a part of the environment itself.

well i think then we've got a difference in how we perceive character accomplishment.

i'm more attuned to characters and how they affect each other/the overarching plot than to the changing plot itself, so i felt plenty fulfilled. i never felt like i was going through the coast blowing stuff up, i always felt like i was signficantly affecting things on a microlevel.

which, really, is in-keeping with da2 being a game whose focus is centered on the streets while dao hovered above the clouds.

[Jamie_edmo]

Skaden wrote...

ademska wrote...

i did very recently find out there's a way to keep seamus dumar from (spoilers), so that was a pleasant choice-reactive surprise.

How did you do this? I really liked Saemus and wanted to throttle Petrice after she (spoiler)!

You can't, the whole point is that his death is one of the reasons that causes the qunari to (spoilers) in act 2

[Aaleel]

Wulfram wrote...

Myzzrimm wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

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.

Unfortunately, DA2 rather went out of it's way to tell you that this choice would have no lasting importance, with Hawke bundled from the Viscount's palace almost as soon as they unpacked.

This!  (Edited to erase spoilers)

In Origins, you made a choice at the end and either ended up with Morrigan carrying a child or your child after a dark ritual, or either you or one of your favorite companions is dead.  Not the mention the choice of who to kill itself.

Like I said in my earlier post if something is plot driven just don't give me the choice, just do it.  But if you give me a choice, make that choice have 2 different outcomes.

Not
"First enchanter I'll stand by you until the end, the mages will not die this day."
"I'm glad to have to by our side Hawke, with you we may yet prevail."
"Wait, what are you doing with that knife, NOOOO!!"

Modifié par Aaleel, 12 juillet 2011 - 08:53 .

[ademska]

Aaleel wrote...

This!  (Edited to erase spoilers)

In Origins, you made a choice at the end and either ended up with Morrigan carrying a child or your child after a dark ritual, or either you or one of your favorite companions is dead.  Not the mention the choice of who to kill itself.

Like I said in my earlier post if something is plot driven just don't give me the choice, just do it.  But if you give me a choice, make that choice have 2 different outcomes.

Not
"First enchanter I'll stand by you until the end, the mages will not die this day."
"I'm glad to have to by our side Hawke, with you we may yet prevail."
"Wait, what are you doing with that knife, NOOOO!!"

but that choice you talk about, that's the singlemost choice the effects of which you actually experience on-screen, and it's only right at the end of the game, and even then the only on-screen consequence is the warden's potential death, everything else is implied later, just as it is in da2.

da2 doesn't have that kind of x point y divergence, its effects are more subtle, but it's still there.

like i said in that big wall of text, the way you treat anders the entirety of the game, not just at one point, leads him to either side with mages and go fight for freedom or side against everything he believes and kill himself.

that is a big, big deal.

i'm not saying orsino in pro-mage wasn't handled clumsily, but people focus far too much on the immediate potential analogue choices to dao and ignore what dao couldn't even touch, and that was the effect you had on your companions.

[Theagg]

JaegerBane wrote...

Theagg wrote...
There is also seems to be a sense of entitlement running through some of the arguments, insomuch as there is the belief that the player should be by default this great instigator of change. That the world of Thedas should shape around each and every of their 'important' actions.

Which, of course, is nothing like real life.

I don't think it's so much a sense of entitlement, it's more that it's pretty difficult to actually get engaged in the story of an RPG if you're playing a bystander that never affects the story. You don't necessarily need a 'save-the-world' story, but the player's sense of accomplishment atrophies quite a bit if they just coast through blowing stuff up.

Admittedly this isn't the case of all genres, but since RPGs generally require the player to invest time and thought into the character, having to make that effort while effectively feeling like your character is going nowhere will likely never generate as much acclaim as one that rewards the player's dedication with an involving plot where the player actually feels they're 'playing' a part of the environment itself.

And, not to be facetious or anything, but people generally don't play RPGs to experience how things work in real life.

Ahhaa, I will bear that in mind next time someone complains about something in DA2 (or any other RPG) not being 'realistic' (combat, scenery, etc)

But no, many an actor have enjoyed playing the role of a character in a story in which they have no control over the outcome. Some even do it regulary with the same character. So I would disagree that its difficult to engage with such a character.

[Aaleel]

ademska wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

This!  (Edited to erase spoilers)

In Origins, you made a choice at the end and either ended up with Morrigan carrying a child or your child after a dark ritual, or either you or one of your favorite companions is dead.  Not the mention the choice of who to kill itself.

Like I said in my earlier post if something is plot driven just don't give me the choice, just do it.  But if you give me a choice, make that choice have 2 different outcomes.

Not
"First enchanter I'll stand by you until the end, the mages will not die this day."
"I'm glad to have to by our side Hawke, with you we may yet prevail."
"Wait, what are you doing with that knife, NOOOO!!"

but that choice you talk about, that's the singlemost choice the effects of which you actually experience on-screen, and it's only right at the end of the game, and even then the only on-screen consequence is the warden's potential death, everything else is implied later, just as it is in da2.

da2 doesn't have that kind of x point y divergence, its effects are more subtle, but it's still there.

like i said in that big wall of text, the way you treat anders the entirety of the game, not just at one point, leads him to either side with mages and go fight for freedom or side against everything he believes and kill himself.

that is a big, big deal.

i'm not saying orsino in pro-mage wasn't handled clumsily, but people focus far too much on the immediate potential analogue choices to dao and ignore what dao couldn't even touch, and that was the effect you had on your companions.

You mean the choices you made in Origins that either caused them to try and kill you, and stay your allies?  Like I said if I make a choice that I know is going to ****** someone off, them leaving or even attacking me is something I can go with.  It has two outcomes, immediate outcomes.

Whereas I don't give Merrill a certain object, she pretty much cusses me out, says she hates me, and so on, I get 110 rivalry.  But I look over, and not only is she still there, but I can still romance this woman that hates me and says I ruined her life.  So she stays and I can romance her if she likes my choice, she stays and I can still romance her if she hates my choice, and me now. 

Modifié par Aaleel, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:10 .

[Skaden]

Jamie_edmo wrote...

Skaden wrote...

ademska wrote...

i did very recently find out there's a way to keep seamus dumar from (spoilers), so that was a pleasant choice-reactive surprise.

How did you do this? I really liked Saemus and wanted to throttle Petrice after she (spoiler)!

You can't, the whole point is that his death is one of the reasons that causes the qunari to (spoilers) in act 2

In that case, ademska what are you talking about?

[jds1bio]

arcelonious wrote...

In my opinion, the consequences in DA 2 were more personal, which I honestly enjoyed. What is the fate of your surviving sibling? Does a certain pirate retain her lawless and careless ways, or does she slowly want to change herself to become a better person? Does one of your companions continue to uncover their ancestor's history despite the dangers that she may face, or does she blame herself for the problems that occur along that path of discovery?

I personally care more about the fate of my character's friends and family more than choosing one political leader over another.

Exactly.  I think that was a major emphasis of the companions in this game.  Which is why the unknown fate of Hawke's friends, depending on your playthrough, is just so bizarre.  As are some of the reactions your companions give to some of the major companion quest actions, they are far too weak in some cases (i.e. Fenris/Danarius). 

Modifié par jds1bio, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:17 .

[ademska]

Skaden wrote...

In that case, ademska what are you talking about?

unless i dreamed it, entirely possible, i'll pm you because this is the no spoiler thread

[TEWR]

Theagg wrote...

Technically you were not a warden at that point

Bah technicalities

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.

Well, it's pretty obvious when he says that. I was just like "So.... I can die from this? Alrighty then!"

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..

Fear doesn't excuse what he did though. He made an oath to serve the Wardens and even before the Joining takes place he's told (IIRC if you take the right dialogue paths) that it could kill him. He said he would see it through to the end, and then he reneges on his oath when Daveth, a cutpurse, was willing to sacrifice his own life because of the threat the Darkspawn posed.

Daveth understood what being a Warden meant.

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:

I admit it is a bit frightening to see that you can die from it, but depending on how you went about your Origin story you either A) voluntarily joined (Dalish really have no choice in the matter, DN, etc) or were conscripted.

If you played a conscriptee, then naturally I can expect you not to be so keen on the Joining.

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.

Technically, it's only a 1 in 2 survival rate since we don't know if Jory would've survived had he done the deed.


Also, I hope Avernus is able to refine the Joining (like his notes indicate he wanted to do).