386 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

And what major endgame choice would you see?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

And what major endgame choice would you see?

Not endgamee, but midgame. That change a lot of what comes afterwards.
Yes it's possible.

[Xilizhra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And what major endgame choice would you see?

Not endgamee, but midgame. That change a lot of what comes afterwards.
Yes it's possible.

Something with the qunari, then?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And what major endgame choice would you see?

Not endgamee, but midgame. That change a lot of what comes afterwards.
Yes it's possible.

Something with the qunari, then?

No, imo the Qunari should have been removed. Act 2 should have been about the mage resistance we never saw.

Either you side with them, which alters the game after that. Or you side against them (not necessarly *with* Meredith mind you). Act 2 ends with a massive crackdown that either severily destroys the resistance (if sided against it), or pushes it further underground, critically wounded but not destroyed (if sided with it). Not that huge of a difference, so as to lead to the same place and conclusion. But different sidequests, main quests, characters we interact with, locations...etc etc would make this a meaningful choice that significantly alters one's experience. 

And it would also have the added benefit of exploring the mage resistance, seeing inner-mage dynamics, and see why the Resolutionists are on the rise (I am a fan of studying radicalization in general). It would have given the conflict the build up it lacked.

[Xilizhra]

I agree, though it's a shame that the qunari plot would be totally lost... oh well. It makes the game tighter as a whole.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

I agree, though it's a shame that the qunari plot would be totally lost... oh well. It makes the game tighter as a whole.

We can put them in sidequests. Maybe a story arc that develops across all 3 acts.
I think the Qunari main plot presence harms the game more than benefits it.

I'd much rather have Petrice be involved in the mage question (with perhaps the Qunari threat in the back of her head). I see her holding a more pragmatic view on magic than most Chantry officials, as she'd see them as weapons against the Qunari.

[Xilizhra]

I agree on Petrice, as it seems to be her attitude anyway, it's just not explored.

That said, despite all these problems, I like DA2 more than Origins. The most obvious reason is that I can actually play it, since Origins started crapping out on me. But there are others... I feel like an actual person, albeit an unlucky one. The companions feel better integrated into the plot, as opposed to being basically irrelevant (aside from Alistair and Morrigan, you could pick up anyone competent in your travels and the result would be the same), the ambiance is generally better (I love being on the Wounded Coast and Sundermount especially), combat feels far more engaging (subjective, true)...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Eh well, once upon a time, I cared a lot about DA, but now I don't have to anymore.

But this got too off-topic. Apologies.

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

We can put them in sidequests. Maybe a story arc that develops across all 3 acts.
I think the Qunari main plot presence harms the game more than benefits it.

I'd much rather have Petrice be involved in the mage question (with perhaps the Qunari threat in the back of her head). I see her holding a more pragmatic view on magic than most Chantry officials, as she'd see them as weapons against the Qunari. 

How would you have handled an apostate Hawke? Would you have incorporated the idea of a "Champion of Kirkwall" or tossed it aside? Would you have made Grand Cleric Elthina more proactive?

[Wulfram]

There's a big difference between supporting Hawke's appointment to Viscount as a counter to Meredith and an assertion of the nobility's prerogatives, and handing him the tools to become a dictator.

RagingCyclone wrote...

Meredith is native to Kirkwall? Where is this stated?

Codex

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

We can put them in sidequests. Maybe a story arc that develops across all 3 acts.
I think the Qunari main plot presence harms the game more than benefits it.

I'd much rather have Petrice be involved in the mage question (with perhaps the Qunari threat in the back of her head). I see her holding a more pragmatic view on magic than most Chantry officials, as she'd see them as weapons against the Qunari. 

How would you have handled an apostate Hawke? Would you have incorporated the idea of a "Champion of Kirkwall" or tossed it aside? Would you have made Grand Cleric Elthina more proactive?

Tossed aside in its current form, it's useless. Change it so that Hawke either becomes a champion of the resistance, or a champion of the crackdown.

An apostate Hawke could pick either side I guess, awkward as that may be. Perhaps fighting the resistance involves siding with the Viscount and not really Meredith perse. Perhaps members of the resistance, resolutionists, started using more violent methods and Dumar, in an attempt to show Meredith that he can handle it, entrusts Hawke with cracking the resistance. Dumar has to die at the end, so it could be due to a Resolutionist assassination (a prelude to Anders' act).

And I would have shown the inner-chantry divisions that is paralyzing the Chantry, instead of having the idiot Elthina not *willing* to do anything. Hence why I sympathise with Viscount Dumar more (even if the difficulties were not shown well). He wants to do something, but really can't (or it's very difficult to do). So I'd have a paralyzed Chantry due to internal divisions (which can be shown via microcosms. If one sides against the resistance, we can explore the differences of opinion within the Chantry).  The mage resistance too would be plagued by internal divisions.

That would have been an epic game, imo.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 août 2011 - 06:41 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...

There's a big difference between supporting Hawke's appointment to Viscount as a counter to Meredith and an assertion of the nobility's prerogatives, and handing him the tools to become a dictator.

They are already ruled by dictators. Might as well have an efficient one.
One subtle enough as to not require audacious displays of power (unlike the previous one), and act within the confines of the law (and all its loopholes).

You speak as if City States never came under the control of dictators, de facto or de jure.

[Wulfram]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

They are already ruled by dictators. Might as well have an efficient one.
One subtle enough as to not require audacious displays of power (unlike the previous one), and act within the confines of the law (and all its loopholes).

Instituting a standing army is an audacious display of power

You speak as if City States never came under the control of dictators, de facto or de jure.

Sure they do.  But they generally require a bit more effort than saying "Hey, make me a dictator please".

[Addai]

Wulfram wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Like people are that fond of Meredith?  Anyway, Hawke defeats her, so she could try.

Fond of Meredith, no.  Prefer her to someone who is going to raise their taxes and threaten their freedom with a standing army, probably.

A ragtag band of Qunari being able to round up every noble in the city and threaten the whole place should be ample proof that Kirkwall is already vulnerable.  There would be no better time than right after that attack for the Champion to convince people they are not safe at all.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...

Instituting a standing army is an audacious display of power

Veiling it under the mask of the Law and with a name as nice as "city guards", and not using it to barge into people's homes, and making it a citizenship type thing with a great amount of pride involved in it, makes it a subtle display of power.

Sure they do.  But they generally require a bit more effort than saying "Hey, make me a dictator please".

Yes, I do not see how I implied that Hawke would just ask for it and it would be given to him on a silver platter.
Of course he has to work for it, and the Hawke we are stuck with now cannot possibly hope to achieve it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 août 2011 - 06:54 .

[Melca36]

Wulfram wrote...



Still more foreign than Meredith, a native who was saving Kirkwall from a tyrant a decade before Hawke washed up there

Templars are NOT supposed to hold political power....Kirkwall became a theocratical fascist state under Meredith because of her parania

And perhaps if the Nobles paid more there wouldn't be all those people in Darktown......:innocent:

[KnightofPhoenix]

Melca36 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...



Still more foreign than Meredith, a native who was saving Kirkwall from a tyrant a decade before Hawke washed up there

Templars are NOT supposed to hold political power....Kirkwall became a theocratical fascist state under Meredith because of her parania

Please no. It's not fascist.

[Melca36]

Wulfram wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Considering Meredith's tenure as pseudo-viscount heralded the day of the jackboot for Kirkwall, they never had much freedom to begin with. And being after to give the Templars a nice thwacking with a standing army would be an attractive proposition for any of the nobles.

If you've got a choice of tyrants then pick the one who isn't going to raise your taxes.  And raising a standing army is in this period a pretty clear mark of a tyrant.

Where does it say Hawke is planning that? Please point to a codex to validate your claim.

[Melca36]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...



Still more foreign than Meredith, a native who was saving Kirkwall from a tyrant a decade before Hawke washed up there

Templars are NOT supposed to hold political power....Kirkwall became a theocratical fascist state under Meredith because of her parania

Please no. It's not fascist.

Okay maybe not but it is theocratic.

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tossed aside in its current form, it's useless. Change it so that Hawke either becomes a champion of the resistance, or a champion of the crackdown.

An apostate Hawke could pick either side I guess, awkward as that may be. Perhaps fighting the resistance involves siding with the Viscount and not really Meredith perse. Perhaps members of the resistance, resolutionists, started using more violent methods and Dumar, in an attempt to show Meredith that he can handle it, entrusts Hawke with cracking the resistance. Dumar has to die at the end, so it could be due to a Resolutionist assassination (a prelude to Anders' act).

And I would have shown the inner-chantry divisions that is paralyzing the Chantry, instead of having the idiot Elthina not *willing* to do anything. Hence why I sympathise with Viscount Dumar more (even if the difficulties were not shown well). He wants to do something, but really can't (or it's very difficult to do). So I'd have a paralyzed Chantry due to internal divisions (which can be shown via microcosms. If one sides against the resistance, we can explore the differences of opinion within the Chantry).  The mage resistance too would be plagued by internal divisions.

That would have been an epic game, imo.

It certainly sounds better than what was provided. So would Act III focus on Hawke maintaining the status quo or fighting against it? If Hawke is siding with the mage underground, is he a clandestine agent, or a known criminal?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Melca36 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

If you've got a choice of tyrants then pick the one who isn't going to raise your taxes.  And raising a standing army is in this period a pretty clear mark of a tyrant.

Where does it say Hawke is planning that? Please point to a codex to validate your claim.

We were talking about what Hawke should have been planning instead of being lazy and useless.

[Wulfram]

Melca36 wrote...

Where does it say Hawke is planning that? Please point to a codex to validate your claim.

Hawke isn't planning that.  This discussion started with someone saying that Hawke should have done that, with which I disagreed.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...

It certainly sounds better than what was provided. So would Act III focus on Hawke maintaining the status quo or fighting against it? If Hawke is siding with the mage underground, is he a clandestine agent, or a known criminal?

If it's possible, why not have three paths in Act 2 (that carry over in Act 3). Pro-mage resistance. Pro-Templars. And Pro-Viscount Dumar / civilian government. Pro-mage resistance is fighting the status quo. Pro-Templar is bending the status quo to make it even more Templar centric. And pro-civilian government could be about trying to revert back to the pre-Meredith days.

So revolutionary vs conservative vs reactionary (more or less, Hawke can have different reasons for picking a side). A three way conflict.

And yes, if Hawke sided with the mage underground, he'd legally be stripped of his noble status and is forced to live as a fugitive alongside the rest of the resistance (at least after Act 2). Different locations depending on choice.
I think that alone is a significant consequence. Is Hawke willing to throw aside wealth and prestige for what he believes in?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 août 2011 - 07:26 .

[Melca36]

I never saw the point in making Hawke Viscount

[KnightofPhoenix]

Melca36 wrote...

I never saw the point in making Hawke Viscount

As it stands, of course it's meaningless.