3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

The first point is relevant because people point to other games where race is an option, but not a meaningful choice.

And i hate to point it out, but all choices can be meaningful, but that doesn't mean they will, or should be.I see a lot of people upset over not having the choice of what race they want to play. But this I say, why? Does the choice of race really matter so much in a story driven game? It obviously does matter because we want it to matter, but in game design how can it matter is the better question.

You're still stubbornly sticking with your (and, apparently, BioWare's) definition of meaningful.

But what is meaningful can and does differ from player to player.  If we open up that definition to include things like, as I described, the PC's motives, then all choices suddenly become potentially meaningful, which means that for any given choice there will be some player who inds it meaningful.

Whether the game even notices that the player made that choice is irrelevant.  This is how backstory choices in KotOR could be meanigful, even though the game would eventually point out that they weren't strictly true (and also why backstory choices in KotOR2 couldn't be meaningful, because the game would eventually point out that they had never been true).

Its difficult for story-driven games because the story takes precedence over gameplay, so choices are sacrificed.

This is something I do not accept.  The story can't take precedence over the gameplay, because the gameplay is  itself part of the story.  There is no such thing as gameplay/story segregation.  Any instance where the story and gameplay appear to conflict is a design error.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:29 .

[Maria Caliban]

Gatt9 wrote...

Those are numbers that are likely datamined from achievements on X-box Live,  which is pretty much pointless considering the target market for DAO was the PC.

You realize that the PC also sends telemetry data to BioWare, right?

But good pointless dig at console players.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:30 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

WhiteThunder wrote...

Is the slaughter of an entire tribe of Dalish Elves insignificant to the world?  What about the reclamation of the Deep Roads?  The ruler of Ferelden?  The purging of a circle?   The discovery of the Holy Grail?  Whether the Commander of Vigil's Keep is a Fereldan or an Orlesian? 

In terms of the plot, absolutely insignificant.  No matter what you pick or who you kill, the Warden saves Ferelden from the Archdemon, and apparently in the overarching Dragon Age story, that's all that really matters (beyond headcanon and speculation of course, I'm only talking about what's actually in-game).  

How you go about saving the goddamn world it is up to you, but I wouldn't hold my breath for any decision amounting to more than a sidequest and a codex entry in DA3.

Even ME3, which had some great impact on Tuchanka and Rannoch based on what you do in ME1 and 2, ultimately boils down to one main plot.  Whether the krogan, quarians, geth, or all three live and prosper also...doesn't really matter in the end.  Again, it's about the illusion of choices and their impact rather than actual branching storylines.  One is not superior to the other, and both are important, but the illusion is much easier to achieve.

Icinix wrote...

Although if you're telling me you don't think it will ever happen - then its definitely pessimist

Oh, no, I think it'll eventually happen.  It's just an enormous amount of work for an enormous amount of content that most players will never see.  Whether a fully-customizable CRPG experience completely unique to each player will happen any time soon is an entirely different story

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:32 .

[upsettingshorts]

I Like Cats And wrote...

So Bioware is already not listning to their fans like they said they would, awesome. Dragon Age 3 is looking real promising. //sarcasm

The fans have reached consensus BioWare! You should have listened to the consensus!

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

i belive I gave you an example of a game where you choice of race has a meaningful impact on the story. You just ignored it. I will tell you again, though. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

Didn't see it for one.

 I never played Bloodlines so I can't comment. Can you give an example as to how picking a clan (which is not a race but i'll go with it) was meaningful? 

Rawgrim wrote...

And how would my choices at the end of DA2 influence anything at all in DA3? DA2 ends with civil war, no matter what you do. Its not even your choice. If Hawke sides with the templars or the mages, or the neighbors dog, it will have no impact on DA3.

And you know this how?

That's my point, you don't. None of us do, so we can't say if it was. We can only speculate.

I don`t remember the details. Its probably been 8 years or so since i played it, but i remember wishing i had played a different race at the end. My friend did that, and he got a way different ending. Try the game out, though. It was great.


I know this because the outcome was exactly the same? DA3 will start with the world being in a "civil war". That war will be there if you supported the mages, or the templars. Simple to deduct something when there is only one possible option. Nobody actually knows who Hawke sided with either, wich is why Cassandra is interrogating Varric (a very reliable source) to begin with. Another indication that whatever Hawke did, it had no impact on the outcome.

[Rawgrim]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

The first point is relevant because people point to other games where race is an option, but not a meaningful choice.

And i hate to point it out, but all choices can be meaningful, but that doesn't mean they will, or should be.I see a lot of people upset over not having the choice of what race they want to play. But this I say, why? Does the choice of race really matter so much in a story driven game? It obviously does matter because we want it to matter, but in game design how can it matter is the better question.

You're still stubbornly sticking with your (and, apparently, BioWare's) definition of meaningful.

But what is meaningful can and does differ from player to player.  If we open up that definition to include things like, as I described, the PC's motives, then all choices suddenly become potentially meaningful, which means that for any given choice there will be some player who inds it meaningful.

Whether the game even notices that the player made that choice is irrelevant.  This is how backstory choices in KotOR could be meanigful, even though the game would eventually point out that they weren't strictly true (and also why backstory choices in KotOR2 couldn't be meaningful, because the game would eventually point out that they had never been true).

Its difficult for story-driven games because the story takes precedence over gameplay, so choices are sacrificed.

This is something I do not accept.  The story can't take precedence over the gameplay, because the gameplay is  itself part of the story.  There is no such thing as gameplay/story segregation.  Any instance where the story and gameplay appear to conflict is a design error.

Considering that the Story is told through a GAME. Sylvius is spot on.

[Monica21]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

...there's still no evidence that the PC is the Inquisitor...

There's the leaked survey.

Even if you 'don't trust' it, it's still evidence. It's just not sufficient evidence.

I've heard whispers and rumors of said leaked survey, but not that that's where the rumor of the Inquisitor came from. If that's where it came from then I'll give it more weight, but I still don't know enough about the story.

For example: remember when the leaked "gameplay" footage of DA2 came out and it was really just the opening scene of Hawke and Bethany fighting the darkspawn? It was about 50/50 on the combat, but the thing most people focused on were the size of Bethany's boobs. Without context, you didn't know that was Varric's exaggerated version of the story and that her boobs weren't going to be that size once the actual game started. Without context, I don't think it's fair to jump on an idea that I may or may not like because of a survey that few of us know much about.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

The first point is relevant because people point to other games where race is an option, but not a meaningful choice.

And i hate to point it out, but all choices can be meaningful, but that doesn't mean they will, or should be.I see a lot of people upset over not having the choice of what race they want to play. But this I say, why? Does the choice of race really matter so much in a story driven game? It obviously does matter because we want it to matter, but in game design how can it matter is the better question.

You're still stubbornly sticking with your (and, apparently, BioWare's) definition of meaningful.

But what is meaningful can and does differ from player to player.  If we open up that definition to include things like, as I described, the PC's motives, then all choices suddenly become potentially meaningful, which means that for any given choice there will be some player who inds it meaningful.

Whether the game even notices that the player made that choice is irrelevant.  This is how backstory choices in KotOR could be meanigful, even though the game would eventually point out that they weren't strictly true (and also why backstory choices in KotOR2 couldn't be meaningful, because the game would eventually point out that they had never been true).

Its difficult for story-driven games because the story takes precedence over gameplay, so choices are sacrificed.

This is something I do not accept.  The story can't take precedence over the gameplay, because the gameplay is  itself part of the story.  There is no such thing as gameplay/story segregation.  Any instance where the story and gameplay appear to conflict is a design error.

I know it differs from player to player. My point though is that its difficult to implement without conflicting with what we have to build on. Even games where the world is pretty much open to us choices made are only meaningful in minor instances or a singular quest. The story is pre-determined regardless of how impactful we are, basically. That is the tension point. 

And I know you don't accept it., hell iv'e had this discussion with you before. The fact of the matter though is that it is a divide that exists. Few games, if any, have had it non-segregated, and that is not a design error, that is, to me at least, growing pains to make them coexist. The only game I can think of where the two were married in an RPG was Alpha Protocol, and its a bad game gameplay-wise and far from a perfect marriage.

The only other games where I would say they meshed well  were Portal, Journey, Ogre Battle and Ocarina of Time. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:41 .

[brushyourteeth]

I'm disappointed about the decision, but looking forward to investigating this "tradeoff" and what might have possibly made it legitimately worth it. I'm having a tough time imagining what could be better, but the devs are obviously not anti-racial options, since that was a key feature of their baby's debut.

What I'm hoping we'll find is that even though the protagonist will be human, that won't mean that it's a predominantly human-centric game. I really missed DA:O's deeper exploration of the dwarven and elvish cultures in DAII, and Hawke's race wasn't necessarily to blame for that.

So to that end, I hope we'll have companions, NPC's, locations, codex entries, and quests that reflect a lot more about the non-human (and non-Chantry, even though I'm pro-Andraste) cultures, insights, and dilemmas.

Seeing that concept art of the aravels is a great start.

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Apparently this is what "consensus" looks like to the fans on the BSN, keep in mind that this is in a thread responding to news that a feature/content will not be in a game:

Heh. There's no need-- we're well aware that people will always try to represent their views as what "everyone" thinks, and that posting repeatedly will somehow inflate thier opinion and override everyone else. We are not fooled, but neither is it the case that we think the views on either side are irrelevant. Those people that were really hoping to have playable races return have a right to be disappointed. It does seem a little tedious that this has led to a larger discussion on "choice", but so be it. Choices are what RPG's are all about, even if not every RPG has to offer every type of choice in order to be considered a good one. YMMV, after all.

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

i belive I gave you an example of a game where you choice of race has a meaningful impact on the story. You just ignored it. I will tell you again, though. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

Didn't see it for one.

 I never played Bloodlines so I can't comment. Can you give an example as to how picking a clan (which is not a race but i'll go with it) was meaningful? 

Rawgrim wrote...

And how would my choices at the end of DA2 influence anything at all in DA3? DA2 ends with civil war, no matter what you do. Its not even your choice. If Hawke sides with the templars or the mages, or the neighbors dog, it will have no impact on DA3.

And you know this how?

That's my point, you don't. None of us do, so we can't say if it was. We can only speculate.

I don`t remember the details. Its probably been 8 years or so since i played it, but i remember wishing i had played a different race at the end. My friend did that, and he got a way different ending. Try the game out, though. It was great.


I know this because the outcome was exactly the same? DA3 will start with the world being in a "civil war". That war will be there if you supported the mages, or the templars. Simple to deduct something when there is only one possible option. Nobody actually knows who Hawke sided with either, wich is why Cassandra is interrogating Varric (a very reliable source) to begin with. Another indication that whatever Hawke did, it had no impact on the outcome.

Of course it will be there, the question I proposed is did Hawkes choices at the start of this war impact it?

that we cannot say. As I said, what if Anders is still alive? Or what if Hawke sided with the Templars and became Vicount? What if Hawke was a fugitive after siding with the Mages?  

We have no way of knowing if these impact Dragon Age III. I think they will. We shall see if they do in the end. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:45 .

[Caiden012]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I Like Cats And wrote...

So Bioware is already not listning to their fans like they said they would, awesome. Dragon Age 3 is looking real promising. //sarcasm

The fans have reached consensus BioWare! You should have listened to the consensus!

I am pretty upset actually. Just trying to be civil about it.

[Rawgrim]

David Gaider wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Apparently this is what "consensus" looks like to the fans on the BSN, keep in mind that this is in a thread responding to news that a feature/content will not be in a game:

Heh. There's no need-- we're well aware that people will always try to represent their views as what "everyone" thinks, and that posting repeatedly will somehow inflate thier opinion and override everyone else. We are not fooled, but neither is it the case that we think the views on either side are irrelevant. Those people that were really hoping to have playable races return have a right to be disappointed. It does seem a little tedious that this has led to a larger discussion on "choice", but so be it. Choices are what RPG's are all about, even if not every RPG has to offer every type of choice in order to be considered a good one. YMMV, after all.

(what does YMMV mean?)

[MorningBird]

Rawgrim wrote...
2. in the deep roads, unless you allready know what is going to happen, you can`t really know if Carver will become a warden if Anders is there with them. Thats metagaming.

And... what's your point?

The first time I played DA2, I took Bethany with me into the Deep Roads and not Anders.  She died as a result of my decision.

On a seperate play-through, I left Carver behind.  He ended up joining the Templars as a result of my decision.

I honestly have no idea why you mentioned metagaming, tbh... it seems completely off topic, considering you don't HAVE to know every possible result for every decision for it to be, you know, a choice.

Rawgrim wrote...
3. Conner is possessed BEFORE he meets the Warden. He can`t do anything about that. Same goes for the Wynne example. That actually happened before the Warden was BORN. However the BethanyCarver being infected in the deep roads happens on his watch. And there is nothing at all he can do about it.

Once again, I don't see your point.  You can choose to make Redcliffe your very first stop outside of Ostagar, and Connor will still be possessed as if Jowan hadn't just escaped like, a week ago. =/

There is no work around to avoid this scenario just like there is no work around for Carver/Bethany in the Deep Roads with an Absent Anders.  No matter how fast you get there, DAO demands that Conner be possessed before you get there the same way DA2 demands that Carver/Bethany have a failing immune system that forces them to contract the Blight.  Where/when they get possessed/sick in relation to the PC doesn't matter.  What matters is that you can't stop Jowan from acting on behalf of Loghain (or Howe), and you can't stop Carver?Bethany from contracting the Blight.

Both games have restrictions that the player has to abide by in order to push the story forward.

And Wynne's possession doesn't happen before the Warden is born.  It happens when she attempts to protect one of the other mages from a demon.  She defeats the demon, but the fight leaves her on the verge of death.  A spirit of Faith (as Wynne likes to call it) that had been watching her from the Fade since childhood possesses her to save her life.

Rawgrim wrote...
4. And if the girl actually gets raped, will this have a negative impact on the story at all? Or influence the ending in some way?

Is this a serious question?  Because I struggle to think of a single scenario where rape ever had a positive impact on a story. .__.

Once again: no matter what decisions you make in DAO, the end result is always the same outcome: you defeat the Archdemon and the Blight ends.  You seriously seem to be arguing that this was perfectly okay for Origins, but unforgivable in DA2.

Although if I may go out on a limb, I think your actual problem with DA2 is that there were no epilogue cards... The decisions you made in DAO did not influence the end game battle any more than 'templars or mages' did in DA2.  However, the consequences of your decisions throughout DAO were confirmed in the epilogue cards (which were/are still subject to change) whereas your consequences in DA2 were either shown throughout the acts, or are being saved for DA3.

Rawgrim wrote...
5. Nobody knows who wiped out her clan. Except Merrill herself, and she helped slaughter her own people. I doubt there will be consequences when the only witness was her.

The Seekers know... as well as anyone whose heard a more truthful variation of Hawke's story... and presumably anyone who was still with Hawke by that point (like Varric.)  It's also possible that Merrill chose to tell others upon leaving Hawke (as all of the main cast do, save for the love interest.)

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

i belive I gave you an example of a game where you choice of race has a meaningful impact on the story. You just ignored it. I will tell you again, though. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

Didn't see it for one.

 I never played Bloodlines so I can't comment. Can you give an example as to how picking a clan (which is not a race but i'll go with it) was meaningful? 

Rawgrim wrote...

And how would my choices at the end of DA2 influence anything at all in DA3? DA2 ends with civil war, no matter what you do. Its not even your choice. If Hawke sides with the templars or the mages, or the neighbors dog, it will have no impact on DA3.

And you know this how?

That's my point, you don't. None of us do, so we can't say if it was. We can only speculate.

I don`t remember the details. Its probably been 8 years or so since i played it, but i remember wishing i had played a different race at the end. My friend did that, and he got a way different ending. Try the game out, though. It was great.


I know this because the outcome was exactly the same? DA3 will start with the world being in a "civil war". That war will be there if you supported the mages, or the templars. Simple to deduct something when there is only one possible option. Nobody actually knows who Hawke sided with either, wich is why Cassandra is interrogating Varric (a very reliable source) to begin with. Another indication that whatever Hawke did, it had no impact on the outcome.

Of course it will be there, the question I proposed is did Hawkes choices at the start of this war impact it?

that we cannot say. As I said, what if Anders is still alive? Or what if Hawke sided with the Templars and became Vicount? What if Hawke was a fugitive after siding with the Mages?  

We have no way of knowing if these impact Dragon Age III. I think they will. We shall see if they do in the end. 

So what? You won`t be playing Hawke in DA3 anyway. And all of his choces led to the war, so no matter his choices it had no impact. Its very straightforward.

[LobselVith8]

Monica21 wrote...

Sorry, I'm not a dev so I can't answer that.

This thread is about people commenting on the information we have so far; specifically, the news about Inquisition being limited to a human protagonist. I'm simply commenting on my opinion about the lack of racial options in Inquisition. Xil was doing the same when she addressed that she saw it as a mistake. Considering the vilification of mages, it seems odd to me that Elves and Dwarves are excluded as potential protagonists while a mage protagonist is going to be available, based on what the developers have said.

[Caiden012]

David Gaider wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Apparently this is what "consensus" looks like to the fans on the BSN, keep in mind that this is in a thread responding to news that a feature/content will not be in a game:

Heh. There's no need-- we're well aware that people will always try to represent their views as what "everyone" thinks, and that posting repeatedly will somehow inflate thier opinion and override everyone else. We are not fooled, but neither is it the case that we think the views on either side are irrelevant. Those people that were really hoping to have playable races return have a right to be disappointed. It does seem a little tedious that this has led to a larger discussion on "choice", but so be it. Choices are what RPG's are all about, even if not every RPG has to offer every type of choice in order to be considered a good one. YMMV, after all.

Obviously the views of one do not represent the views of the many. But I think that the problem is that if you added races we would not be having these conversations and I am sure you know that. So that would lead me and hopefully others to believe that you had a very good reason not to include race choice. But right now it seems like most of us don't know what that reason is and are afraid that we will have the a loss of choice. You can't give a player every choice possible but it did seem like choice was much more limited during DA2 compared to DA:O and some of us are concerned the same will happen in DA 3.

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

i belive I gave you an example of a game where you choice of race has a meaningful impact on the story. You just ignored it. I will tell you again, though. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

Didn't see it for one.

 I never played Bloodlines so I can't comment. Can you give an example as to how picking a clan (which is not a race but i'll go with it) was meaningful? 

Rawgrim wrote...

And how would my choices at the end of DA2 influence anything at all in DA3? DA2 ends with civil war, no matter what you do. Its not even your choice. If Hawke sides with the templars or the mages, or the neighbors dog, it will have no impact on DA3.

And you know this how?

That's my point, you don't. None of us do, so we can't say if it was. We can only speculate.

I don`t remember the details. Its probably been 8 years or so since i played it, but i remember wishing i had played a different race at the end. My friend did that, and he got a way different ending. Try the game out, though. It was great.


I know this because the outcome was exactly the same? DA3 will start with the world being in a "civil war". That war will be there if you supported the mages, or the templars. Simple to deduct something when there is only one possible option. Nobody actually knows who Hawke sided with either, wich is why Cassandra is interrogating Varric (a very reliable source) to begin with. Another indication that whatever Hawke did, it had no impact on the outcome.

Of course it will be there, the question I proposed is did Hawkes choices at the start of this war impact it?

that we cannot say. As I said, what if Anders is still alive? Or what if Hawke sided with the Templars and became Vicount? What if Hawke was a fugitive after siding with the Mages?  

We have no way of knowing if these impact Dragon Age III. I think they will. We shall see if they do in the end. 

So what? You won`t be playing Hawke in DA3 anyway. And all of his choces led to the war, so no matter his choices it had no impact. Its very straightforward.

The context behind the war, the impetus of it and the outcome of that fateful battle, are more important and will be more impactful than the war itself.

But I need to sleep, was fun though Raw. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:51 .

[WhiteThunder]

MorningBird wrote...

Once again: no matter what decisions you make in DAO, the end result is always the same outcome: you defeat the Archdemon and the Blight ends.  You seriously seem to be arguing that this was perfectly okay for Origins, but unforgivable in DA2.

Although if I may go out on a limb, I think your actual problem with DA2 is that there were no epilogue cards... The decisions you made in DAO did not influence the end game battle any more than 'templars or mages' did in DA2.  However, the consequences of your decisions throughout DAO were confirmed in the epilogue cards (which were/are still subject to change) whereas your consequences in DA2 were either shown throughout the acts, or are being saved for DA3.

Not to mention that there were no choices in DA2 that had an actual effect on the world itself, or on the lives of multiple people.  Name a choice in DA2 comparable to deciding whether or not to destroy the Anvil of the Void.

[upsettingshorts]

Caiden012 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I Like Cats And wrote...

So Bioware is already not listning to their fans like they said they would, awesome. Dragon Age 3 is looking real promising. //sarcasm

The fans have reached consensus BioWare! You should have listened to the consensus!

I am pretty upset actually. Just trying to be civil about it.

I said I would make changes upon request without argument, changing now.  Doesn't really change the overall message of the post though.

Rawgrim wrote...

(what does YMMV mean?)

Your mileage may vary.

In other words:  It's subjective.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 04:54 .

[LinksOcarina]

WhiteThunder wrote...

MorningBird wrote...

Once again: no matter what decisions you make in DAO, the end result is always the same outcome: you defeat the Archdemon and the Blight ends.  You seriously seem to be arguing that this was perfectly okay for Origins, but unforgivable in DA2.

Although if I may go out on a limb, I think your actual problem with DA2 is that there were no epilogue cards... The decisions you made in DAO did not influence the end game battle any more than 'templars or mages' did in DA2.  However, the consequences of your decisions throughout DAO were confirmed in the epilogue cards (which were/are still subject to change) whereas your consequences in DA2 were either shown throughout the acts, or are being saved for DA3.

Not to mention that there were no choices in DA2 that had an actual effect on the world itself, or on the lives of multiple people.  Name a choice in DA2 comparable to deciding whether or not to destroy the Anvil of the Void.

****ing hell...ok one more real quick before I sleep.

Anders fate.

IF he is alive, he can be running the damn resistance for all we know. If he is dead, he could be used as both a pariah and a symbol. It also affects Sebastian as well.

Or how about the Arishok and how the Book of Koslun is recovered, if at all? 

[Rawgrim]

MorningBird wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
2. in the deep roads, unless you allready know what is going to happen, you can`t really know if Carver will become a warden if Anders is there with them. Thats metagaming.

And... what's your point?

The first time I played DA2, I took Bethany with me into the Deep Roads and not Anders.  She died as a result of my decision.

On a seperate play-through, I left Carver behind.  He ended up joining the Templars as a result of my decision.

I honestly have no idea why you mentioned metagaming, tbh... it seems completely off topic, considering you don't HAVE to know every possible result for every decision for it to be, you know, a choice.

Rawgrim wrote...
3. Conner is possessed BEFORE he meets the Warden. He can`t do anything about that. Same goes for the Wynne example. That actually happened before the Warden was BORN. However the BethanyCarver being infected in the deep roads happens on his watch. And there is nothing at all he can do about it.

Once again, I don't see your point.  You can choose to make Redcliffe your very first stop outside of Ostagar, and Connor will still be possessed as if Jowan hadn't just escaped like, a week ago. =/

There is no work around to avoid this scenario just like there is no work around for Carver/Bethany in the Deep Roads with an Absent Anders.  No matter how fast you get there, DAO demands that Conner be possessed before you get there the same way DA2 demands that Carver/Bethany have a failing immune system that forces them to contract the Blight.  Where/when they get possessed/sick in relation to the PC doesn't matter.  What matters is that you can't stop Jowan from acting on behalf of Loghain (or Howe), and you can't stop Carver?Bethany from contracting the Blight.

Both games have restrictions that the player has to abide by in order to push the story forward.

And Wynne's possession doesn't happen before the Warden is born.  It happens when she attempts to protect one of the other mages from a demon.  She defeats the demon, but the fight leaves her on the verge of death.  A spirit of Faith (as Wynne likes to call it) that had been watching her from the Fade since childhood possesses her to save her life.

Rawgrim wrote...
4. And if the girl actually gets raped, will this have a negative impact on the story at all? Or influence the ending in some way?

Is this a serious question?  Because I struggle to think of a single scenario where rape ever had a positive impact on a story. .__.

Once again: no matter what decisions you make in DAO, the end result is always the same outcome: you defeat the Archdemon and the Blight ends.  You seriously seem to be arguing that this was perfectly okay for Origins, but unforgivable in DA2.

Although if I may go out on a limb, I think your actual problem with DA2 is that there were no epilogue cards... The decisions you made in DAO did not influence the end game battle any more than 'templars or mages' did in DA2.  However, the consequences of your decisions throughout DAO were confirmed in the epilogue cards (which were/are still subject to change) whereas your consequences in DA2 were either shown throughout the acts, or are being saved for DA3.

Rawgrim wrote...
5. Nobody knows who wiped out her clan. Except Merrill herself, and she helped slaughter her own people. I doubt there will be consequences when the only witness was her.

The Seekers know... as well as anyone whose heard a more truthful variation of Hawke's story... and presumably anyone who was still with Hawke by that point (like Varric.)  It's also possible that Merrill chose to tell others upon leaving Hawke (as all of the main cast do, save for the love interest.)

It was an indirect result of a decision that had nothing to do with her directly being infected. its like bringing someone with you on a holliday, and the plane crashes. Thats not your fault, it just happens.

Conner has been possessed BEFORE you get to him. There is nothing you can do to prevent this, and rightly so. But being able to protect your sister vs the darkspawn IS something you SHOULD be able to do. since you are right next to her. When you are there when it happens, there should be a way to work around it. Has to do with being able to make choices that influence the game. Making direct choices, not inderiect ones leading to an event outside of anyones control.

The blight ends, yes. But how you get to that end and how the end plays out, is directly influenced by choices you make earlier. Like doing the ritual or not. DA2 doesn`t have that. It ends with fighting Orsino\\Meredith. No matter what. Thats what i am getting at. Not the lack of epilogue cards. Those happen after the end itself. Its the lack of impact on choices leading to a set in stone ending.

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

i belive I gave you an example of a game where you choice of race has a meaningful impact on the story. You just ignored it. I will tell you again, though. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

Didn't see it for one.

 I never played Bloodlines so I can't comment. Can you give an example as to how picking a clan (which is not a race but i'll go with it) was meaningful? 

Rawgrim wrote...

And how would my choices at the end of DA2 influence anything at all in DA3? DA2 ends with civil war, no matter what you do. Its not even your choice. If Hawke sides with the templars or the mages, or the neighbors dog, it will have no impact on DA3.

And you know this how?

That's my point, you don't. None of us do, so we can't say if it was. We can only speculate.

I don`t remember the details. Its probably been 8 years or so since i played it, but i remember wishing i had played a different race at the end. My friend did that, and he got a way different ending. Try the game out, though. It was great.


I know this because the outcome was exactly the same? DA3 will start with the world being in a "civil war". That war will be there if you supported the mages, or the templars. Simple to deduct something when there is only one possible option. Nobody actually knows who Hawke sided with either, wich is why Cassandra is interrogating Varric (a very reliable source) to begin with. Another indication that whatever Hawke did, it had no impact on the outcome.

Of course it will be there, the question I proposed is did Hawkes choices at the start of this war impact it?

that we cannot say. As I said, what if Anders is still alive? Or what if Hawke sided with the Templars and became Vicount? What if Hawke was a fugitive after siding with the Mages?  

We have no way of knowing if these impact Dragon Age III. I think they will. We shall see if they do in the end. 

So what? You won`t be playing Hawke in DA3 anyway. And all of his choces led to the war, so no matter his choices it had no impact. Its very straightforward.

The context behind the war, the impetus of it and the outcome of that fateful battle, are more important and will be more impactful than the war itself.

But I need to sleep, was fun though Raw. 

Must sleep here too. No hard feelings or anything. A discussion isn`t an argumant, after all.

[WhiteThunder]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Caiden012 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I Like Cats And wrote...

So Bioware is already not listning to their fans like they said they would, awesome. Dragon Age 3 is looking real promising. //sarcasm

The fans have reached consensus BioWare! You should have listened to the consensus!

I am pretty upset actually. Just trying to be civil about it.

I said I would make changes upon request without argument, changing now.  Doesn't really change the overall message of the post though.

Yeah, the overall message seems to be that, of the incredibly self-selective group of people on this forum, forming an inherently biased study, a bunch of people don't like the change, most people don't care, and a few people are happy about it.  There are 5 more people who feel positively about the change than there are people who feel very negatively.

Of course, given the fact that we're on a forum to complain about the decision, is not too surprising or at all a representative set of data.