583 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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).

Are you counting Awakenings?  Because if you are, 1 in 2 is way off

[TEWR]

Aaleel wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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).

Are you counting Awakenings?  Because if you are, 1 in 2 is way off

Ah bollocks.... I forgot about Mhairi.


Dammit I'm still upset about her dying.


Wait, what's the topic of this discussion again?

[Aaleel]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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).

Are you counting Awakenings?  Because if you are, 1 in 2 is way off

Ah bollocks.... I forgot about Mhairi.


Dammit I'm still upset about her dying.


Wait, what's the topic of this discussion again?

Well I was talking about her dying and then having an unprecedented string of survivals lol, including one person throwing it down like it was beer lol.

Modifié par Aaleel, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:30 .

[ademska]

Aaleel wrote...

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. 

that's an oversimplification.

the decision you make at da2's endgame, picking a side, is one of the biggest choice maneuvers the series has ever done, if not the biggest, and it's not because of any epilogue cards detailing the political rammifications of your action.

no, it's because literally half your party has the potential to betray you either way. it's also because, depending on every choice you made during the entire game -- your actions, who you kept close in your party, the way you treated them -- these same party react completely differently. they may leave forever, they may leave and rejoin you, they may fight you to the death, or they might actually be persuaded to join you, because they trust you so much.

this is just one example of the kind of changes your character inspires in theirs. whole dialogues throughout the game completely differ depending on how you make hawke act earlier in the game.

yes, you can still romance this woman, but her romance is going to behave significantly differently. i don't think it was handled as well with the others as it was with anders, where the rivalmance is incredibly different from the friendmance, and its conclusion is the exact opposite of the friendmance's, but the differences for merrill are still there.

in dao, you make one choice, and that choice has an immediate effect (maybe) that you never see again.

in da2, you make several consistent choices, and those choices culminate into a multitude of diverging characterizations throughout the game.

[JaegerBane]

Theagg wrote...
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)

That wasn't really what I was getting at - I was primarily mentioning that under the context of the narrative. When it comes to things like motivations and reactions, obviously, the less realistic/more pastiche is likely going to be just as off putting as bystander syndrome. Admittedly, 'realistic' combat and scenery doesn't do all that well in a fantasy RPG, particularly not with characters that use fireballs and telekinesis in place of swords and shields

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.

We're not talking about actors, though. I'm sure there are players who like playing bystanders, but you'd have a hard time claiming that such a stance is widespread among players.

[phaonica]

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

But, think, its no different from DAO or any Bioware game.

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.

One of the reasons I liked DAO was because it offered more choices than most other games I've played. Some of the consequences for those actions weren't as immediate, severe, long-term, or as far-reaching as I would have liked, but it was still a lot of fun to be allowed to make choices that altered the narrative.

I won't say that "DAII has less choices and consequence that most WRPGs". I agree with Shadow of Light Dragon in that my only criticism of the "choices and consequence" aspect of DA2 is that it didn't seem to live up to what was advertised.

Mike Laidlaw on Framed Narrative: "In Dragon Age: Origins you traveled across the land, but in Dragon Age 2 you're traveling through time. We're focused on a more specific area--you see it over time; you see it evolve; you see it change. This i think gives it more depth."
http://www.youtube.c...AJNMKKsk#t=187s

Most of the "choices" we are allowed to make are dialog choices that while they do shape the character, they don't really impact the overall plot. While the choices are still there, I would have liked the choices to have had more of an impact on the narrative, or a visual impact upon the world.  We were told that the framed narrative and the 10 year span would allow us to see the world change, and it did, but mostly just as a consequence of time and not as a consequence of chosen character actions.

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.

Is it a sense of entitlement that might move a person to want to make an impact on the world? I prefer to play a hero that is more than reactionary, and is more than a bystander.

ademska wrote...
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.

In my opinion, having Anders (or any other party member) as my Friend or Rival is not the primary accomplishment I would have wanted my character to make. For me, the most memorable choices in the game are the ones with the most impactful consequences, and while I do find the ability to change the outlook of certain NPCs to be a significant part of the story, I don't find that changing their outlook makes any significant impact on the major points of conflict.

DA2 did have some very good, personal dialog and character-centric choices, but it seemed like Hawke's circle of impact was very small. Personally, I wasn't nearly as interested in a any of my party members as I was in the main plot.

Modifié par phaonica, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:33 .

[Pasquale1234]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ah bollocks.... I forgot about Mhairi.


Dammit I'm still upset about her dying.


Wait, what's the topic of this discussion again?

+ Anders, Oghren, Nathaniel, Velanna, Sigrun...

2/8 who actually attempted it did not survive
Survival rate 75%

[Aaleel]

ademska wrote...

in dao, you make one choice, and that choice has an immediate effect (maybe) that you never see again.

I don't agree with this.  Let's look at the circle tower choice.


You go to the circle tower, and either decide the save the mages or side with the Templars and wipe them out.  Now you head to Redcliffe, where Connor is possessed by a demon.

You try and save Connor, Jowan recommends using blood magic, because there isn't any other way to power the spell.  There's Lyrium and mages at the Circle Tower.  Oh wait, all the mages are dead, so now you only have the options to sacrifice someone or kill the boy.

If you sided with the mages, you can resolve this without anyone dying, if you didn't someone has to die, maybe even a kid.

Modifié par Aaleel, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:35 .

[ademska]

phaonica wrote...

In my opinion, having Anders (or any other party member) as my Friend or Rival is not the primary accomplishment I would have wanted my character to make. For me, the most memorable choices in the game are the ones with the most impactful consequences, and while I do find the ability to change the outlook of certain NPCs to be a significant part of the story, I don't find that changing their outlook makes any significant impact on the major points of conflict.

DA2 did have some very good, personal dialog and character-centric choices, but it seemed like Hawke's circle of impact was very small. Personally, I wasn't nearly as interested in a any of my party members as I was in the main plot.

see, that i completely understand, because it's a matter of personal preference. people who complain about da2 because they prefer dao's cloud-hovering world-impacting style have every right to dislike da2's direction.

the only issue i take is when people claim that da2 had little-to-no choice-consequence at all, when actually it was objectively full of consequence... if you're looking in the right places. how effective it was and how much you like that focus is a matter of opinion, but the variable factors are not.

[ademska]

Aaleel wrote...

I don't agree with this.  Let's look at the circle tower choice.


You go to the circle tower, and either decide the save the mages or side with the Templars and wipe them out.  Now you head to Redcliffe, where Connor is possessed by a demon.

You try and save Connor, Jowan recommends using blood magic, because there isn't any other way to power the spell.  There's Lyrium and mages at the Circle Tower.  Oh wait, all the mages are dead, so now you only have the options to sacrifice someone or kill the boy.

If you sided with the mages, you can resolve this without anyone dying, if you didn't someone has to die, maybe even a kid.

you got me there, but can you provide me with examples beyond the mage tower or the dark ritual? and even then, after you sacrifice someone or kill the boy, there's no effect after that. you've got a two-string chain of consequences that promptly ends (at least in-game).

and besides, my point here is not to detract from dao. it was an excellent game that i very much enjoyed. my point here is to prove that da2's choice-consequence was just as if not more reactive than dao, but on an entirely different level and with an entirely different focus. you can personally not like that focus, but to deny it exists is just incorrect.

[Aaleel]

ademska wrote...

 it's the decision you make at da2's endgame, picking a side, is one of the biggest choice maneuvers the series has ever done, if not the biggest, and it's not because of any epilogue cards detailing the political rammifications of your action.

no, it's because literally half your party has the potential to betray you either way.

Also I didn't like this mechanic.  Like Fenris is a former slave that you don't even know well at the point you take on a slave right in front of him, but he stays.  But now at the end of the game all of a sudden now you've done something where he's going to walk out on you?

It has nothing to do with the actual choice, it has to do with your relationship with them during the game, because if it's strong enough they'll stay regardless of which side you choose.  So they've stayed and gone to war with you all this time, but now all of a sudden they want to walk out?

[Tirfan]

What if I didn't metagame and all of the companions stayed in the middle of the Friendship/rivalry-bar?

I get absolutely no choice nor consequences. So, you get choices with consequences only if certain things happen in-game, this is bad design.

And to be completely honest, I didn't care about any of the choices regarding companion-characters because I hate them passionately, I never even got the option to really screw them over, and when I got, they didn't even care.

[Pasquale1234]

ademska wrote...

phaonica wrote...

In my opinion, having Anders (or any other party member) as my Friend or Rival is not the primary accomplishment I would have wanted my character to make. For me, the most memorable choices in the game are the ones with the most impactful consequences, and while I do find the ability to change the outlook of certain NPCs to be a significant part of the story, I don't find that changing their outlook makes any significant impact on the major points of conflict.

DA2 did have some very good, personal dialog and character-centric choices, but it seemed like Hawke's circle of impact was very small. Personally, I wasn't nearly as interested in a any of my party members as I was in the main plot.

see, that i completely understand, because it's a matter of personal preference. people who complain about da2 because they prefer dao's cloud-hovering world-impacting style have every right to dislike da2's direction.

the only issue i take is when people claim that da2 had little-to-no choice-consequence at all, when actually it was objectively full of consequence... if you're looking in the right places. how effective it was and how much you like that focus is a matter of opinion, but the variable factors are not.

The Warden was also able to influence companions in some pretty significant ways. so it is pretty easy to overlook that aspect in DA2 when making comparisons.

[TEWR]

The real problem with Hawke isn't that he can't keep things from falling apart (which is something I love seeing if done right). It's that he doesn't make enough of an effort to try and keep things from falling apart.


Had he made an honest effort, then people wouldn't have such a problem with him. He was meant to change the world after things fell apart.


Also, it didn't help that the three Acts were barely connected to one another when they could've been.


Hawke's endgame choice does have potential. I just wish the entire game had made it feel like it should've

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:53 .

[Theagg]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ah bollocks.... I forgot about Mhairi.


Dammit I'm still upset about her dying.


Wait, what's the topic of this discussion again?

+ Anders, Oghren, Nathaniel, Velanna, Sigrun...

2/8 who actually attempted it did not survive
Survival rate 75%

I can't recall if if was Alistair or not who made a comment about the low survivabilty of those going through the Joining in Origins just after the event. Either way, based on following Joinings in Awakening, where almost everyone survives, you begin to wonder why all the drama about the ritual !

[ademska]

Tirfan wrote...

What if I didn't metagame and all of the companions stayed in the middle of the Friendship/rivalry-bar?

I get absolutely no choice nor consequences. So, you get choices with consequences only if certain things happen in-game, this is bad design.

And to be completely honest, I didn't care about any of the choices regarding companion-characters because I hate them passionately, I never even got the option to really screw them over, and when I got, they didn't even care.

then it was your choice not to incur consequences!

no, on the serious, the f/r bar isn't perfect, and i'm not claiming it or da2 is.

this is anecdotal, but every non-metagame i've played and every irl friend i've spoken to in-depth about it managed to get most of the cast either maxed or at least firmly on a path without metagaming. still, i know some people had a playstyle or role-played a hawke who just didn't manage to get a substantial portion of the cast firmly along a path, so, uh, sorry? the system isn't perfect.

and if you don't like the characters and/or the character focus, that's fine. again, my point isn't to sway your opinions on the game itself, it's simply to prove that the choice-consequence in da2 exists in equal measure to dao.

[phaonica]

ademska wrote...

see, that i completely understand, because it's a matter of personal preference. people who complain about da2 because they prefer dao's cloud-hovering world-impacting style have every right to dislike da2's direction.

the only issue i take is when people claim that da2 had little-to-no choice-consequence at all, when actually it was objectively full of consequence... if you're looking in the right places. how effective it was and how much you like that focus is a matter of opinion, but the variable factors are not.

"Getting different dialog" might technically be a consequence, but for me it is not an *impactful* consequence--it only barely affects the main conflict in the plot.

[ademska]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

The Warden was also able to influence companions in some pretty significant ways. so it is pretty easy to overlook that aspect in DA2 when making comparisons.

not to anywhere close the degree that hawke can (simply by virtue of having a dual f/r bar instead of a single scale of good vs leave party), but that makes sense, because this game's focus was on its companions, whereas dao's was bigger-picture.

if zevran's approval drops to minimum, he leaves the party and nothing comes of it, unless you force him into a fight, and then he's dead.

if anders' rivalry goes to max, he has completely different game-spanning character arc with separate dialogue and he actually discusses his fate in-game, if spared.

[ademska]

phaonica wrote...

"Getting different dialog" might technically be a consequence, but for me it is not an *impactful* consequence--it only barely affects the main conflict in the plot.

we're not talking about plot, we're talking about impact on characterization in a significant way. rivaled anders vs friend anders is almost a different person.

that's the point.

you don't have to like that it's an impact on characterization rather than plot, and that's fine. just recognize that it's an impact.


edit: i've got to run errands; i hope we're still on this when i get back because this is fun

Modifié par ademska, 12 juillet 2011 - 10:02 .

[Pasquale1234]

Theagg wrote...

I can't recall if if was Alistair or not who made a comment about the low survivabilty of those going through the Joining in Origins just after the event. Either way, based on following Joinings in Awakening, where almost everyone survives, you begin to wonder why all the drama about the ritual !

I remember him saying he was glad that at least one of the recruits made it through, but I don't think he said anything that would indicate what the typical survival rate is.  I don't believe it's been stated anywhere, so all we really have to go by are the joinings we've observed in game.  

[phaonica]

Theagg wrote...

I can't recall if if was Alistair or not who made a comment about the low survivabilty of those going through the Joining in Origins just after the event. Either way, based on following Joinings in Awakening, where almost everyone survives, you begin to wonder why all the drama about the ritual !

I always thought that it would have been kind of cool if there was a random chance in Awakening that someone you put through the Joining would die. For me, it would have made the choice to put someone through the Joining more intense.

Modifié par phaonica, 12 juillet 2011 - 10:04 .

[Nerevar-as]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The real problem with Hawke isn't that he can't keep things from falling apart (which is something I love seeing if done right). It's that he doesn't make enough of an effort to try and keep things from falling apart.


Had he made an honest effort, then people wouldn't have such a problem with him. He was meant to change the world after things fell apart.


Also, it didn't help that the three Acts were barely connected to one another when they could've been.


Hawke's endgame choice does have potential. I just wish the entire game had made it feel like it should've

Potential for what? Another thing the game failed (IMHO) was convincing me hawke could do anything about the war. Mages or templars respect him/her? Besides the other side most likely hating his/her guts, I don´t see why picking one side would mean they are going to stop fighting just because s/he tells them to. S/he isn´t valid even as a messenger, as only one side likes him. So unless the choice also means the side Hawke chose is the one winning (which would be a nonsense), there´s nothing s/he can do in the war.

[ademska]

phaonica wrote...

I always thought that it would have been kind of cool if there was a random chance in Awakening that someone you put through the Joining would die. For me, it would have made the choice to put someone through the Joining more intense.

or if you bring your sibling and anders to the deep roads in da2, there was a percentage chance that they wouldn't survive the joining, and the game would just treat it like you hadn't brought anders

okay now i'm really going see ya

[xkg]

Skaden wrote...

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?

I think she means Petrice. You can save her and even meet her in act 3.
But no, you can't save Saemus.

[Aaleel]

xkg wrote...

I think she means Petrice. You can save her and even meet her in act 3.
But no, you can't save Saemus.

Can you kill her, because I might play the game again just for that.  The one time I thought I was going to be able to I never got the chance.  I was begging for an ME2 renegade interrupt lol. 

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