8 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

They both matter. Yes it's important to establish characterisation, but your decisions need to matter sometimes or it just gets frustrating.

edit: DA2 seemed to have a perverse determination to show you how little your choices affected anything, and that was not fun.

Modifié par Wulfram, 01 octobre 2012 - 10:31 .

[Vandicus]

Wulfram wrote...

They both matter. Yes it's important to establish characterisation, but your decisions need to matter sometimes or it just gets frustrating.

edit: DA2 seemed to have a perverse determination to show you how little your choices affected anything, and that was not fun.

DA2 very much was the polar opposite to DA:O in this regards. The opposite of the god-moding in DA:O where anything that the Warden decided was pretty much law, in DA2 Hawke was generally doomed to failure. I actually enjoyed this immensely in DA2 because I love tragedies and it was rather refreshing to have a tragic PC in a video game.

[BouncyFrag]

I am of the mindset of getting to have my cake and eat it too, and 'no' it is not a lie.

[Dragoonlordz]

Choices are not more important than consequences. Choices and consequence are both "equally" important. Choices having an impact is very important. The reason many did not like DA2 (among many other things) was because choices were disregarded and Hawke had barely any influence on the events around him despite if he had many things he could say, the fact what he said had no impact was a major flaw. I will put it this way player freedom, player agency are very important and both choices AND consequences have to both wide in variety and large in impact. Neither is more important than the other, both are as important as each other (imho). I could stand here and yell a thousand different things at my wall, but knowing my wall will not react makes all that yelling a waste of my time.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 octobre 2012 - 10:38 .

[Knight of Dane]

Consequense should always be a result from a choise or else it has no meaning.

[RazorrX]

One of the things Alpha Protocol got right was the C&C system. Decisions would affect how well armed your enemies were, who was your ally, who was with you at the end, etc. Sure some of it is just icing on what was going to happen anyway (the ends are NOT super different) but they still had an impact that was felt through the whole game.

I would love to see that, even if what you choose is not law, etc. but to see it play out in the game.

[The Elder King]

Vandicus wrote...



DA2 very much was the polar opposite to DA:O in this regards. The opposite of the god-moding in DA:O where anything that the Warden decided was pretty much law, in DA2 Hawke was generally doomed to failure. I actually enjoyed this immensely in DA2 because I love tragedies and it was rather refreshing to have a tragic PC in a video game.

I like tragedies too, but DA2 was overkill. Not only for Hawke, but for almost every characters. Plus, I'd prefer to have the option to create a tragedy playthrough, and not be forced into it. With the ME trilogy, I could create a tragedy playthrough, but I have other options.
A compromise between DA2 and DAO for DA3 would be better in my opinion.

Modifié par hhh89, 01 octobre 2012 - 11:40 .

[TsaiMeLemoni]

RazorrX wrote...

One of the things Alpha Protocol got right was the C&C system. Decisions would affect how well armed your enemies were, who was your ally, who was with you at the end, etc. Sure some of it is just icing on what was going to happen anyway (the ends are NOT super different) but they still had an impact that was felt through the whole game.

I would love to see that, even if what you choose is not law, etc. but to see it play out in the game.

I agree, I think Alpha Protocol did a lot of things right, and I would like to see scenarios in which your previous actions actually have weight, as in now being enemies with a faction or not having certain tactical support and what not.