44 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

I like how they did with nature of the beast in DA2. You know different quests if the werewolf was still werewolf or not.
Also the bountyhunter/other quest depending on the Grace choice, but whole arc differs may be too much, because as devSin said there are some choices I will never make.

[Bryy_Miller]

Cuthlan wrote...

No. If the choice is one or the other, I'll take the longer game with less meaningful choices. History has shown that too many significant choices just causes trouble when sequels come along anyway, and they wind up getting ignored.

I believe this is also an argument for Branching Story vs. Branching Plot. I think most gamers say they want Branching Plot when they really want Branching Story. 

[Macropodmum]

I think DAO was more for your moneys worth than DA2, I really liked the fact I got to chose the ruler, who to side with during different quests etc so even though we all ended up on the roof with a dragon some of our decisions carried through (or should have).  I can understand them not doing that in DA2 because I honestly believe DA2 is a set up for DA3.  I can't say I have regretted buying either

Rifneno wrote...

I'd imagine the OP just finished Witcher 2.  Let me explain for the readers who haven't played it (and you should.  now.):  In trying to keep spoilers to a minimum, I'll be as vague as possible.  There's 3 chapters to the game, just like DA2.   At the end of Chapter 1, you're given a choice. Depending on whether you choose A or B, Chapter 2 will be vastly different.  Your overall goal will be the same, Geralt is tasked with breaking an incredibly powerful curse.  But you'll be in different cities, interacting with different people.  Major characters on one side will be virtually unknown to you on the other.  The side quests are different, everything is different.  It isn't like DAO's choice of saving or destroying the anvil of the void & who to crown king of Orzammar, it's more like if the dwarves and elves hated each other to the point that you had to choose between doing Paragon of Her Kind to recruit the dwarves or Nature of the Beast to recruit the elves.  Chapter 3 is also very different, but not quite as much as 2.

But, as a consequence of the two paths being wildly different, a single playthrough of the game is much shorter.  I'd estimate about 35 hours rather than the usual 50ish for an RPG.  Which is fair, they don't owe us twice the content because they gave us branching paths.

I like this idea but is there the ability to play the protagonist as female?  Because the choice of character for me is just as important as the game (and I was considering buying Witcher2)....

[Satyricon331]

Interpreting the "more content" option as an overall greater length per playthrough, as many people seem to have, I'd say for me it would really depend on how steep the tradeoff is. I wouldn't be such a fan of a DA game that was as short as TW2 just for the sake of having a more drastic branching effect.

I'd prefer the choices to have a greater impact on the game world than have a greater impact on gameplay, given a tradeoff.

[In Exile]

Macropodmum wrote...
I like this idea but is there the ability to play the protagonist as female?  Because the choice of character for me is just as important as the game (and I was considering buying Witcher2)....

No. Which is why I'd like to see Bioware borrow the design. The protagonist is entirely fixed (gender, background, etc.). To be fair, the game is based on a book. 

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

Macropodmum wrote...
I like this idea but is there the ability to play the protagonist as female?  Because the choice of character for me is just as important as the game (and I was considering buying Witcher2)....

No. Which is why I'd like to see Bioware borrow the design. The protagonist is entirely fixed (gender, background, etc.). To be fair, the game is based on a book.

I believe that if Bioware insists on delivering an explicit third person narrative, a fixed protagonist works better. Most character control in dialogue issues from DA 2 would be resolved if we weren't expecting the main character to be ours from the beginning.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
I believe that if Bioware insists on delivering an explicit third person narrative, a fixed protagonist works better. 

A fixed protagonist is much worse, because Bioware doesn't deliver a third person narrative. There is no such thing, because a first person narrative can't exist in a video-game. 

Most character control in dialogue issues from DA 2 would be resolved if we weren't expecting the main character to be ours from the beginning.

It depends on what you mean by ''yours''. Hawke isn't any more or less defined than any other protagonist. The VO just makes it harder for people to go ''La-La-La-Can't-See-The-Railroad''. 

[Macropodmum]

In Exile wrote...

Macropodmum wrote...
I like this idea but is there the ability to play the protagonist as female?  Because the choice of character for me is just as important as the game (and I was considering buying Witcher2)....

No. Which is why I'd like to see Bioware borrow the design. The protagonist is entirely fixed (gender, background, etc.). To be fair, the game is based on a book. 

Ah ok thanks, guess I will give this one a miss then

[Rifneno]

Macropodmum wrote...

I like this idea but is there the ability to play the protagonist as female?  Because the choice of character for me is just as important as the game (and I was considering buying Witcher2)....

The same place as the option to play the protagonist as an elf, or fight with archery, use heavy armor, ect. Witcher was a book series first, they only wound up making games because the books took off so well. The series focuses on a static character for this reason, he was the main character of the books. Which is fine, because he's an excellent character. I never really understood "I'll only play my rl gender" mentality... Final Fantasy XIII got tons of the same complaint and it had about 7.3 billion things that were a bigger problem than the main character owning a bra.

In Exile wrote...

No. Which is why I'd like to see Bioware borrow the design. The protagonist is entirely fixed (gender, background, etc.). To be fair, the game is based on a book.

I don't think Bioware is allowed to... "borrow" anything else from Witcher without royalties. Kirkwall = Vizima, Circle of Magi = Scoia'tael, Templars = Order of the Flaming Rose. A few times I was half expecting Cullen to make a slip of the tongue and call Hawke "Geralt."

[ourimaler]

Yes. I'll take meaningful choices over a long game, if that's what it takes.

[Nerdage]

Choices don't have to be game-changing to be meaningful. I'd consider the choices I made in DAO to be 'meaningful'; the anvil, the Dalish, the monarch, even though they barely changed the game. Hell even hardening companions was meaningful, but it's gameplay impact was almost nothing. If a choice is emotionally engaging then it's meaningful, regardless of its gameplay impact.

Basically what other people have said, I'd prefer personal choices to world choices. Obviously the more of both (or perhaps the more consequences to them) the better, but I wouldn't want to lose ~30 hours of gameplay per character just to have more gameplay consequences.

[Nerdage]

Rifneno wrote...

I don't think Bioware is allowed to... "borrow" anything else from Witcher without royalties. Kirkwall = Vizima, Circle of Magi = Scoia'tael, Templars = Order of the Flaming Rose. A few times I was half expecting Cullen to make a slip of the tongue and call Hawke "Geralt."

Those are some flimsy likenesses.

[Macropodmum]

Rifneno wrote...

Macropodmum wrote...

I like this idea but is there the ability to play the protagonist as female?  Because the choice of character for me is just as important as the game (and I was considering buying Witcher2)....

The same place as the option to play the protagonist as an elf, or fight with archery, use heavy armor, ect. Witcher was a book series first, they only wound up making games because the books took off so well. The series focuses on a static character for this reason, he was the main character of the books. Which is fine, because he's an excellent character. I never really understood "I'll only play my rl gender" mentality... Final Fantasy XIII got tons of the same complaint and it had about 7.3 billion things that were a bigger problem than the main character owning a bra.

Lol, point taken but I have tried playing a male character before, (and yeah I have to admit I played Duke Nukem back in the day) but I just find it irritating, especially when the protaganist is focused on"getting some" (and no I couldn't bring myself to play the latest Duke).  It is a shame because the trailer for it looked good, but then I still have plenty in Guild Wars to do until the next DLC comes out for DA

[Rifneno]

nerdage wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I don't think Bioware is allowed to... "borrow" anything else from Witcher without royalties. Kirkwall = Vizima, Circle of Magi = Scoia'tael, Templars = Order of the Flaming Rose. A few times I was half expecting Cullen to make a slip of the tongue and call Hawke "Geralt."

Those are some flimsy likenesses.

Yeah, you're right.  Witcher actually pulled off the moral ambiguity by letting you side with only the sane knights and not the crazed, xenophobic zealots and only fight resistance forces actually attacking rather than include innocent and helpless people who just happen to share a genetic trait.  But tell me this:  What group does the following describe: They drink a mysterious magical concoction that kills most of them but leaves the rest with awesomeness so they can fight monsters.  And only monsters, because they're forbidden from interfering in political matters.  Whether you said "witcher" or "grey warden", you're still right. <_<

Macropodmum wrote...

Lol, point taken but I have tried playing a male character before, (and yeah I have to admit I played Duke Nukem back in the day) but I just find it irritating, especially when the protaganist is focused on"getting some" (and no I couldn't bring myself to play the latest Duke).  It is a shame because the trailer for it looked good, but then I still have plenty in Guild Wars to do until the next DLC comes out for DA

Ahh. Fair enough, that's... definitely a problem in Witcher. =/ Especially the first one, much less so with the second. Optional dialogue, but certainly there.

[Gervaise]

I don't mind a basic story if within that story the choices you make do have some bearing on the world you are in, so that by the end if you weren't in the world, things might be very different.  So in Origins the basic story is that of the Grey Wardens stopping the blight.  However, how the Warden does this and the alliances they make along the way can vary according to their back story/race, their motivations, their attitude to their role.  The game is just as long or as short as the number of stages the writers make to achieve your aims.  When the epilogue plays out, you find out how your choices have affected the world you have inhabited and the people in it.  Even your own future is dependent on choices you make.   If you hadn't been there the Archdemon would still have eventually been killed but the world that was left would have been different.    This made it worthwhile really roleplaying the character, even if you only do play through once.  I have actually played it through several times and each time have achieved a different end world consistent with each variation of the Warden that I played.  This would be true even without the romance element, although I do enjoy this aspect.

In DA2 you could take Hawke out of the world and very little would be different.  No doubt Bartrand and Varric would still eventually fund their expedition, would find the idol and Bartrand would abandon his brother and sell it.   There would be tension between locals and refugees and between zealots and the Qunari.  The Arishok would be defeated, possibly the only difference being that it would not be in single combat/small group of companions but full frontal onslaught by Templars, with more people being killed.  The tension between Templars and Mages would still eventually reach breaking point, possibly quicker because Hawke is not around.  Anders would still make his bomb.  The RoA would occur, Orsino would transform and Meredith eventually have mental breakdown.    The events in Kirkwall would undermine the Chantry and overturn the Circle system.   Even Hawke starts off as a penniless refugee and ends up with nothing, apart from a short spell as vicount apparently not changng much, and a possible romance.   Only with your companions could it be argued that you have made a difference to their lives, which is why I get more satisfaction out of that element of the game, plus a few minor character choices that may have an effect on future plots, such as whether or not you save Feynriel from tranquility.

Of the two, I much prefer Origins because it makes role playing the character worth the effort and I know that if I had chosen one path over another, the outcome would have been different.     The choices I make in Origins are also acknowledged in DA2 even if they don't make much difference to the overall plot.  The carry over from DA2 would appear to be whether I opted for Templars or Mages (which doesn't even acknowledge why this choice was made but assumes your reasons, i.e. pro-Templar or pro-Mage) and which character class I chose.   So really Hawke is irrelevent to the future world.    

May be the question should be whether you prefer a game where the story is self contained and therefore you can have variant endings to the main and supporting plots because it doesn't impact on future games or whether you want continuity between games that requires only one or two possible outcomes.  So in the case of DA2, if the outcome only affected Kirkwall or the Free marches, it would have been easier to allow the ending to vary according to your in game choices, including a neutral outcome where Thrask and his moderates succeed in their aims.  This would then simply be referenced in future stories with side quests related to it, much as for Origins.    As it is, we know that the Thedas of DA3 is going to be very different from that of Origins or DA2, regardless of the choices you made, but then that could have been the case anyway - simply Kirkwall, which is not likely to feature anyway, having different references according to what you caused to happen.

[Nerdage]

Rifneno wrote...

nerdage wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I don't think Bioware is allowed to... "borrow" anything else from Witcher without royalties. Kirkwall = Vizima, Circle of Magi = Scoia'tael, Templars = Order of the Flaming Rose. A few times I was half expecting Cullen to make a slip of the tongue and call Hawke "Geralt."

Those are some flimsy likenesses.

Yeah, you're right.  Witcher actually pulled off the moral ambiguity by letting you side with only the sane knights and not the crazed, xenophobic zealots and only fight resistance forces actually attacking rather than include innocent and helpless people who just happen to share a genetic trait.  But tell me this:  What group does the following describe: They drink a mysterious magical concoction that kills most of them but leaves the rest with awesomeness so they can fight monsters.  And only monsters, because they're forbidden from interfering in political matters.  Whether you said "witcher" or "grey warden", you're still right. <_<

Sorry to drag this off topic, all.

Religious order of knights. (turns out it's a pretty common archetype in fantasy)

The potential to control minds, destroy cities, summon demons, etc.. isn't akin to race. Mages are oppressed because they're dangerous, not just because, the dynamic is entirely different. And since -again- oppression in itself is pretty common, it's not enough to link them.

As far as I know the only "awesomeness" grey wardens gain is resistance to the taint and the ability to sense darkspawn, they don't inexplicably become super warriors. The only similarity is that they both have to drink something. (and Wardens aren't forbidden from politics, one of them is arl of Amaranthine, another is unofficial ruler of the Anderfels, another may even be king of Ferelden). But once again, it turns out orders of elite world-defenders isn't an unheardof archetype, either.

[nitefyre410]

Less content for Meaningful Choice ... No


I would not trade content that if came to that I would rather have content.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 11 août 2011 - 12:35 .

[Pygmalin]

Goodness, I would LOVE to play Witcher 2. That game does look amazing. Darn my slow computers.

But I digress back to topic.....

[Luckywallace]

I would agree, I actually found Dragon Age Origins too long and drawn out with too much 'filler' spent wondering around killing the same mobs of Darkspawn over and over.

Something like Mass Effect 2 was pretty much the perfect size of RPG for me, DA2 was not too bad, it was the bland repetative environments and lack of any meaningful choice that were its worst aspecst for me, not the shorter length of the overall game compared to DA:O.

[Pygmalin]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Less content for Meaningful Choice ... No


I would not trade content that if came to that I would rather have content.

But if you are playing an RPG that content should be relate-able to the game. This is what I meant by the fetch quests, there is not purpose and they are boring. So what if you get a few extra XP or gold. It has no point, no purpose. The created world isn't going to fall apart because Raj didn't get his finger bone, or whatever.  I would prefer the quests have meaning, either now or later in the series. This is exactly why I loved Origins, and why I have played it a million times. For example, there is Katlyn in Red Cliff, seemingly 3 minute quest where you find her brother, you get a sword and you go back to her to give her money. IF you give her enough she marries Bann Teagan. This to me was awesome, that seemingly little thing, actually had an impact on the a charcter that I came to respect.  So to a person who loves to interact with stories and feel connected to the story, that small at first meaningless choice actually added context to a character we wouldn't have thought twice about.  That choice alone, is one of the main reasons I played again.  I wanted to complete the side quests, to find out different outcomes.  

With DA2 I personally was disconnected with the Characters, It was just another game to play and take back to game stop to get another.  But a game with Substance, a game that can keep you intriged more than once regardless of the time it takes to play, thats a game worth holding on to.  So Story, over time, any day. 

How many of you RPG fans are a fan of books? Many are, in fact, why? The STORY.  A good story will make you read that book over and over. Same with a Great RPG. Bioware accoplished that with Origins, and I feel they can accoplish it again. They showed me they could by Legacy.  They just need to ignore the finacial pressure to pump something out and get back to what they are really good at and that is story.  

Ok thats my opinion for the day. <3