201 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

berelinde wrote...

With all due respect... Why?

I think David Gaider wasn't so much saying that Abomination Connor would happen again after he's been saved, but that Abomination Connor wouldn't just be all peaceful while you're out trying to get the Mages.

And if that's the case, as I said I wouldn't like that because it forces the destruction of Redcliffe on a bunch of battle-hardened people -- at least, in regards to fighting walking corpses -- that could've been at their absolute strongest.

Which wouldn't make much sense, especially when the zombie horde's numbers were much smaller. And the Demon doesn't have access to much of Connor's powers, since Connor doesn't know much about magic. At best, she could only summon demons into corpses -- which is something Demons can do anyway, IIRC.

And then I have to again echo my support of Fast Jimmy's idea, because it makes the most sense for the situation.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 juin 2012 - 04:09 .

[David Gaider]

berelinde wrote...
With all due respect... Why?

If the protagonist has already battled zombies and whatever else to save Redcliffe before even confronting Connor, what role-playing reason is there to back everything up to a timepoint before that happened? Granted, if the player is getting there after abandoning Redcliffe, sure, the town is toast, but the player worked very hard to save Redcliffe and a brief journey into the fade doesn't exactly negate history.

I totally get the concept that there should be actions and reprecussions, but that one seems particularly incongruous. Does the protagonist awaken new spirits in Redcliffe because s/he goes into the Fade? Are these spirits bent on Redcliffe Village's destruction? Casting the "abandoned Redcliffe" outcome on players who opt for a cerebral resolution to the Connor question smacks of retaliation without cause, and that makes no role-playing sense whatever your genre. The battle is won. Moving on... the battle is lost? What's up with that?

I'm not finding fault. I'm just trying to understatnd. Penalty, surely, but maybe some other one may have been better. Maybe some handicap at Landsmeet.

Two reasons:

1) Because Teagan warned that he had no idea how long they would keep Connor contained. He wasn't imprisoned, after all, just sitting up in his father's room and... well, sulking. In the game, it turned out to be an empty warning. Connor remains up there as long as you're gone. But what if, given time, he'd recovered?

2) Because the "Redcliffe is destroyed" state already existed. It was a switch that could be thrown and thus would cost no extra resources to implement, beyond the explanation Teagan (or whoever) would have needed to offer regarding how they defeated Connor again.... or whatever it was.

Not saying this is what would have happened. Just saying this would have been the most likely result, had we gone in that direction. Considering the warning, I don't think it would have been all that incongruous at all.

Modifié par David Gaider, 15 juin 2012 - 04:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think some things should just be wins, and some things should just be losses, regardless of any offsetting costs or benefits.

The cost of the third option in Redcliffe was the choice to try it. In character, choosing the third option is clearly pretty dumb. That's sufficient cost for me.

If every win has a proportional cost, then the game will seem more contrived.

I would also support randomising outcomes (so, in Recliffe's case, Connor survives some of the time based on a RNG event), but I suspect BioWare wouldn't like to do that because it would induce reloading.  As such, I'd say just script them unpredictably to simulate randomness.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 juin 2012 - 07:20 .

[Cross Hassan]

Playing Assassin's Creed Series, Crysis 2 & Counter Strke Source. Watching some fantastic (or even just good) movies plus Game of thrones. That's all i can do now rather than to play DAO again n' again.

[Fallstar]

I've actually just done another Origins playthrough and am playing DA2 again now, and am actually enjoying it a lot more than when I first played it.

With regards to the Connor thing, I think there should have been some consequences if you go to the Circle Tower. Not the Redcliffe is destroyed state, as you have already dealt with most of the undead, but that doesn't mean Connor can't do some significant damage on his own. Something to make good on Teagan's warning.

I normally let Isolde sacrifice herself. I tell myself its because going to the Circle presents an unnecessary risk, but in reality I just can't be bothered to go to the tower and don't really care about Isolde  

Modifié par DuskWarden, 15 juin 2012 - 10:31 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Isolde, and pretty much every other Orlesian character in the series besides Riordian, is the reason I wake up in cold sweats when there is discussion about DA3 happening in Orlais. Maker's Mustache, that much annoying French accents would drive me INSANE.

[darrylzero]

David Gaider wrote...
I hold Redcliffe up as my own personal failure on this front. I wimped out and gave the "third option" of a consequence-free solution just by doing something the player was going to do anyhow... when that really should have come with its own cost. Yes, you should have been able to save both Isolde and Connor... at the price of returning and seeing the village of Redcliffe desolated just the same as if you'd abandoned it to the zombie horde.

Which is not to say that all plots should exist to batter the player over the head with their grimdark realness (in my opinon). But neither would I ever agree that just because a player wants their escapist everything-works-out ending that it's my job to give it to them.

Just my two cents.

David Gaider wrote...

berelinde wrote...
With all due respect... Why?

<snip>

Two reasons:

1) Because Teagan warned that he had no idea how
long they would keep Connor contained. He wasn't imprisoned, after all,
just sitting up in his father's room and... well, sulking. In the game,
it turned out to be an empty warning. Connor remains up there as long as
you're gone. But what if, given time, he'd recovered?

2) Because
the "Redcliffe is destroyed" state already existed. It was a switch
that could be thrown and thus would cost no extra resources to
implement, beyond the explanation Teagan (or whoever) would have needed
to offer regarding how they defeated Connor again.... or whatever it
was.

Not saying this is what would have happened. Just saying
this would have been the most likely result, had we gone in that
direction. Considering the warning, I don't think it would have been all
that incongruous at all.

I'd just like to say that I think this is a great answer.  Story-wise, I might think it would make more sense if it resulted in fewer casualties, such as Bann Teagan and/or Ser Perth depending on choices up to that point (in battle against each other after Teagan is possessed again, perhaps), since the threat is *relatively* contained at that point.  But I love the honesty about the resources too, and the overall framing is just right.

More than anything, though, I love that you're willing to take responsibility for and express regret about that choice so clearly.  It didn't affect my enjoyment of the game -- my characters tend to feel like it's too risky to leave the situation unresolved while they check in at the Circle -- but it's still really refreshing to hear that you're still thinking about this stuff and in particular thinking about it ways that resonate with me.

Really interesting discussion about ME3 here, too.  Let me see if I can express myself sufficiently without being any more spoilery than people have already been...

I agree that the resolution on Rannoch should have been more... political, and Shephard's agency should have been limited mostly to providing previously lost information to key local actors (including, perhaps, a certain character in need of rescue).  But I do think being able to resolve that situation was crucial.  I also think it needed to be more integrated into the ending.  One of the big reasons why the ending failed to resonate with me was it felt like an inferior (and contradictory) replay of more dramatic and satisfying things I had already been through.

Modifié par darrylzero, 15 juin 2012 - 06:05 .

[Nerdage]

I'd have left the rest of the party (depending on who I took with me to the tower) at Redcliffe; make them unselectable until the plot is resolved, and maybe have the outcome depend on how many were left there and whether or not the player went straight to the tower or made any detours. So best case scenario: enough companions are left and all's well; worst case: too few and Redcliffe's destroyed; maybe a mid-ground where only some people die and some live but then you're making extra content.

Heading off to the tower and taking all my roadies with me seemed stupid when there was a safer alternative that seemed pretty obvious but wasn't presented. Would've been nice to see my character show some initiative and leadership rather than just blithely picking one of the choices presented too, like how difficult it is to have the fade ritual be my character's idea, every other mage beats me to it...

[Arthur Cousland]

I've been playing Skyrim, but have recently started up a new Origins playthrough on the new pc that I bought for Skyrim.

It may seem like a long wait for DA3, but I can find other games to keep me occupied in the mean time.  I can wait as long as needed.

[Arthur Cousland]

David Gaider wrote...

berelinde wrote...
With all due respect... Why?

If the protagonist has already battled zombies and whatever else to save Redcliffe before even confronting Connor, what role-playing reason is there to back everything up to a timepoint before that happened? Granted, if the player is getting there after abandoning Redcliffe, sure, the town is toast, but the player worked very hard to save Redcliffe and a brief journey into the fade doesn't exactly negate history.

I totally get the concept that there should be actions and reprecussions, but that one seems particularly incongruous. Does the protagonist awaken new spirits in Redcliffe because s/he goes into the Fade? Are these spirits bent on Redcliffe Village's destruction? Casting the "abandoned Redcliffe" outcome on players who opt for a cerebral resolution to the Connor question smacks of retaliation without cause, and that makes no role-playing sense whatever your genre. The battle is won. Moving on... the battle is lost? What's up with that?

I'm not finding fault. I'm just trying to understatnd. Penalty, surely, but maybe some other one may have been better. Maybe some handicap at Landsmeet.

Two reasons:

1) Because Teagan warned that he had no idea how long they would keep Connor contained. He wasn't imprisoned, after all, just sitting up in his father's room and... well, sulking. In the game, it turned out to be an empty warning. Connor remains up there as long as you're gone. But what if, given time, he'd recovered?

2) Because the "Redcliffe is destroyed" state already existed. It was a switch that could be thrown and thus would cost no extra resources to implement, beyond the explanation Teagan (or whoever) would have needed to offer regarding how they defeated Connor again.... or whatever it was.

Not saying this is what would have happened. Just saying this would have been the most likely result, had we gone in that direction. Considering the warning, I don't think it would have been all that incongruous at all.

It was rather convenient that Connor waited patiently for the Warden to return from the Circle with Irving and co., and didn't decide to go on another killing rampage while the Warden was away.  Since horses don't exist in Ferelden, I'd imagine that it took quite a while to walk on foot from Redcliffe to the Circle Tower.

[Brodoteau]

Sorry I screwed up the quote box but, from Arthur Cousland above: 
[/quote]
It was rather convenient that Connor waited patiently for the Warden to return from the Circle with Irving and co., and didn't decide to go on another killing rampage while the Warden was away.  Since horses don't exist in Ferelden, I'd imagine that it took quite a while to walk on foot from Redcliffe to the Circle Tower.
[/quote]


But at the same time, and with all due respect to Mr. Gaider, if you're going to do that option, than that should have been a possibility at the beginning of the story.  If you want a consequence for going to the Circle Tower, than there should have been a consequence for not doing Redcliffe first.  Or, I think one the biggest leaps of faith is the fact the Eamon doesn't die (after you "cure" Connor) until you happen to find the Sacred Ashes. That was nice of him not to die so that he could move the plot forward. 

As convenient as it is for Connor to wait for the Warden to return, it is equally as convienient that the village isn't already destroyed by the time you get there.  Or that the Werewolves hadn't already slaugthered the Dalish or that Irving wasn't already corrupted and become an abomination.  I can believe that Teagan contained Connor or that he was sulking in his room because I can also believe that Redcliffe wasn't destroyed or Arl Eamon didn't die. 

The entire storyline is convienient because everything waits for the player character in order to begin.  And sure it might not be fair that a player would arrive on the scene and see desolation and devastation before they had the chance to do anything, but would in a sense be more "realitistic."  So I am not troubled by the third "happy" option because, dammit, I'm an epic hero (with great timing) that gets sh*t done. 

Modifié par Brodoteau, 19 juin 2012 - 06:42 .

[FieryDove]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

It was rather convenient that Connor waited patiently for the Warden to return from the Circle with Irving and co., and didn't decide to go on another killing rampage while the Warden was away.  Since horses don't exist in Ferelden, I'd imagine that it took quite a while to walk on foot from Redcliffe to the Circle Tower.

Boat ride, about a day's journey across the lake.

[Pzykozis]

Brodoteau wrote...

Sorry I screwed up the quote box but, from Arthur Cousland above: 

But at the same time, and with all due respect to Mr. Gaider, if you're going to do that option, than that should have been a possibility at the beginning of the story.  If you want a consequence for going to the Circle Tower, than there should have been a consequence for not doing Redcliffe first.  Or, I think one the biggest leaps of faith is the fact the Eamon doesn't die (after you "cure" Connor) until you happen to find the Sacred Ashes. That was nice of him not to die so that he could move the plot forward. 

As convenient as it is for Connor to wait for the Warden to return, it is equally as convienient that the village isn't already destroyed by the time you get there.  Or that the Werewolves hadn't already slaugthered the Dalish or that Irving wasn't already corrupted and become an abomination.  I can believe that Teagan contained Connor or that he was sulking in his room because I can also believe that Redcliffe wasn't destroyed or Arl Eamon didn't die. 

The entire storyline is convienient because everything waits for the player character in order to begin.  And sure it might not be fair that a player would arrive on the scene and see desolation and devastation before they had the chance to do anything, but would in a sense be more "realitistic."  So I am not troubled by the third "happy" option because, dammit, I'm an epic hero (with great timing) that gets sh*t done. 

You acknowledge the difference in your own post though, for all intensive purposes those plots don't exist until you stumble upon them, Connor on the other hand is a known situation, player just decides to leave this powerful abomination alone and go do other stuff.

I'm not saying I'd particularly enjoy the fact that the place gets destroyed if you left that seems abit of an exaggeration although possibly more likely due to it already existing as an option but the situation should have had some drawbacks, Teagan or some other folks dying in the castle after they try and resecure Connor as the demons powers flare up again for example.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 19 juin 2012 - 11:14 .

[Brodoteau]

Pzykozis wrote...

Brodoteau wrote...

Sorry I screwed up the quote box but, from Arthur Cousland above: 

But at the same time, and with all due respect to Mr. Gaider, if you're going to do that option, than that should have been a possibility at the beginning of the story.  If you want a consequence for going to the Circle Tower, than there should have been a consequence for not doing Redcliffe first.  Or, I think one the biggest leaps of faith is the fact the Eamon doesn't die (after you "cure" Connor) until you happen to find the Sacred Ashes. That was nice of him not to die so that he could move the plot forward. 

As convenient as it is for Connor to wait for the Warden to return, it is equally as convienient that the village isn't already destroyed by the time you get there.  Or that the Werewolves hadn't already slaugthered the Dalish or that Irving wasn't already corrupted and become an abomination.  I can believe that Teagan contained Connor or that he was sulking in his room because I can also believe that Redcliffe wasn't destroyed or Arl Eamon didn't die. 

The entire storyline is convienient because everything waits for the player character in order to begin.  And sure it might not be fair that a player would arrive on the scene and see desolation and devastation before they had the chance to do anything, but would in a sense be more "realitistic."  So I am not troubled by the third "happy" option because, dammit, I'm an epic hero (with great timing) that gets sh*t done. 

You acknowledge the difference in your own post though, for all intensive purposes those plots don't exist until you stumble upon them, Connor on the other hand is a known situation, player just decides to leave this powerful abomination alone and go do other stuff.

I'm not saying I'd particularly enjoy the fact that the place gets destroyed if you left that seems abit of an exaggeration although possibly more likely due to it already existing as an option but the situation should have had some drawbacks, Teagan or some other folks dying in the castle after they try and resecure Connor as the demons powers flare up again for example.

OK I see your point, but I think what I said is still relevant.  Above I do mention the Arl Eamon thing which is first mentioned in Lothering (long before the player can decide to go find a cure for him) as an example of the player being introduced to a plot point with no time consequence.  I can go solve the problems of Orzammar, the Dalish, the Circle Tower after I solve the problems of Recliffe (leaving behind the plot device of the "demon sustaining him" as an excuse) and he still won't die.  So why didn't he die if the player takes too long?   My point is that if we want these choice=consequences to have meaning than we also need to have the no-choice=consequences to have meaning. 

There are a ton of examples of this:  I know its just a side quest, but how long are those poor refugees under attack after you get the quest from the Chanter's Board?  Or what about something ike waiting to clear out the mercenaries from the Pearl after you get the quest?  Or how about the big one:  Isn't it nice that the Archdemon doesn't march on Denerim until after the Land's Meet and all that has been cleared up.  Such a nice dragon!   

 In reference to the early conversation about Redcliffe having what is, in essence, a time consequence, it seems arbitrary to institute it for some quests and ignore it for others.  Therefore, I vote for the illusion of the player simply getting lucky and having great timing rather than being arbitrarily penalized for making one decision but not being penalized for making another. 

Modifié par Brodoteau, 19 juin 2012 - 11:30 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

It was rather convenient that Connor waited patiently for the Warden to return from the Circle with Irving and co., and didn't decide to go on another killing rampage while the Warden was away.  Since horses don't exist in Ferelden, I'd imagine that it took quite a while to walk on foot from Redcliffe to the Circle Tower.

Well, it's convenient that the archdemon waits too.

While I was disappointed that Connor didn't rampage if you detour to the tower (and I'm glad Gaider seems to feel that was a mistake as well), I basically stopped believing that PC urgency matters in games after Baldur's Gate 2, where no matter how quickly you go to help Imoen, it'll be exactly the same even if you lingered to do every sidequest available.

No, scratch that, it'll be better if you do the sidequests, 'cause you'll have more loot and xp to help you along.

One of the other quests in DA:O where urgency was ignored was in the City Elf Origin. No matter how fast you move and how much looting you ignore, you're never fast enough. And then the Gauntlet for the Urn of Sacred Ashes has the gall to imply what happened to Shianni is your PC's fault.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Brodoteau wrote...

[...]

Those are some very good points.

RPGs as a whole don't do urgency well. It'd be nice to see some tough decisions where it's impressed upon us that doing A to a happy conclusion will make doing B to a similar happy end harder or impossible, due to time invested or choices made.

Awakening, for instance, gave you the choice of only saving Amaranthine or The Vigil. I thought this was an awesome choice. It's laid out that you cannot save everyone--not personally. Unfortunately the aftermath of the decision is left to epilogue slides. While I love my slides, I would have also loved to have walked through the rubble and talked to the survivors of what my decisions had wrought.

But I think there's some inherent wariness for blocking content in case players rage they can't win every facet of the game...

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 20 juin 2012 - 12:46 .

[Allan Schumacher]

No, scratch that, it'll be better if you do the sidequests, 'cause you'll have more loot and xp to help you along.

I'd love to see games take a bit more risk on balancing this, but I'm not sure if RPG fans in general are as interested in it as I am.


In other news, I'm full on in Sawyer's New Vegas mod. Hardcore (literally in game and figuratively in the amount of time I am spending...). So much fun. Never played the DLC before so there's some new stuff for me there too.

[eyesofastorm]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
In other news, I'm full on in Sawyer's New Vegas mod. Hardcore (literally in game and figuratively in the amount of time I am spending...). So much fun. Never played the DLC before so there's some new stuff for me there too.

I was so stoked when I read the details of this mod, but that was a long time ago.  I really, REALLY loved New Vegas on hardcore mode and I know that this mod would only make it better, but... well, I've been trying to push the rest of the way through Skyrim for literally months now and yes, it's a long game, but there was time when I would have polished off a 100 + hour game in a couple of weeks.  I just don't have the time now and I have a huge backlog of games I haven't even cracked the seal on yet.  Makes me wonder if it's worth it to go back to a game I've already played just for the mod.  Keep us updated on your impressions as you move through ti.

[Vormaerin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

No, scratch that, it'll be better if you do the sidequests, 'cause you'll have more loot and xp to help you along.

I'd love to see games take a bit more risk on balancing this, but I'm not sure if RPG fans in general are as interested in it as I am.

Probably not, since those games that do put in much of that usually end up modding it out.   But I do think that more could be done about the type of sidequests put in games with "urgent" plots.    More things that can be done quickly in  game time or have some obvious benefit to the quest that is optional.

Its quests like smuggling lyrium at the cost of 3+ weeks during a life or death war that grate, not the "can you spare an hour to go across town and break up this gang that's giving the police  hard time."

[Allan Schumacher]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
In other news, I'm full on in Sawyer's New Vegas mod. Hardcore (literally in game and figuratively in the amount of time I am spending...). So much fun. Never played the DLC before so there's some new stuff for me there too.

I was so stoked when I read the details of this mod, but that was a long time ago.  I really, REALLY loved New Vegas on hardcore mode and I know that this mod would only make it better, but... well, I've been trying to push the rest of the way through Skyrim for literally months now and yes, it's a long game, but there was time when I would have polished off a 100 + hour game in a couple of weeks.  I just don't have the time now and I have a huge backlog of games I haven't even cracked the seal on yet.  Makes me wonder if it's worth it to go back to a game I've already played just for the mod.  Keep us updated on your impressions as you move through ti.

Well, I put in about 40-50 hours into the base game when it first came out, and I spent this past weekend feeling a bit under the weather, yet still going to bed around 4 AM....

The new DLCs really help, and the level of options available for combat is staggeringly fun and awesome.  It's the perfect mix of open ended gameplay with good writing that games like Fallout 3 just couldn't quite deliver, and Oblivion fell flat on its face for.  I have never played Skyrim though so I can't compare.

It's probably the best game I've played for having myself do "extra things" just because I find it fun.  Like storing all my extra food in my Novac fridge, with the guns in the footlocker, and armors in the wardrobe.  It's organizing in a way that helps me prepare for future adventures, so it feed back into my base gameplay and the story progression, which is very important to me.

Note though, that this mod will require all the DLCs if you don't already have them, so while I'd say "go for it" if it's basically free for you to do, but if it costs money then maybe you'd prefer to hit the backlog of stuff you've already paid for instead.

[Dave of Canada]

Hardcore mode for DA3!
Injuries must be treated asap or a second knock-down makes them permanent.
No mana regen, Lyrium addiction if you take too many potions in a row, forcing you to drink more or lose stats until addiction is satisfied.
Health salves take time to apply, no more health regen.
Friendly-fire forever.
Newly introduced survival stat which does almost does nothing.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 20 juin 2012 - 01:24 .

[Brodoteau]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

While I was disappointed that Connor didn't rampage if you detour to the tower (and I'm glad Gaider seems to feel that was a mistake as well), I basically stopped believing that PC urgency matters in games after Baldur's Gate 2, where no matter how quickly you go to help Imoen, it'll be exactly the same even if you lingered to do every sidequest available.

No, scratch that, it'll be better if you do the sidequests, 'cause you'll have more loot and xp to help you along.

This is why, while I liked BG2 better, I liked the gateing that occurred in BG a lot more.  In BG it was a slow discovery and the plot was unfolding as you played.  There weren't all these things going at once as there was with BG2, KOTOR, DAO, ME1 and ME2 that only the player character can solve and convieniently wait for the player character.  

Again, I don't think this is a real issue, as I am willing to go with the illusion of good timing, just like I am willing to believe that NPCs stand in the same stop all day long, making the exact same motions, waiting to talk to you so they can repeat the exact same phrase.  Or in the case of DA2, the poor guy who was trapped in some Kafkaesque bureaucrat nigthmare and spent years waiting to see the Viscount (and would tell you every time you pass). 

I think a lot of these issues, could be solved by the game giving us some instance that others have tried and that you are just the next in line.  No one else tried to find Branka?  No one else tried to solve Hubert's mine problems?  

One of my favourite moments in a game is in Throne of Bhaal when you meet the group of "other adventures" who just happen to be questing in the same place as you and, well for the sake of spoilers, I'll simply put "Bondari Reloads."  Simple, funny and memorable.   (Which, to go off on another tangent is a great mechanic to deal with scaling issues, I like that I didn't have to go fight kobolds (which actually magically became beholders if you went to fight them) because Bondari was there and I got to "contract" out.)      

Man, I should go play BG and BG2 again...

[Arthur Cousland]

Yes, it is convenient that everyone waits on the warden. It just seems odd, that at the time, you are in the middle of deciding on what to do with Connor, and the solution requires that the Warden leave Connor unchecked for a day, at least. While I don't actually want him to burn Redcliffe to the ground in my absence, the scenario was always something that I found interesting. I also go the mage route 99% of the time, as I like being the hero and save everybody.

With the benefit of sidequests, I always fully explore Denerim and it's quests before going to Haven. Eamon and the ashes can wait until I gain a few more levels and make some money.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

No, scratch that, it'll be better if you do the sidequests, 'cause you'll have more loot and xp to help you along.

I'd love to see games take a bit more risk on balancing this, but I'm not sure if RPG fans in general are as interested in it as I am.

Some are. In general? I don't know. At the moment, I think we've simply become accustomed to doing all sidequests and unearthing all epic treasures before advancing the main plot...because the main plot isn't going anywhere without its star character.

I am unsure how it'd be balanced, to be honest. The sop we currently have is level scaling, but that merely means characters who advance quickly (in story, not level) won't be handicapped by being weaker; it's no reward.

Perhaps if there was some sort of pay-off, but it's difficult to know what. In BG2 for instance, proceeding swiftly along the main plot means ignoring a number of quests, some of which are quite large. It's not just loot and xp you're missing out on, but quest content, extensive map locations, dialogue. You can't balance/replace all that with a shiny sword or an xp bonus.

Maybe bonus quests though? Unlocking content only if other content is sacrificed/missed?

DA2 did some weird things in forcing the PC to do a couple of quests that were not significant to their current main goal. Helping Isabela in Act 1 could have been logically ignored, and something else involving her could have been in Act II. Same with Merrill, possibly even Fenris.

Brodoteau wrote...

This is why, while I liked BG2 better, I liked the gateing that occurred in BG a lot more.  In BG it was a slow discovery and the plot was unfolding as you played.  There weren't all these things going at once as there was with BG2, KOTOR, DAO, ME1 and ME2 that only the player character can solve and convieniently wait for the player character.  

BG1 does feel like it progresses more naturally, and at a good pace, but it had the advantage of not being based in a city. In a city you expect lots of stuff to be happening at once, which has its charm, but can suck for the purposes of pacing and urgency unless time management/quest juggling becomes a part of the game.

Again, I don't think this is a real issue, as I am willing to go with the illusion of good timing, just like I am willing to believe that NPCs stand in the same stop all day long, making the exact same motions, waiting to talk to you so they can repeat the exact same phrase.  Or in the case of DA2, the poor guy who was trapped in some Kafkaesque bureaucrat nigthmare and spent years waiting to see the Viscount (and would tell you every time you pass). 

Well, I have no problem with it either, but I do wish there was some sort of pay-off for a PC who keeps her eyes on the goal and doesn't pause to strip corpses of their valuables while hot on the trail of her mother's psychotic kidnapper.

One of my favourite moments in a game is in Throne of Bhaal when you meet the group of "other adventures" who just happen to be questing in the same place as you and, well for the sake of spoilers, I'll simply put "Bondari Reloads."  Simple, funny and memorable.   (Which, to go off on another tangent is a great mechanic to deal with scaling issues, I like that I didn't have to go fight kobolds (which actually magically became beholders if you went to fight them) because Bondari was there and I got to "contract" out.)      

Man, I should go play BG and BG2 again...

I loved that bit!

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Note though, that this mod will require all the DLCs if you don't already have them, so while I'd say "go for it" if it's basically free for you to do, but if it costs money then maybe you'd prefer to hit the backlog of stuff you've already paid for instead.

The New Vegas DLCs are fantastic though, on their own and then taken overall with the overarching narrative that ties them all together. Thats one thing I thought New Vegas did exceptionally well that I wish more developers would do with DLC- the way you have certain interesting locations and people referenced in the base game, then the DLCs provide for distinct adventures where you fill in those blanks all the while having an overall narrative that ties the DLCs together and links them back to the main game. That was great.

And as far as spending more money on the DLCs. Well...
http://desmond.image...jpg&res=landing

Modifié par Brockololly, 20 juin 2012 - 04:12 .