35 réponses à ce sujet

[Felya87]

Sorry, but I can't agree. what you want is a "the elder scrool" game.

your action MUST count in a way, it's the motive one play at DA:O. I found horrible in DA2 the way things appened even if you try everything to prevent it, or at least they appened in a way that say is sad and idiotic is say nothing (cough!Anders!cough!just a little escamotage, and it wasn't such a great delusion, even if the fact could happen the same way, but nooo)

All the problems you are referring to, could be insignificant if the successive game was settled a century after the Blight. new PG, evolution of the society canonical, ecc. then there was no need to use the save from the previous game. as in a Elder Scrool game.

but I think, even if I have always my reserve for DA3 (when you are burn whit hot wather(DA2), you are afraid of the cold wather too) and they decide to made the save import, they have in mind how to made the choise of the previous game work.

[Meltemph]

Josielyn wrote...

I want at least one scene about a formal dinner, involving poison. If you choose the wrong wine... guess what happens?You have a near death experience, and visit the Fade for a while.

Yup.  Stuff like this is what I would prefer to see as well;  choices that affect my character on a personal more player agency, way.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Meltemph wrote...

Cultist wrote...

Yeah! Less choices and big setting changes - just look how well that worked with Dragon Age 2!
Tremendous success!

That actually is my point.  DA1 had so many branching choices that none of it showed up in any significant way.  Lots of little choices is much better then choosing to blow up or keep the collector base.  Otherwise, you dont get any real impact from your choices.

There is no real impact from your choices in DA 2. So it's not helping either only ****** off many more people.

[syllogi]

I think that some major events must be canon, like how the end of the mage-templar conflict plays out. I wouldn't mind having major leaders be canon, for sake of the story. And it would be nice to know that the Old God Baby was going to lead to an interesting follow up, but I worry that it's not possible as it is, because it's not canon in everyone's games.

So I can see where the OP is coming from. But at the same time, shaping events in DA:O was part of the appeal. Seeing the Chantry explode no matter what in DA2 felt frustrating. So where is the happy medium between roleplaying freedom and telling a cohesive, satsifying story, that spans several games?

[Meltemph]

Felya87 wrote...

Sorry, but I can't agree. what you want is a "the elder scrool" game.

your action MUST count in a way, it's the motive one play at DA:O. I found horrible in DA2 the way things appened even if you try everything to prevent it, or at least they appened in a way that say is sad and idiotic is say nothing (cough!Anders!cough!just a little escamotage, and it wasn't such a great delusion, even if the fact could happen the same way, but nooo)

All the problems you are referring to, could be insignificant if the successive game was settled a century after the Blight. new PG, evolution of the society canonical, ecc. then there was no need to use the save from the previous game. as in a Elder Scrool game.

but I think, even if I have always my reserve for DA3 (when you are burn whit hot wather(DA2), you are afraid of the cold wather too) and they decide to made the save import, they have in mind how to made the choise of the previous game work.

No not like Elder Scroll.  Choices work in a completely different way with that game, and there is a lot of lore in those games that allow the choices you make to have a cap on the impact of the setting.  However, in DA1, all the choices you made the were truely divergent from one another in terms of setting changers, do you really believe you will ever see a major impact in those choices?  I'm not saying not having any choices in the main setting, I am saying dont let me choose to keep the anvil or destroy it if at the end of the game and into the next one, there is no tangible impact from that choice.  

As of right now, what we HAVE is Elder Scrolls, where we make choices and the impacts into the next game are never really felt.  But the difference is between the 2 is that Elder Scrolls never lets us truely change the setting beyond the writers designed path and Dragon Age lets you make so many idfferent choices that they get trivialized.  And that isnt a knock on BW in the sense that they didnt fully fleshout all out choices, I would blame it on giving us too many completely diverging choices that are setting changers.

So while you dont want an Elder Scrolls, that is essetnailly what we get. 

[Meltemph]

syllogi wrote...

I think that some major events must be canon, like how the end of the mage-templar conflict plays out. I wouldn't mind having major leaders be canon, for sake of the story. And it would be nice to know that the Old God Baby was going to lead to an interesting follow up, but I worry that it's not possible as it is, because it's not canon in everyone's games.

So I can see where the OP is coming from. But at the same time, shaping events in DA:O was part of the appeal. Seeing the Chantry explode no matter what in DA2 felt frustrating. So where is the happy medium between roleplaying freedom and telling a cohesive, satsifying story, that spans several games?

Having choices that majorly affect the PC, I would think would be a good trade off.  Witcher being an example of walking thatl ine of not giving us choices that change the main story, but does change how we get there. For instance,  Siding with the mages or templars gives us 2 different roads, but they will end up in at the same end point.  This way you can have chocies that effect player agency, but at the same time allow you to make choices that are smaller in scope that will have a better chance of living in a impactful way in the next game. imo, of course.

[Menagra]

I agree to a point. I think the "free choice" of a sandbox game is a good thing. However an epic story that claims choice is important should concentrate on the outcome of choice. Choice should have shattering consequences. If less choices allow for more shattering consequences than yes I agree. If you merely want a more casual rpg experience with less story. Then no. I severely disagree.

[Pedrak]

I guess we have a different perspective, OP; in RPGs I enjoy making choices for the sake of it and for their effect on the current game. Long-term consequences don't have to impact my future playthroughs of the sequel.

I would have loved a ME2-like suicide mission even without a sequel where dead NPCs are replaced; I liked taking a stand in the Witcher (or rather NOT taking it) even if it mattered zero in the sequel; I liked the civil war in Skyrim even if in TES VI it won't even get mentioned.

I do think that HUGE, world-altering choices should preclude a sequel, though. See ME3.

Modifié par Pedrak, 29 septembre 2012 - 05:30 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Meltemph wrote...
When I say I want less choice, I mean, I want less choices that are massive setting changers that essetnially make a single coherent setting impossible, where there are so many major choices that it makes it near impossible for BW to properly place importance on these choices in either DLC or the next game.

The only real importance on these choices is if they're expanding the story which they don't. The last expansion was Awakening which hardly reflected any previous choices or even related to the warden's events with the exception of Nathaniel Howe's story. Most of BioWare's DLC features new contents completely independant from main story. So you may as well close the main story with many major branching endings since you're not going to expand on those choices anyway.

[Meltemph]

Pedrak wrote...

I guess we have a different perspective, OP; in RPGs I enjoy making choices for the sake of it and for their effect on the current game. Long-term consequences don't have to impact my future playthroughs of the sequel.

I would have loved a ME2-likesuicide mission even without a sequel where dead NPCs are replaced; I liked taking a stand in the Witcher (or rather NOT taking it) even if it mattered zero in the sequel; I liked the civil war in Skyrim even if in TES VI it won't even get mentioned.

I do think that HUGE, world-altering choices should preclude a sequel, though. See ME3.

I actually like RPG's like that as well, as long as I know that I am not dealign with a setting, where I know I will probably play the next game and want to see some impact of those choices.  However, if I make a decisions in scope of the collector base, and in the next game all I get is some piece of technology that shrinks the choice to a fairly minor plot point, give me a different choice that give me morep layer agency. 

I dont want to be "tricked"(I use this term very loosely) into thinking the choice I'm making is going to effect the setting in a large way, only to be minimized in scope because the other choices were so different then the last. 

If this game was an island unto itself, I would be all for massive setting changes, but that isnt the case, which is why I have the preference of less massive setting choices in favor of more personal choices.

Modifié par Meltemph, 29 septembre 2012 - 05:45 .

[Meltemph]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
When I say I want less choice, I mean, I want less choices that are massive setting changers that essetnially make a single coherent setting impossible, where there are so many major choices that it makes it near impossible for BW to properly place importance on these choices in either DLC or the next game.

The only real importance on these choices is if they're expanding the story which they don't. The last expansion was Awakening which hardly reflected any previous choices or even related to the warden's events with the exception of Nathaniel Howe's story. Most of BioWare's DLC features new contents completely independant from main story. So you may as well close the main story with many major branching endings since you're not going to expand on those choices anyway.

That is actually my line of thought.  If they are giving me all these choices just to make them, then there is no real pay-off outside of the choice itself and in "worlds" that, to me, is a reminder that I am playing a game, instead of pulling me in the world, as much.