14 réponses à ce sujet

[Studly McFugly]

I feel really bad making a post like this because I love
this game so much (beaten 3 times since release), but I’ve got something that I
wanted to say about Dragon Age. One of the main themes of the game is how every
action you take has consequences. This is all well and good, and for most cases
this is true. In some instances, however, this is not true at all.

 Let’s take the legions of locked chests and crates for
example. I have literally robbed commoners, merchants, nobles, and lords blind
of their keepsakes and household possessions and walked away free. I have walked up to a locked chest
with someone standing right next to it, picked it open, cleaned it out and walked
away without anyone calling me on it or any party members disapproving. In
Baldur’s Gate there were cases where you could get approached by the town guard
for petty theft. So what’s the deal here?

 And what about major plot loop holes?

 SPOILERS

 The Redcliffe case is the most prominent example of this I
can think of. There are three basic outcomes you can achieve here: Conner dies,
Isolde dies, nobody dies. My question is this… what’s the point of having the
other two options if you can save everyone?

 Getting through the encounter without anyone dieing isn’t
all that hard, especially if you did the Mage Tower before Redcliffe. You aren’t
given any time limit on seeking the help of the Circle, so why even bother with
having any other way to get it done? It removes the ethical dilemma entirely,
and thus there is no consequence.

 The same thing goes with the elves versus the werewolves in
the forest. You can save everyone (save for the keeper and the lady, who both
go willingly in the end) without any consequence. So what’s the point? The only
reason I can think not to save everyone is if you were roleplaying a character
who hated elves or something along those lines.

But anyways, this post is long enough. Hopefully everyone
gets my point here. There are too many cases in this game, sometimes significant
plot points, where your actions have absolutely no consequences whatsoever
and all moral and ethical dilemmas are rendered pointless.

Thanks for reading.

Modifié par Studly McFugly, 02 décembre 2009 - 04:28 .

[Drunkencelt]

Not really, You have to take coercion and choose specific options to save the elves and the wolves. Most people choose chat options that go through how their character would naturaly act.

My good guy/justicebringer playthrough actualy butchered the elves, because that sob wouldn't cooperate, lied, and deserved to die. Course, it was more of a white cloak type justice:P

Modifié par Drunkencelt, 02 décembre 2009 - 04:28 .

[Studly McFugly]

Drunkencelt wrote...

Not really, You have to take coercion and choose specific options to save the elves and the wolves. Most people choose chat options that go through how their character would naturaly act.

My good guy/justicebringer playthrough actualy butchered the elves, because that sob wouldn't cooperate, lied, and deserved to die. Course, it was more of a white cloak type justice:P

Hmmm, thanks for pointing this out to me. I just realized that all 3 runs I've gone through with maxed coercion. I suppose I should try it without a sweet-talker one of these times. What about Redcliffe, though?

[You Are Here]

I did two playthroughs, one with a Human Noble, one with a City Elf. With regard to the Werewolves vs Elves, both of my characters saved everyone. Neither had any Coercion skills whatsoever, so I'm not sure if Coercion plays that big a part in that quest.



With regard to Arl Eamon, the thing that would have made it more compelling would have been some sort of time limit. If you don't get back in X days, it's demon time. However, because time doesn't play much of a role in the game at all, introducing it for this particular quest would have been quite cumbersome.



I like that your character often has to choose between the lesser of two bad choices. With Arl Eamon, there was an easy-way-out.

[KnightofPhoenix]

It would be kinda of weird to arrest a Grey Warden for theft though right?

Guard: "You are under arrest for theft, you have the right to remain silent".
Grey Warden: "But I need the sword and money to kill the darkspawn and save your sorry ass!"
Guard: "I don't care. You betrayed the LAW!! (Judge Dredd style)
Grey Warden: empty stare...

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 02 décembre 2009 - 05:36 .

[DariusKalera]

It would have been interesting if you could have actually failed to recruit one or two of the armies because of your actions in game.

[cpip]

DariusKalera wrote...

It would have been interesting if you could have actually failed to recruit one or two of the armies because of your actions in game.

Agreed.  As it stands, the only army slot that might go unfilled is the Golem slot.

Heck, I'd like it if you could choose NOT to gather any of the treaties.  Go it alone, Ferelden!

And then you end up getting your ass kicked severely...

[Rainen89]

_Spoiler_





You only know about "not" killing conner if you let jowan live. So it is entirely possible to think killing him is the only real solution. Also if your character is not a mage you will think killing isabella is the only time. Certain characters in your party influence what your options are.

[celdoloth]

As for Redcliffe, I recently played a templar/berserker warrior who was extremely anti-mage. Killed Wynne, and annulled the Circle of Magi. Ironically I kept Morrigan around, but that was more because my character respected a mage who, despite no official training, resisted demons just fine.



Anyways, so I eliminated the circle as an option in the Redcliffe scenario. I had to choose between killing Conner, or using blood magic and killing Isolde. It was a moral decision that I struggled with, and ended up killing Isolde, simply for the reason that parents should not outlive their children.



Personally, I think the Circle of the Magi route for Redcliffe did make it too easy to just "save everyone," but that's ok. "Save everyone" options are great for the classic Lawful Good hero, but I also appreciate how if you make certain decisions, it makes others a little less easy. This character I played was more of a chaotic good, but that eliminated some of the good options.



Here's a tip if you think "save everyone" decisions are too easy: Don't use them. Suddenly the game becomes far more... complicated.

[Boeresmurf]

u play the game, with maxing persuade skill and working towarths the best possible ending.

while at redcliff, my character was to much focused on action and , i didnt want to llinger whilethe blight awaits.. os i settled the score with the demon right away .



bye bye conner.



i had an argue with the dalish merchent.. about dunno how i got it. but in the end he wouldnt vendor to me anymore... so i hand picked the "rape the elves" idea.



we all nkow all possible ways of doing quests and the different achievements, else we werent on the spoiler forum / or didnt beat the game already, but to rp with your char will make u able to take choices which are not "the best for everybody" but which suits me the best.



as example, my rogue was quite the aggresive person since howe murdered my family. In Denerim u can do some jobs for the guard captain.. i only got 1 assignment to talk to some thugs from him.. because i didnt intimidated them but dared them to a fight and killed them... which wasnt the whole idea ofthe captain.... so no follow up quest, but it felt good

[tmp7704]

Studly McFugly wrote...

My question is this… what’s the point of having the
other two options if you can save everyone? 

The point of them is to provide options, because not every player will be interested in saving everyone. It can be affected by the kind of character they play or just personal preferences.

[Roxlimn]

The choice to kill Connor would actually be hard if the game portrays it as intentionally obtuse - you KNOW you can save him and everyone, but simply choose not to. The game never allows you this choice. Every choice is portrayed as necessary and morally right. Connor's very own mother doesn't hold a grudge.

[Vormaerin]

As pointed out, there are ways to have save everyone in the two encounters, but it depends on other decisions you've made. You could have killed Jowan. You could have killed the mages in Circle. You might just not take the right lines of dialogue to get Jowan to admit there's a third way. You also might have gone to talk to Connor before having the ritual ready. Any of these things could lead to inability to chose one or more of the options.

[Roxlimn]

And yet none of them involve you actually making an immoral choice. The truly despicable choice happens in the Fade, and yet no one ever seems to mention that...

[Niten Ryu]

Studly McFugly wrote...
My question is this… what’s the point of having the
other two options if you can save everyone? 

There's no point unless you roleplay. And even if you do roleplay and always select the most evil or action that would bring harm the most, there's still no real consequences. Actually from gameplay persective it would have been about the same if you'd slaughter everyone you meet and fight archdemon alone in the end as allies are not needed at all (especially if you're mage or have mage in your party). From roleplay perspective you need allies because darkspawn army is much larger then few puny opponents that you meet during your travels. Dragon Age should have gone with Total War route and allow (optional) large scale battles