111 réponses à ce sujet

[The Jackal]

 So I tried to twist my way around it, to figure out why this did happen. I want choices that MATTER. For some reason no matter what I said or side missions I completed they all went to the same choice. What did happent to the day we would stop an event and it would save lives.

Like In Orgins, you had the chance of saving that village or not. You'd stil get inside the castle but thousands would die if you didn't help. It had an insane number of diffcount outcomes. I hope to see more of this in Orgins.

This is what anders did:




1. I would added an option to stop anders

2. To help Anders in this plot

Or some way to know about it before hand, maybe a side mission giving two very seperate turn of events based on what you choose. You could help Ander's and lead the Mage rebeling or you could stop him, save the city and chase down every mage.

Expect the outcomes were very small, depending on who you sided with. They both did the exact same thing just at different times.

[Crimson Moon]

The game was rushed, so there wasn't a lot of choices in this game. I wish I could stop Anders. It doesn't matter to me if someone else does it. I just don't want Anders to be hunted by practically everyone in the game. The game could have been better. I hate how the game presents you with the same outcome no matter what choices you make. Regardless of whether you side with Orsino or Meredith, the outcome is always the same. You would kill Orsino then Meredith. They could have instead have 2 different final bosses with different ending in the end. No matter what you do, mother will always die, no matter what you do, Merrill will want to complete the mirro, no matter what you do, Anders will destroy the chantry. For a game based on choices, they don't give us a lot of freedom to make choices.

[Spicen]

Anders has a demon living in his head, he controlled it for 10 years. What else can you expect from the man.

[philippe willaume]

@ OP
Nope the Rivalry option is somewhat less bad as it makes more sense and you sort if see it coming.

ACT III feel rushed compared to ACTII for exemple.

phil

[LobselVith8]

You can tell Cullen about this, with Anders standing right next to you, and it doesn't matter; the Knight-Captain pretty much handwaves rivalry Hawke's revelation.

As for "the event," it did lead to the result he wanted: his people emancipating themselves from a system that he (and others) viewed as slavery.

[Auintus]

In support of Bioware, real life gives you choices, that doesn't mean you can control everyone and everything.
Actually, that event didn't free mages, it just removed the one thing holding the half-peace together. It started a war that would end in freedom or death, with no chance of compromise, just like he said.

Modifié par Auintus, 05 septembre 2012 - 01:35 .

[Ice-Whiz]

well, the game was rushed and they needed a cataclysmic event to start the real war. In Origins they had several ways of achieving the same end, but they had 1½ years to get from concept to actual planning to finish DA2 afterwards, which is VERY rushed, so they had to cut away a lot of the extra roads, choices and additional details that would have helped customize the experience.

Modifié par Ice-Whiz, 05 septembre 2012 - 01:37 .

[LobselVith8]

Auintus wrote...

In support of Bioware, real life gives you choices, that doesn't mean you can control everyone and everything.

Actions have consequences in real life. The plot railroads you in Dragon Age II, no matter what you do.

Auintus wrote...

Actually, that event didn't free mages, it just removed the one thing holding the half-peace together. It started a war that would end in freedom or death, with no chance of compromise, just like he said.

There was no peace, there was subjugation, and now mages emancipated themselves from the Chantry and the templars.

[Saberchic]

Auintus wrote...

In support of Bioware, real life gives you choices, that doesn't mean you can control everyone and everything.
Actually, that event didn't free mages, it just removed the one thing holding the half-peace together. It started a war that would end in freedom or death, with no chance of compromise, just like he said.

I agree. To paraphrase a certain Spectre, you can't control how others act, but you can control how you react to the situation.

Sometimes things happen despite what you try to do, and I think DA2 included this more than DAO did, so it might be a shock to people who expected to be able to intervene in everything and always have an affect on events around them.

I think the real question should be why didn't Elthina do anything? She let things get to the point they did. She refused to act and did nothing for 7 years. She sat idly by as mages were continually abused and then made tranquil. IIRC, there was no sign that she was going to step in and do anything at all to help the mages. She nixed the Tranqui Initiative, but that was it. That was no real effort on her part. I can totally see why Anders did what he did despite the fact that I don't fully support his actions.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Ice-Whiz wrote...

well, the game was rushed and they needed a cataclysmic event to start the real war. In Origins they had several ways of achieving the same end, but they had 1½ years to get from concept to actual planning to finish DA2 afterwards, which is VERY rushed, so they had to cut away a lot of the extra roads, choices and additional details that would have helped customize the experience.

Not really; the Blight just happened back in Origins and you were simply thrown into it, and the civil war started not long after that. There really is no reason why game about the mage-templar conflict couldn't just have started in either of these ways, as they seem to be doing now anyway by reducing DAII to a mere footnote to the Asunder novel which actually kicks off the war proper.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 05 septembre 2012 - 03:39 .

[Auintus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Auintus wrote...

In support of Bioware, real life gives you choices, that doesn't mean you can control everyone and everything.

Actions have consequences in real life. The plot railroads you in Dragon Age II, no matter what you do.

Auintus wrote...

Actually, that event didn't free mages, it just removed the one thing holding the half-peace together. It started a war that would end in freedom or death, with no chance of compromise, just like he said.

There was no peace, there was subjugation, and now mages emancipated themselves from the Chantry and the templars.

Consequences, yes, but you are not the only person who affects the world. I'll admit it wasn't as well done as it could have been, but Thedas had many factors pushing it towards war. Hawke alone just ddn't have enough influence to stop it.

Peace is...a difficult thing to define. I call it a half-peace because, while not ideal, it was not open war.

Modifié par Auintus, 05 septembre 2012 - 05:07 .

[thats1evildude]

The simple reason you can't stop Anders is because the climax of the game wouldn't happen if you could. There's an argument to be made that Meredith would have eventually called the Right of Annulment — she was only being held back by Elthina's refusal — but it wouldn't have happened along the same timetable and Hawke might not have gotten involved in defending the mages/helping the templars.

The game has to end at some point, and it would be very anti-climactic if it ended with Hawke murder-knifing Anders in his clinic.

Varric: And so Hawke killed Anders, and that whole thing with Meredith and Orsino just kind of resolved itself.
Cassandra: But what happened to Hawke?
Varric: Oh, he's on vacation somewhere. I forgot to ask him where he was going.
Cassandra: There are still many questions left unanswered. What happened to the lyrium idol? And who was this mysterious 'O' that Quentin corresponded with? For that matter, how did the Chantry fall apart if nothing happened in Kirkwall?
Varric: Well, uh … uh … smoke bomb!
*Varric disappears in cloud of smoke*

Modifié par thats1evildude, 05 septembre 2012 - 05:48 .

[LobselVith8]

Auintus wrote...

Consequences, yes, but you are not the only person who affects the world. I'll admit it wasn't as well done as it could have been, but Thedas had many factors pushing it towards war. Hawke alone just ddn't have enough influence to stop it.

Except few choices in the narrative felt like they mattered.

Auintus wrote...

Peace is...a difficult thing to define. I call it a half-peace because, while not ideal, it was not open war.

Living under the rule of the templars and the Chantry because - as Wynne points out in the City of Amaranthine - they would otherwise murder every man, woman, and child with magical ability, isn't peace.

[Auintus]

Few choices in life feel like they matter. That's how it goes.
And yes, that is, in fact, a definition of peace. Definitely not the best, but better than the other option. Just because a situation isn't ideal doesn't mean it isn't peaceful.

[LobselVith8]

Auintus wrote...

Few choices in life feel like they matter. That's how it goes.

Inept writing can also make choices feel like they don't matter.

Auintus wrote...

And yes, that is, in fact, a definition of peace. Definitely not the best, but better than the other option. Just because a situation isn't ideal doesn't mean it isn't peaceful.

I didn't realize slavery was a definition of peace.

[Saberchic]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I didn't realize slavery was a definition of peace.

It is for the oppressors.
Apparently the suppressed have to deal with it.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Would "cold war" satisfy everyone?

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 05 septembre 2012 - 07:44 .

[EricHVela]

The more I think about the railroaded conclusion, the more I think that they intended to set the stage for multiplayer battlefields. Whether or not they will follow through with that given the consistent results of various polls versus EA's stance on pushing multiplayer is anyone's guess. I think that they're going to push the multiplayer battlefields (whether to continue with their design or to bow to EA) to maximize chronic inflow.

[Auintus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I didn't realize slavery was a definition of peace.

As opposed to war between slaves and slavers? Yes, it is.
It's not right, it's not good, but it is peace.

[Renmiri1]

DAO - Blight starts and ends
DA2 - Mage / Templar war starts

No matter what you do in Origins, you can't abandon the Wardens and just go fishing. You can't finish the game without killing the Archdemon. The main story arc there is the Blight and how it ended.

For "Exalted Marches" and DA3 to happen, Bioware needed a world wide crisis. Blight was "taken". They settled on a civil war, between two factions that are present on every country in Thedas: Mages and Templars.

DA2 starts with Varric telling the story of how the war started. It is put into the perspective of Hawke and you do have some latitude on how you get to the war, but you can not end DA2 without starting the war.

As for WHY Anders did it ? The short rushed answer is Justice took over. The more layered answer is that Meredith had sent for the Right of Annulment at teh start of Act 3. He knew the mages in Kirkwall were pretty much dead already. His surprise attack saved the lives of some mages, drew attention to the massacre from all around Thedas and forced Hawke and his friends to finally take a stand.

Anders was suicidal and fully intended to "give justice" to the innocents he killed, by killing himself. He also avoids having to see the mess he made and how betrayed his friends feel, if he dies. And he hopes to cure Justice with his death.

IMHO Anders is being a coward for not facing the aftermath and is endangering Thedas with letting a warped Justice loose. My Hawke lets him live. He deserves to be alive to see how many innoicents die because of what he did and to try to atone for it.


PS: Or Anders did that so that his and Hawke's kid didn't have to grow up in a Circle, as I write in my fanfic 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 05 septembre 2012 - 10:21 .

[Crimson Moon]

Renmiri1 wrote...

DAO - Blight starts and ends
DA2 - Mage / Templar war starts

No matter what you do in Origins, you can't abandon the Wardens and just go fishing. You can't finish the game without killing the Archdemon. The main story arc there is the Blight and how it ended.

For "Exalted Marches" and DA3 to happen, Bioware needed a world wide crisis. Blight was "taken". They settled on a civil war, between two factions that are present on every country in Thedas: Mages and Templars.

DA2 starts with Varric telling the story of how the war started. It is put into the perspective of Hawke and you do have some latitude on how you get to the war, but you can not end DA2 without starting the war.

As for WHY Anders did it ? The short rushed answer is Justice took over. The more layered answer is that Meredith had sent for the Right of Annulment at teh start of Act 3. He knew the mages in Kirkwall were pretty much dead already. His surprise attack saved the lives of some mages, drew attention to the massacre from all around Thedas and forced Hawke and his friends to finally take a stand.

Anders was suicidal and fully intended to "give justice" to the innocents he killed, by killing himself. He also avoids having to see the mess he made and how betrayed his friends feel, if he dies. And he hopes to cure Justice with his death.

IMHO Anders is being a coward for not facing the aftermath and is endangering Thedas with letting a warped Justice loose. My Hawke lets him live. He deserves to be alive to see how many innoicents die because of what he did and to try to atone for it.

You need to side with the templar while on the rivalry path for that to happen though. He's totally unrepented if you're pro-mage or on the friend-path on templar's side. The war itself doesn't started by Hawke though. It was started based on the events of Asunder, I believe.

[Renmiri1]

Crimson Moon wrote...
You need to side with the templar while on the rivalry path for that to happen though. He's totally unrepented if you're pro-mage or on the friend-path on templar's side. The war itself doesn't started by Hawke though. It was started based on the events of Asunder, I believe.

Nope

There is a dialogue with Isabella where he says the people he killed deserve justice. If you spare him he tells you he wasn't expecting to be spared. He tells you he is glad it is you if you romanced him and decide to kill him. And he gives away his possessions to Varric, like suicidal people do. 

I wouldn't say "unrepentant". He knows what he did is wrong and is willing to pay with his own life for it. But he does it anyway. He clearly regrets hurting innocent people but he justifies it to himself as necessary and considers his own life "payment" enough for it. 

My Hawke will give him a lot of s**t for what he did, but she joins his fight. Your Hawke ? You decide 


As for the Asunder stuff, the war started in Kirkwall but it only "got going" all over Thedas two years later.

Anders: There is justice in the world.
Isabela: Is there? You want to free the mages. Let's say you do, but to get there, you kill a bunch of innocent people.
Isabela: What about them? Don't they then deserve justice?
Anders: Yes.
Isabela: And then what? Where does it end?

Modifié par Renmiri1, 06 septembre 2012 - 12:01 .

[SirGladiator]

The guy's ultimately a crazy, evil terrorist, the same as so many people in real life. Every one of them 'think' they have a reason for doing what they're doing, but that doesn't make it any less evil. Anders attempts to justify his evil by pointing to the wrongdoing of others, but you don't turn something bad into something good by doing evil. I always execute Anders for his murderous actions, regardless of the type of Hawke I'm playing, because there's never any justification for that sort of evil.

As to whether we should've been able to stop it, sure we should have, or at least found out about it and saved the people inside the building. If we'd saved the Grand Cleric, Meredith could've still gone on her murderous rampage, but it would've been even more obvious that her behavior was evil and lawless, since she never received the 'Right of Annulment', she merely declared it herself, something she never had the power to declare, whether the GC was alive or dead, only her superiors had that power, and they never did. So yes, we should've been able to influence things there, but that was just one of many examples of things we should have had a chance to influence but didn't. DA3 is supposed to return that type of power to the players, and hopefully they will, certainly it would make situations like that a lot more meaningful.

[Plaintiff]

Anders actions don't actually qualify as a "terrorist" act. I'd just like to point that out.

Terrorism is an extremely loaded word, and one that our society uses extremely carelessly.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

"A systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion." That's the Webster definition, and I think Anders qualifies.