75 réponses à ce sujet

[Annie_Dear]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

None.

I mean really how many of you even play BioWare games. Nothing bites you in the ass.

[Image removed, Site rule #2]

Modifié par casamar, 10 novembre 2011 - 04:18 .

[jamesp81]

Brockololly wrote...

TJPags wrote...

I remember hearing after playing DAO and DAA that we'd be able to import our choices into DA2 and that they would matter.

Didn't happen.

Don't really care if DA3 recognizes those decisions from DAO/DAA/WH. The lack of recognition in DA2, and the lack of decisions in DA2 ended my interest in this kind of carry over.

Pretty much this.


To boot, if you're just playing as a new PC every game anyway, its not like any of the possible consequences from Hawke or the Warden's actions will be personally relevant to the new PC. They'll just be some new dude getting blowback from some other person's actions. They'll just be collateral damage.

If they want consequences to matter, they need to keep the consequences being felt by the PC making the corresponding choice.

The Grey Nayr wrote...
Performing the Dark Ritual - I watched Beowolf recently and it got me to
wondering. You were offered a deal to sire a child for someone just
like Beowolf did. But his son was a dragon and came back to destroy his
kingdom and he was forced to kill it. So we may well have to kill
Morrigan's son if the Dark Ritual was performed.

And thats an interesting story for Beowulf since he was the one facing the consequences for his own actions. Since we're never playing as the Warden again, any consequences from the DR would be felt by some other person. So it wouldn't be nearly as emotionally engaging as if you were playing as the Warden involved in the DR. having to face the consequences of that choice.

But its not like BioWare will do anything of note with the DR anyway. At most they'll just railroad it or handwave it to a common point like they're doing with most everything from ME1 and ME2 in ME3.

I can't believe people still complain about this.  Do you all even listen to yourselves or stop to think for a second what you're demanding?

Some of the decisions from games like DAO and ME1 could conceivably cause DA2 and ME2 to be completely different games if there were no common point convergence.  Now, do you really think Bioware is going to write two, three, or four entirely different games to accomodate all possible choices to their maximum logical conclusion?  Hell no, they aren't.   They can't.  Not if you want the game to be finished in less than 6 years and cost less than $300 per copy.

The idea of a story that branches very strongly as they tried to do initially with Mass Effect is appealing, but it's not going to happen and it never was.  The only way you might do it is if the PC and ALL NPCs are non-voiced and you read subtitles throughout the entire game.  Even then, the games would have very long development cycles and above average costs.  And you'd still need plot convergence points if you planned to extend a series beyond two or three titles, as the number of variables would get unmanageable in a hurry.

[jamesp81]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

None.

I mean really how many of you even play BioWare games. Nothing bites you in the ass.

They're not going to punish players who don't play the older games first.  I know that makes some people sad, but they are not, and will never, do this.  Nor should they.

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

None.

I mean really how many of you even play BioWare games. Nothing bites you in the ass.

Well hope dies last as they say. I would hope that some do, but it's not really Bioware tradition to have decisions of prequels biting us in the behind. We probably get a blank sheet new protagonist anyway, so how bad can it be. The new protagonist can't be blamed for decisions others made at least.

[AlexXIV]

jamesp81 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

None.

I mean really how many of you even play BioWare games. Nothing bites you in the ass.

They're not going to punish players who don't play the older games first.  I know that makes some people sad, but they are not, and will never, do this.  Nor should they.

They could reward players who played older games first.

[jamesp81]

AlexXIV wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

None.

I mean really how many of you even play BioWare games. Nothing bites you in the ass.

They're not going to punish players who don't play the older games first.  I know that makes some people sad, but they are not, and will never, do this.  Nor should they.

They could reward players who played older games first.

I'm certain they could.  Additional content would be a way to do this.  What they aren't going to do is make it so that an "Optimal Outcome" is impossible for those that didn't play previous titles.

[TJPags]

jamesp81 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

TJPags wrote...

snip for space

snip for space


But its not like BioWare will do anything of note with the DR anyway. At most they'll just railroad it or handwave it to a common point like they're doing with most everything from ME1 and ME2 in ME3.

I can't believe people still complain about this.  Do you all even listen to yourselves or stop to think for a second what you're demanding?

Some of the decisions from games like DAO and ME1 could conceivably cause DA2 and ME2 to be completely different games if there were no common point convergence.  Now, do you really think Bioware is going to write two, three, or four entirely different games to accomodate all possible choices to their maximum logical conclusion?  Hell no, they aren't.   They can't.  Not if you want the game to be finished in less than 6 years and cost less than $300 per copy.

The idea of a story that branches very strongly as they tried to do initially with Mass Effect is appealing, but it's not going to happen and it never was.  The only way you might do it is if the PC and ALL NPCs are non-voiced and you read subtitles throughout the entire game.  Even then, the games would have very long development cycles and above average costs.  And you'd still need plot convergence points if you planned to extend a series beyond two or three titles, as the number of variables would get unmanageable in a hurry.

So, wait, they give us choices to make, then take them away because it's too hard for them to follow up those choices, and we're the ones being demanding?

Dude, seriously, all they had to do was simple things, and there would be fewer complaints:

Don't give us choices that seem so far-reaching; or
Don't give us an option to import our "world state" into future games. 

Make a new game in the same world, with a situation in which choices from the previous game are not relevant, and there's no need to import, and there's no complaint.

BW are the ones who made Origins with what seemed to be huge choices (who rules 2 nations, whether to bring an old god back into the world, whether to wipe out an entire clan of elves, and others) and BW are the ones who told us we can import our world states into DA2.  They created the idea that our choices would have meaning.  And since they're the game designers, I'd think they'd know if that's too tough to integrate into future games or not.

It's a valid point of complaint.

[EmperorSahlertz]

So since the decision of who rules Orzammar, what happened to Amaranthine and the Dark Ritual didn't have a huge impact on DA2, it must mean that the choices are completely 100% and utterly without consequence. mein gott, that is infallible logic!

[TJPags]

Didn't have any impact, let's be clear.

How are they with consequence if they had no impact?

[EmperorSahlertz]

The fate of Amaranthine/Vigil's Keep did give you some quests which offer insights into the political landscape of northern Ferelden, and who rules Orzammar had a minor quest, which shows just how much of a tyrant Behlen proved to be.

The Dark Ritual didn't have any impact, which I am fine with, sicne I would rather have my Warden deal with the impact, or not at all.

[esper]

I am fine wiht the choices we have making small, changes in the next game, like giving us a side quest or two and a line or two acknowlegdning that the world my warden and later my Hawke created exists.
It doesn't have to be big and unrealistic the small changes are enough as it is an aknowlegdement to the prior game and at the same time it doesn't enstrange new players. (They even have acces to most of the combinations with the three backgrounds).

[TJPags]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The fate of Amaranthine/Vigil's Keep did give you some quests which offer insights into the political landscape of northern Ferelden, and who rules Orzammar had a minor quest, which shows just how much of a tyrant Behlen proved to be.

The Dark Ritual didn't have any impact, which I am fine with, sicne I would rather have my Warden deal with the impact, or not at all.

Am I misremembering?  What quest did the fate of Amaranthine/Vigil's Keep provide?  Because all I can remember is the Nathaniel quest.  And that has more to do with whether he survives than the fate of the Keep/Town.  

And last I heard, that was bugged in 2 ways: 1), You don't get it if he's left at the Keep, regardless of whether he lives or dies (which may have been fixed) and 2), he always refers to the Architect as alive, even if you killed him (which I heard can't be fixed).

Did I forget something?

Also, keep in mind, that Orzamar quest you refer to only appears if you put Bhelen on the throne - you don't get a corresponding quest (to the best of my knowledge) if you crowned Harrowmount.  And in no way does it refer to the fate of the Anvil, perhaps as large an issue as the ruler itself.

It's similar to what happens if you don't make Alistair King . . . sure, you see him as either a Warden or a drunk, but you don't see Anora, and thus get no "insight" into anything going on in Ferelden.

[esper]

TJPags wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The fate of Amaranthine/Vigil's Keep did give you some quests which offer insights into the political landscape of northern Ferelden, and who rules Orzammar had a minor quest, which shows just how much of a tyrant Behlen proved to be.

The Dark Ritual didn't have any impact, which I am fine with, sicne I would rather have my Warden deal with the impact, or not at all.

Am I misremembering?  What quest did the fate of Amaranthine/Vigil's Keep provide?  Because all I can remember is the Nathaniel quest.  And that has more to do with whether he survives than the fate of the Keep/Town.  

And last I heard, that was bugged in 2 ways: 1), You don't get it if he's left at the Keep, regardless of whether he lives or dies (which may have been fixed) and 2), he always refers to the Architect as alive, even if you killed him (which I heard can't be fixed).

Did I forget something?

Also, keep in mind, that Orzamar quest you refer to only appears if you put Bhelen on the throne - you don't get a corresponding quest (to the best of my knowledge) if you crowned Harrowmount.  And in no way does it refer to the fate of the Anvil, perhaps as large an issue as the ruler itself.

It's similar to what happens if you don't make Alistair King . . . sure, you see him as either a Warden or a drunk, but you don't see Anora, and thus get no "insight" into anything going on in Ferelden.

If you burned the city and spared the keep there is a woman in act one who ask you to track down and kill (not sure don't remember) some persons in a red hood who is conspiring against the keep (funded by the surving nobles who now hates you warden if I remembered it right). If you spare the city or both you are asked to spy and kill some raiders who sinks Amerithing ship by order off the vicount.

And the quest only happining if you put Belhen on the throne is exactly a consequnce, is that not what you want. (Remember Harrowment is both more mercifull and an isolinist, it is natural that we get less from him) And of course it does not refer to the Avil, why should Hawke be interested in that?

Modifié par esper, 08 novembre 2011 - 09:52 .

[jamesp81]

TJPags wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

TJPags wrote...

snip for space

snip for space


But its not like BioWare will do anything of note with the DR anyway. At most they'll just railroad it or handwave it to a common point like they're doing with most everything from ME1 and ME2 in ME3.

I can't believe people still complain about this.  Do you all even listen to yourselves or stop to think for a second what you're demanding?

Some of the decisions from games like DAO and ME1 could conceivably cause DA2 and ME2 to be completely different games if there were no common point convergence.  Now, do you really think Bioware is going to write two, three, or four entirely different games to accomodate all possible choices to their maximum logical conclusion?  Hell no, they aren't.   They can't.  Not if you want the game to be finished in less than 6 years and cost less than $300 per copy.

The idea of a story that branches very strongly as they tried to do initially with Mass Effect is appealing, but it's not going to happen and it never was.  The only way you might do it is if the PC and ALL NPCs are non-voiced and you read subtitles throughout the entire game.  Even then, the games would have very long development cycles and above average costs.  And you'd still need plot convergence points if you planned to extend a series beyond two or three titles, as the number of variables would get unmanageable in a hurry.

So, wait, they give us choices to make, then take them away because it's too hard for them to follow up those choices, and we're the ones being demanding?

Dude, seriously, all they had to do was simple things, and there would be fewer complaints:

Don't give us choices that seem so far-reaching; or
Don't give us an option to import our "world state" into future games. 

Make a new game in the same world, with a situation in which choices from the previous game are not relevant, and there's no need to import, and there's no complaint.

BW are the ones who made Origins with what seemed to be huge choices (who rules 2 nations, whether to bring an old god back into the world, whether to wipe out an entire clan of elves, and others) and BW are the ones who told us we can import our world states into DA2.  They created the idea that our choices would have meaning.  And since they're the game designers, I'd think they'd know if that's too tough to integrate into future games or not.

It's a valid point of complaint.

They're game designers, not gods of clairvoyance.  They may have intended that in the beginning.  It likely became clear that it was unworkable later.

The best they can do is let some minor choices exist to customize your own experience a bit.  That's what they did, and it's the best that can be done that is practical.

There's no point in demaning the moon.  They can't give it to you.

[EmperorSahlertz]

TJPags wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The fate of Amaranthine/Vigil's Keep did give you some quests which offer insights into the political landscape of northern Ferelden, and who rules Orzammar had a minor quest, which shows just how much of a tyrant Behlen proved to be.

The Dark Ritual didn't have any impact, which I am fine with, sicne I would rather have my Warden deal with the impact, or not at all.

Am I misremembering?  What quest did the fate of Amaranthine/Vigil's Keep provide?  Because all I can remember is the Nathaniel quest.  And that has more to do with whether he survives than the fate of the Keep/Town.  

And last I heard, that was bugged in 2 ways: 1), You don't get it if he's left at the Keep, regardless of whether he lives or dies (which may have been fixed) and 2), he always refers to the Architect as alive, even if you killed him (which I heard can't be fixed).

Did I forget something?

Also, keep in mind, that Orzamar quest you refer to only appears if you put Bhelen on the throne - you don't get a corresponding quest (to the best of my knowledge) if you crowned Harrowmount.  And in no way does it refer to the fate of the Anvil, perhaps as large an issue as the ruler itself.

It's similar to what happens if you don't make Alistair King . . . sure, you see him as either a Warden or a drunk, but you don't see Anora, and thus get no "insight" into anything going on in Ferelden.

If you save the keep a Warden agent (not an actual Warden) gives you a quest to hunt down the remaining conspirators (from the Amaranthine conspiration), which are hiding in Kirkwall and surrounding area.

If you save the city, you get a quest to spy on, and kill, a group of people, who turns out to be disgruntled Kirkwall nobles, who are angry about Amaranthine becoming the major trade hub in the waking sea (instead of Kirkwall), so tehy are hiring pirates to sink Amaranthine ships.

The quest about the last Harrowmont is a direct consequence of your choice, and it shows you what type of person you put on the throne. Exactly what you want.
While having Harrowmont as king doesn't give a quest, Varric at least mentions that Orzammar has become increasingly isolationistic, which also tells you about the man on the throne.

The Architect bug has been fixed, at least it worked for me last night. Now he refered to the Architect as dead (correctly for me), but still referred to "allies" which he still wouldn't give any details about.

[LobselVith8]

snfonseka wrote...

We all saw how our decisions in DA:O bite us in the arse in DA2. 

That's certainly true for the Dalish Warden who asked for land and received the Hinterlands, only for Merrill to be told by King Alistair that something bad happened, with the implication being that the elves living there had been killed. It's hardly any different with the Magi boon, with the Chantry saying no, leaving the mages of Kinloch Hold under the same oppression that they faced prior to the Hero of Ferelden ending the Fifth Blight. The bugged Epilogue slides for the Elven Bann had Shianni as Bann killed, Soris as Bann leaving, and even the Elven Warden as Bann facing a riot.

I believe only the Dwarven Warden's royal boon is the only Non-Human Noble boon not to suffer a bleak outcome... so far.

[Brockololly]

jamesp81 wrote...
I can't believe people still complain about this.  Do you all even listen to yourselves or stop to think for a second what you're demanding?

Some of the decisions from games like DAO and ME1 could conceivably cause DA2 and ME2 to be completely different games if there were no common point convergence.  Now, do you really think Bioware is going to write two, three, or four entirely different games to accomodate all possible choices to their maximum logical conclusion?  Hell no, they aren't.   They can't.  Not if you want the game to be finished in less than 6 years and cost less than $300 per copy.

The idea of a story that branches very strongly as they tried to do initially with Mass Effect is appealing, but it's not going to happen and it never was.  The only way you might do it is if the PC and ALL NPCs are non-voiced and you read subtitles throughout the entire game.  Even then, the games would have very long development cycles and above average costs.  And you'd still need plot convergence points if you planned to extend a series beyond two or three titles, as the number of variables would get unmanageable in a hurry.

Nobody is demanding BioWare make separate games.

I'd just like it if they could back up all their talk of choice and consequences with some actual relevant consequences for the PC making those choices. If you look at the DR choice, a large part of the decision in making that choice is the fact that it would presumably have an impact down the road with the OGB. Same goes for potentially sparing the Architect. You're making a decision on the supposition that your action will have some sort of consequence down the road. Maybe it will in some future game, but the probablity of that happening decreases the longer you go from when those games were released.


And when you look at games like Alpha Protocol or The Witcher 2, other developers are definitely having games with meaningful consequences and choices with diverging, unique content. If BioWare want to keep claiming they're such master storytellers, they need to step their game up in the reactivity department.  There is no reason they can't create unique content based on choices the PC made in an earlier game thats more significant than simply replacing one NPC with an alternate NPC filling the same role. 

CDPR and Obsidian raised the bar with reactivity and consequences in their recent games and I'd like to see BioWare do the same. Or if they're not going to bother, then they need to shut up about choice and consequences meaning anything in their games, especially when it comes to buggy, underwhelming save game imports.

[Zanallen]

I doubt any decisions will actually matter in the third game.

[TJPags]

esper wrote...

TJPags wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The fate of Amaranthine/Vigil's Keep did give you some quests which offer insights into the political landscape of northern Ferelden, and who rules Orzammar had a minor quest, which shows just how much of a tyrant Behlen proved to be.

The Dark Ritual didn't have any impact, which I am fine with, sicne I would rather have my Warden deal with the impact, or not at all.

Am I misremembering?  What quest did the fate of Amaranthine/Vigil's Keep provide?  Because all I can remember is the Nathaniel quest.  And that has more to do with whether he survives than the fate of the Keep/Town.  

And last I heard, that was bugged in 2 ways: 1), You don't get it if he's left at the Keep, regardless of whether he lives or dies (which may have been fixed) and 2), he always refers to the Architect as alive, even if you killed him (which I heard can't be fixed).

Did I forget something?

Also, keep in mind, that Orzamar quest you refer to only appears if you put Bhelen on the throne - you don't get a corresponding quest (to the best of my knowledge) if you crowned Harrowmount.  And in no way does it refer to the fate of the Anvil, perhaps as large an issue as the ruler itself.

It's similar to what happens if you don't make Alistair King . . . sure, you see him as either a Warden or a drunk, but you don't see Anora, and thus get no "insight" into anything going on in Ferelden.

If you burned the city and spared the keep there is a woman in act one who ask you to track down and kill (not sure don't remember) some persons in a red hood who is conspiring against the keep (funded by the surving nobles who now hates you warden if I remembered it right). If you spare the city or both you are asked to spy and kill some raiders who sinks Amerithing ship by order off the vicount.

And the quest only happining if you put Belhen on the throne is exactly a consequnce, is that not what you want. (Remember Harrowment is both more mercifull and an isolinist, it is natural that we get less from him) And of course it does not refer to the Avil, why should Hawke be interested in that?

Ahhh, I don't remember those quests . . . either I didn't load a correct gaeme, or just never got them . . .or simply don't remember.  Thanks.

So yes, that shows some impact . . . which is very good.

The Bhelen thing - - see, the problem is, if you put Harrowmount on the throne . . .. you get nothing.  You don't even know you're missing something unless you import a save where you put Bhelen on the throne . . .which is my problem.  Put Harrowmount on the throne, it seems like it means nothing - make Anora Queen, seems like it means nothing.  And you don't know you're missing something unless you also play the other way.

It's poor planning.

jamesp81 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

TJPags wrote...

snip for space

snip for space


But its not like BioWare will do anything of note with the DR anyway. At most they'll just railroad it or handwave it to a common point like they're doing with most everything from ME1 and ME2 in ME3.

I can't believe people still complain about this. Do you all even listen to yourselves or stop to think for a second what you're demanding?

Some of the decisions from games like DAO and ME1 could conceivably cause DA2 and ME2 to be completely different games if there were no common point convergence. Now, do you really think Bioware is going to write two, three, or four entirely different games to accomodate all possible choices to their maximum logical conclusion? Hell no, they aren't. They can't. Not if you want the game to be finished in less than 6 years and cost less than $300 per copy.

The idea of a story that branches very strongly as they tried to do initially with Mass Effect is appealing, but it's not going to happen and it never was. The only way you might do it is if the PC and ALL NPCs are non-voiced and you read subtitles throughout the entire game. Even then, the games would have very long development cycles and above average costs. And you'd still need plot convergence points if you planned to extend a series beyond two or three titles, as the number of variables would get unmanageable in a hurry.

So, wait, they give us choices to make, then take them away because it's too hard for them to follow up those choices, and we're the ones being demanding?

Dude, seriously, all they had to do was simple things, and there would be fewer complaints:

Don't give us choices that seem so far-reaching; or
Don't give us an option to import our "world state" into future games.

Make a new game in the same world, with a situation in which choices from the previous game are not relevant, and there's no need to import, and there's no complaint.

BW are the ones who made Origins with what seemed to be huge choices (who rules 2 nations, whether to bring an old god back into the world, whether to wipe out an entire clan of elves, and others) and BW are the ones who told us we can import our world states into DA2. They created the idea that our choices would have meaning. And since they're the game designers, I'd think they'd know if that's too tough to integrate into future games or not.

It's a valid point of complaint.

They're game designers, not gods of clairvoyance. They may have intended that in the beginning. It likely became clear that it was unworkable later.

The best they can do is let some minor choices exist to customize your own experience a bit. That's what they did, and it's the best that can be done that is practical.

There's no point in demaning the moon. They can't give it to you.

See, you say exactly what I say, yet you excuse it.  I don't.

Yes, they're game designers.  I'm not.  I'm a game player.  If I'm given choices, and told they matter, and that I can import my world, I expect those choices to mean something.  If they don't - well, game is not as good, IMO.

What you say is probably exactly what happened (the other option I can think of is, they're saving it for DA3).  Either way, it's not my fault - it's theirs.  And you know what?  If a game doesn't deliver something I think it should have, I'm going to point it out.  And if it's something that's the fault of the designers, I'm going to blame them.

It's called criticism.  And sometimes, it's deserved.  In this case, I think it's deserved.

Not much more to say, is there?

[The Baconer]

Letting Tallis take the scroll.

Oh wait...

[BubbleDncr]

It depends on what you mean by "matter."

The most I think anything will "matter" is probably a few extra dialogue lines in certain conversations, some cameos, a few cutscenes and some sidequests that are different. But nothing that will effect the overall plot.

For that, I'll go with decisions being the ones that matter:

1) Old God Baby in Origins - will probably affect the capacity of Morrigan's role, but since the kid would be around 8-10 years old probably, I'm not expecting much.
2) The current ruler of Ferelden - Alisatir and Anora will probably take all the same actions no matter who rules, it'll just change who is in your cutscenes.
3) Sister Petrice lives or dies - I imagine you'll probably get a different side quest or something if she's alive.
4) Arishok lives or dies - If he lived, he'll be the Arishok we deal with in DA3, if not, there'll be a different one.
5) Who Hawke sided with at the end - won't have any effect on the plot, but will effect how people in game talk about how everything started.

Modifié par BubbleDncr, 08 novembre 2011 - 10:45 .

[esper]

BubbleDncr wrote...

It depends on what you mean by "matter."

The most I think anything will "matter" is probably a few extra dialogue lines in certain conversations, some cameos, a few cutscenes and some sidequests that are different. But nothing that will effect the overall plot.

For that, I'll go with decisions being the ones that matter:

1) Old God Baby in Origins - will probably affect the capacity of Morrigan's role, but since the kid would be around 8-10 years old probably, I'm not expecting much.
2) The current ruler of Ferelden - Alisatir and Anora will probably take all the same actions no matter who rules, it'll just change who is in your cutscenes.
3) Sister Petrice lives or dies - I imagine you'll probably get a different side quest or something if she's alive.
4) Arishok lives or dies - If he lived, he'll be the Arishok we deal with in DA3, if not, there'll be a different one.
5) Who Hawke sided with at the end - won't have any effect on the plot, but will effect how people in game talk about how everything started.

true, but I think fenryel will be mentioned as well (having a side quest) if he is a tevinter mage.

[Jorina Leto]

This is an EA Bioware Game series. Your decisions will only have cosmetic consequences. If they have consequences at all.

[tek427]

To actually answer the OP's question, these are the decisions that I think will come back to haunt my DAIII character:

Who rules Ferelden (and with whom)
The Old God baby
The Architect's fate
and the biggest one of all...
Letting Anders live

Reflecting on it now I think I should've killed Anders in more of my playthroughs. I guess I spared him because he entertained me in Awakening. But that Anders is gone. I really think I'm going to regret sparing him. If Anders has the balls to blow up a chantry, what's to say he'll kill more innocents to get his vengeance?

I apologize if I went on a bit of tangent there.

[BubbleDncr]

tek427 wrote...

To actually answer the OP's question, these are the decisions that I think will come back to haunt my DAIII character:

Who rules Ferelden (and with whom)
The Old God baby
The Architect's fate
and the biggest one of all...
Letting Anders live

Reflecting on it now I think I should've killed Anders in more of my playthroughs. I guess I spared him because he entertained me in Awakening. But that Anders is gone. I really think I'm going to regret sparing him. If Anders has the balls to blow up a chantry, what's to say he'll kill more innocents to get his vengeance?

I apologize if I went on a bit of tangent there.

I dunno, I kind of don't think that letting Anders live or die will be that big of a thing in DA3 - I mean, the war has already started and there's no going back, so it doesn't really matter who started it. 

The only thing that can or can't happen if you do or don't kill Anders is Sebastain having Starkhaven march on Kirkwall, and that, I'm hoping, will be a DA2 expansion, not DA3. But since Sebastian wasn't there in anyone's playthrough that didn't have his DLC, there may never be any real fallout from that. 

I think in most cases, if you let Anders live, Hawke sided with the Mages (cos don't you have to kill him if you side with the Templars?) and Anders leaves Kirkwall with Hawke. So I figure, now that Hawke knows the true lengths Vengence will go to, Hawke will keep a closer eye on Anders - yes, they'll fight for mage freedom together, but Hawke would keep Anders from killing innocents over it. Unless Hawke wants to kill innocents, but then you can't really say the decision will bite you in the arse.

Tho I think you can also not kill Anders, have him fight with you, but then tell him you want him to leave after the battle? If that's true, and you do that, then I guess you can say it could come back to haunt you, I guess. 

I guess I'm also just hoping that Anders doesn't play much of a role in DA3 - maybe some Alistair in DA2 level cameos, but that's about it. It bugged me a little bit when the devs all said that "Hawke is the most important person in the Dragon Age," but it was really Anders that caused the everything to go crazy, and he would probably have done that even if Hawke never met him. So him playing a large role in DA3 kind of feels like it'd be salt in the wounds of Hawke not really being the influential, important character.