194 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

FreshIstay wrote...
Your first paragraph hilights the mutiple choices in DAO, and acutally proves the point, the choices provided in each of those quests and how they are resolved can make my  Warden's overall story very different from Yours, there are mutiple variables we can discuss, involving the main quests required to get to the Landsmeet, that makes your Warden different from mine, even more so if we include the DLC. 

It doesn't make it different at all! Bioware completely ignored your choices when they actually had to follow up on them. Just like Bioware ignores your choice in ME3 when you get exactly the same content with different characters.

Your counter-examples are not about choies - they are about consequences. The quests required to get to the landsmeet are identical. The only two differences are whether you have werewolves or elves, mages or templars and then whether the anvil survives. And the great big impact of those choices are irrelevant units in a final battle.

So what? Bioware gives you a few exclusive quests in Act III and II based on Act I choices. That's on the same scale as the cosmetic consequences in DA:O.

Feynriel is an example, that first descision involving him is a side quest. Yes you have to go to the fade and save him, but is that supposed to have some sort of impact or significant meaning? i guess well find out, or maybe not.

Is killing the Dalish significant? Who knows! No consequence of that is in game. It's as important in-game as killing Merril's Dalish clan.
 

Grace still kidnaps your sibling no matter what you choose, and the choice is irrelevant because throughout the whole game you have one choice, mages or templars. Ketojan is irrelevant, you still had to fight the Qunari, and none of those choices had in- game consequences either. 

Okay, let's play that game. Sparing or saving the anvil is irrelevant, because you had the same identical run through the deeproads no matter what, and the only in-game consequence of that is whether or not you have a picture of a golem show up for three battles.

In DA:O you have only one choice at the endgame: kill the archdemon. You get to do it in three ways: kill it yourself and die, kill it yourself and live, or get Loghain/Alistair to do it. 

There are lots of things that DA:O did better than DA2. But you know what got us DA2? How people were completely willing to excuse a lot of things Bioware didn't do well in DA:O because it had other features they liked, and when those features changed, they suddenly turn around and decry those same features as were in DA:O.

Carver/Bethany is just another plot point that proves to me that companions are more important DA2' s story then Hawke ever was. and DA2 had main quests, those were the quests designed to get you to the next act, to the final shabang or lack thereof, DA2 worked for people who cared about their companions storys more than their own, Im not one of those people.

Oh, please. In DA:O the treaties are irrelevant and you're just a fedex boy solving running errands for whoever's army you're begging for. And then it turns out the armies are irrelevant cannon fodder because what you actually have to do is kill the archdemon as a GW and you could have recruited all of Orlais for all the good it would do you without more GWs.

[In Exile]

FreshIstay wrote...
considering In Orgins you personally impacted a whole Nation, and nations that lie within Ferelden' s border' s in a varations of different way' s i.e. My warden can even be a totally different race or from a very different part of the country from yours, let alone the differences between how each of us might have resolved certain quests.

Oh, please. In DA2 you can kill or spare the Arishok. There will be a new political leader. That "totally changes the nation". My Hawke can have three different beards, but a cosmetic difference doesn't mean anything. There you go: you just impacted the future of one nation.

If you want to go on about stuff like this, we can go on making up what's more significant about each game all day.

Let's go with another one: Feynriel becomes an incredibly powerful abomination if you choose that outcome and can be as much as threat as the DA:O codex say a pride demon is. There you go: I created an absolute horror that will impact many nations.

Just like in DA:O you can exterminate a whole clan of the Dalish in DA2. 

In DA2 you were pretty much watched your companions make descions that impacted the city without your input, and decided  wether you liked them or not like some sort of moral counselor. you had one choice, Mages or Templars....and the Templars still took Kirkwall and some Mages still escaped to tell the Story regardless of that choice. So again, unless your a player who values your companions story more than your own, i dont see what the beauty of DA2 is.

You mean like how all you did in DA:O was run fetch quests for people who were more important than you, and how the entire plan was invented by Flemeth, and how in the end you are only alive so you (or Alistair) can get Morrigain pregnant at the end of the game? 

[lunamoondragon]

I'm more hopeful that the protagonist has a lot of diverse ways to develop this time around. 
The Warden could become so many different types of people, not restricted to a certain personality type. But I liked Hawke's dialogue and hope that we can meet a nice middle ground with DAIII's protagonist. 

[legbamel]

FreshIstay wrote...

legbamel wrote...
Just because you didn't find the choices and surrounding stories compelling doesn't mean that they didn't exist. When you look at the state of Thedas right now, your choices in neither game amounted to a hill of beans taken all together. They're all false choices. Lambasting DA2 for it while defending DA:O is hypocritical.

Oh, my friend. Im not saying there werent any choices, Im saying the choices provided were irrelvant to the overall plot of ONE PARTICULAR GAME NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THEDAS. The circle was ablosihed that was clear from the Prolouge, Hawke really didnt have much to do with that at all, so my thing was,"why am i playing this?" You can skip playing DA2 altogether and read Asunder and come out more informed about the upcoming feud.  and its not really hypocritical to compare the two, considering In Orgins you personally impacted a whole Nation, and nations that lie within Ferelden' s border' s in a varations of different way' s i.e. My warden can even be a totally different race or from a very different part of the country from yours, let alone the differences between how each of us might have resolved certain quests.

In DA2 you were pretty much watched your companions make descions that impacted the city without your input, and decided  wether you liked them or not like some sort of moral counselor. you had one choice, Mages or Templars....and the Templars still took Kirkwall and some Mages still escaped to tell the Story regardless of that choice. So again, unless your a player who values your companions story more than your own, i dont see what the beauty of DA2 is.

I'm pretty sure no one said anything about beauty, just about the number of choices you make and their effects.  Just as in DA2, the choices you make in DA:O have pretty much no lasting effect on Ferelden or the rest of Thedas.  Nobody gives a hang who's on the throne, in or out of Orzammar.  The elves don't stay on the land they're given.  How is Connor living or dying more significant than Fenriel living or being made Tranquil?  We dont' even know whether that thread has reached its end.  Your Warden objectively changes nothing, long-term, just like Hawke.

It so happens that companions were a much, much larger part of the story in DA2, which worked for me.  Clearly it didn't for you.  But not liking the game doesn't mean you didn't get to pick your path in utterly meaningless ways just like you did in DA:O.

And this is all coming from someone who loves Origins to death.  I do like to be fair, though.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Which result of him getting possesed at the Dalish Camp anyway, regardless you sent him to the Circle or not. It didn't happen in DAO. If I choose to kill Connor, Connor is dead not Connor is alive just to make Sacred Ashes plot relevant. 

If you chose to kill Connor, you get one cutscene, and then Arl Eamon is totally cool with it and Connor never gets mentioned again until an epilogue slide.

The point is he dies. Not he live. Get it? It's exactly what I expected him to be. If I choose to build a castle, I want to see the castle as the result. Not chicken farm. I don't give a damn what happen to the castle next or what happen happen to connor next. 

In Exile wrote...

He left. The Circle would make him Tranquil. You have the choice to do that. If the decision doesn't turn out how you like, it doesn't lie with you to complain unless the outcome is illogical.

 He left, that's right. That's his choice. Not my choice. And because  that's his choice, I don't give a damn whether he goes to Terventer Imperium or be tranqualized or whatever.  All I care is my choice had been invalidated by this ridiculous plot, which never happen in DAO. 

In Exile wrote...



 or if (a) you have Anders or ( Merrill, then they can check for demons and you get a unique solution.

If you have ( a ) Anders or ( Merill - which mean you are metagaming to make such choice. Just like you know beforehand that Idunna going to cast a charmed spell on you to make a choice whether to bring a mage or not to counter the spell.

In Exile wrote...

Thrask died regardless of the three ways solution you mentioned.

No. Thrask lives in Act I. This is exactly how Bioware does its quests - you have three ways of solving it: lying to the templars, killing the templars, or forcibly bringing in the mages.

That's what matter the most to me. No matter what ****ing choice I've made. I could prevent Isolde and/or Connor's death in DAO. And both of them will be there when Eamon awake and Alistair won't storm on me for the bad call.  DA 2 just want to ****** the players with single railroad.

DA:O doesn't have to show you the consequences of your actions. Connor dies? So what? Thrask can die in Act I. Or Thrask can live until Act III.

The point is Connor dies because I made it so with my choice. I'm the one who control the plot here,  while Thrask dies is not my choice at all. The choices given are nothing but lies. 

In Exile wrote...

What choice do they offer to us beside getting 50 golds and Anders's map in ACT I? Skip the fedex quest and contact the thugs. Yeah sure. Way to branch out content. /sarcasm

I just showed you. If you want to be in denial about it, it's your business. But screaming that the sky is green doesn't make it green, it just makes you wrong.

You show nothing. It's you who in denial that DA2' choices are meaningless compare to DAO.  

[AlexanderCousland]

In Exile wrote...

It doesn't make it different at all! Bioware completely ignored your choices when they actually had to follow up on them. Just like Bioware ignores your choice in ME3 when you get exactly the same content with different characters.

Your counter-examples are not about choies - they are about consequences. The quests required to get to the landsmeet are identical. The only two differences are whether you have werewolves or elves, mages or templars then whether the anvil survives. And the great big impact of those choices are irrelevant units in a final battle.

So what? Bioware gives you a few exclusive quests in Act III and II based on Act I choices. That's on the same and scale as the cosmetic consequences in DA:O.

choices breed consequences, right?  Im not talking about  how choices effect the entirety of Thedas, im talking about in-game setting.  

Once again, you pointed out how the choices impacted the game, thank you. A few things that you missed were who rules each place you visit, you choose that as well. There is AT LEAST two option's for every place you visit. Those units in the Final Battle are quite useful, that is; If you game on nightmare or hard, and save you from wasting alot of item's.

In Exile wrote...

Okay, let's play that game. Sparing or saving the anvil is irrelevant, because you had the same identical run through the deeproads no matter what, and the only in-game consequence of that is whether or not you have a picture of a golem show up for three battles.

 
I'll take the Golem's please!!!

Did we get an army of Golem's in DA2? or did we get something similar or equivilent to the Golems?....maybe I missed out on the content, the picture of my character didnt see any pictures of any golem army I could use, so my pictures could battle the other evil pictures.

In Exile wrote...

In DA:O you have only one choice at the endgame: kill the archdemon. You get to do it in three ways: kill it yourself and die, kill it yourself and live, or get Loghain/Alistair to do it.

 

You do realize that the last two choices that you so grasciously acknowledged exsist are, in-fact, the results of descisions you make (OGB, Fereldan Monarch)

In Exile wrote.

Oh, please. In DA:O the treaties are irrelevant and you're just a fedex boy solving running errands for whoever's army you're begging for. And then it turns out the armies are irrelevant cannon fodder because what you actually have to do is kill the archdemon as a GW and you could have recruited all of Orlais for all the good it would do you without more GWs.

Oh forgive for not realizing  My Warden could stop a whole Horde of Darkspawn by himself, i didnt know he was that badass. "Hero of Fereldan the one man army"...has a nice ring to it.

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
The point is he dies. Not he live. Get it? It's exactly what I expected him to be. If I choose to build a castle, I want to see the castle as the result. Not chicken farm. I don't give a damn what happen to the castle next or what happen happen to connor next.

You're right. How could I not have seen it!? The fact that you have three options and identical quest design is completely irrelvant when the future consequence is a funnel. That's the most relevant point to a conversation about how quest design is different - the future consequnce. Because if there's one thing that DA:O did in-game, it's show you the consequence of your actions.

My favourite parts include seeing how Orzammar developed after Bhelen became King with all of the changes in the city, and all of the dialogue in the Assembly. Wait...

He left, that's right. That's his choice. Not my choice. And because  that's his choice, I don't give a damn whether he goes to Terventer Imperium or be tranqualized or whatever.  All I care is my choice had been invalidated by this ridiculous plot, which never happen in DAO. 

Holy crap, yeah! You're completely right. This is also a point that matters in quest design, and is very different from the same point that you made above. It's good that you have such sophisticated and well-thought out arguments, that are relevant to things I've said before.

If you have ( a ) Anders or ( Merill - which mean you are metagaming to make such choice. Just like you know beforehand that Idunna going to cast a charmed spell on you to make a choice whether to bring a mage or not to counter the spell.

Or © Bethany. You're completely right. In an RPG, it's completely metagaming to have a mage in your party, or to be a mage yourself. I totally knew beforehand about that, and didn't bring a mage with me because that's how I play the game or anything. This point is even more insightful than the last!

The point is Connor dies because I made it so with my choice. I'm the one who control the plot here,  while Thrask dies is not my choice at all. The choices given are nothing but lies.

And Thrask does live. When you let him live. And then he dies later. It's almost like you're being obtuse, but that would be silly. Because we're having a reasonable conversation where you're not ignoring anything I've said or making things up at all.

Exactly like how Harrowmont lives when you pick Bhelen. You get to control that plot, and Bhelen absolutely gives a flying fudge about what you have to say.

You show nothing. It's you who in denial that DA2' choices are meaningless compare to DAO.  

DA:O's choices don't have in-game consequences. They give you a quest resolution, much like DA2 does. And then DA:O gives you an epilogue screen. That's it. DA:O's choices don't have consequences - they have a quest end, like DA2's choices have, and then DA:O doesn't have to bother to show what happens 3 years later.

[In Exile]

FreshIstay wrote...
choices breed consequences, right?  Im not talking about  how choices effect the entirety of Thedas, im talking about in-game setting.

DA:O doesn't have in-game consequences for any of its choices. You get, at most, a cut-scene at the end of the quest. The most extensive show of an in-game choice in DA:O is basically the elves/werewolves, were at least the werewolves occupy the camp.

Once again, you pointed out how the choices impacted the game, thank you. A few things that you missed were who rules each place you visit, you choose that as well. There is AT LEAST two option's for every place you visit. Those units in the Final Battle are quite useful, that is; If you game on nightmare or hard, and save you from wasting alot of item's.

I play DA:O and DA2 exclusively on nightmare. The units are irrelevant. I've never even bothered summoning them. With the right build, you don't even need to use items to clean up the mobs. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree with that one.

edit:

And you don't pick who rules each place. You pick between two pre-set choices in Orzammar and Ferelden. That's it.

Did we get an army of Golem's in DA2? or did we get something similar or equivilent to the Golems?....maybe I missed out on the content, the picture of my character didnt see any pictures of any golem army I could use, so my pictures could battle the other evil pictures.

Yes, actually. In the final battle against Meredith, based on your in-game choices, a bunch of random NPCs show up to help you. It's about as meaningful as that icon choice in DA:O.

You do realize that the last two choices that you so grasciously acknowledged exsist are, in-fact, the results of descisions you make (OGB, Fereldan Monarch)

If we're playing that game, at the end of DA2 you can:

1) Mage/Templar choice, obviously.
2) Execute/Save Anders.
3) Pro-Templar Non-Mage, decide if Bethany is executed or not (or decide if the survivors are executed).
4) Companion plotlines - Fenris for example might leave you, confront you, and you can convince him to side with you.
5) Pair up with your sibling with a unique intro based on their background.

Lots of in-game choices that result from your other in-game choices.

DA2 does this, sorry.

Oh forgive for not realizing  My Warden could stop a whole Horde of Darkspawn by himself, i didnt know he was that badass. "Hero of Fereldan the one man army"...has a nice ring to it.

The armies are an arbitrary plot coupon, and there's no real in-game explanation why (for example) you even need the dwarves. There's no sense that somehow they were crucial, or that the actual troops in Ferelden as humans couldn't have served as cannon fodder long enough for the GW to kill the archdemon.

You run errands in DA:O, just like you run errands for most of DA2.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 janvier 2013 - 05:16 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...
Your first paragraph hilights the mutiple choices in DAO, and acutally proves the point, the choices provided in each of those quests and how they are resolved can make my  Warden's overall story very different from Yours, there are mutiple variables we can discuss, involving the main quests required to get to the Landsmeet, that makes your Warden different from mine, even more so if we include the DLC. 

It doesn't make it different at all! Bioware completely ignored your choices when they actually had to follow up on them. Just like Bioware ignores your choice in ME3 when you get exactly the same content with different characters.

So when do they actually had to follow up on them? DA 2? Nope. It's completely a standalone story irrelevant to DAO's story.  They may never actually had to follow on multiple DAO's choices. Therefore, your point is invalid and Freshlstay's point still stand.

In Exile wrote...

Your counter-examples are not about choies - they are about consequences. The quests required to get to the landsmeet are identical. The only two differences are whether you have werewolves or elves, mages or templars and then whether the anvil survives. And the great big impact of those choices are irrelevant units in a final battle.

So what? Bioware gives you a few exclusive quests in Act III and II based on Act I choices. That's on the same scale as the cosmetic consequences in DA:O.

Except that Werewolves or elves, mages or templars,  dwarves or golems are not cosmetic at all. They do exist and appear in the final battle. Unlike DA 2's ACT III and Act II which based on useless Act I's choices. For example Feyneriel's quest. 

In Exile wrote...

Feynriel is an example, that first descision involving him is a side quest. Yes you have to go to the fade and save him, but is that supposed to have some sort of impact or significant meaning? i guess well find out, or maybe not.

Is killing the Dalish significant? Who knows! No consequence of that is in game. It's as important in-game as killing Merril's Dalish clan.

The significant is the game acknowlegde your choices instead of slapping your face by telling that your choice doesn't matter.
 

In Exile wrote...

In DA:O you have only one choice at the endgame: kill the archdemon. You get to do it in three ways: kill it yourself and die, kill it yourself and live, or get Loghain/Alistair to do it.

And DAO doesn't lie about. It IS about killing the archdemon. Nothing else. Compare to DA 2? What is DA 2 about again? Picking side for the mage-templar war? or a ****ing personal passive story being told where nothing you choose matter at all because it's already set in the stone.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 janvier 2013 - 05:20 .

[TEWR]

In Exile wrote...

The armies are an arbitrary plot coupon, and there's no real in-game explanation why (for example) you even need the dwarves.

Better crafted armor, which means being able to last longer -- lore wise anyway, gameplay wise it's all about the same I think.

Experience fighting Darkspawn.

Dwarves are awesome by virtue of being Dwarves.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 08 janvier 2013 - 05:43 .

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
So when do they actually had to follow up on them? DA 2? Nope. It's completely a standalone story irrelevant to DAO's story.  They may never actually had to follow on multiple DAO's choices. Therefore, your point is invalid and Freshlstay's point still stand.

They never follow-up on them. There's no point that stands at all, unless a choice with absolutely no in-game consequences is the pinnacle of gaming for you.

IExcept that Werewolves or elves, mages or templars,  dwarves or golems are not cosmetic at all. They do exist and appear in the final battle. Unlike DA 2's ACT III and Act II which based on useless Act I's choices. For example Feyneriel's quest. 

Actually, you have two totally different quests based on how you deal with Kieran. And then there is a different sequence if you get the Worthy Rival trigger with the Arishok. That's off the top of my head.

The armies don't even show up in the cutscene (it's all humans) and the armies are an irrelevant flavour feature. And then characters do appear in the final battle (like Iriving) and that's exactly what also happens in DA2 (e.g. Sebastian).

The significant is the game acknowlegde your choices instead of slapping your face by telling that your choice doesn't matter.

Your choice doesn't matter. You get the same thing: the army you need and the plot coupon. You see no in-game consequences of your choice, regardless of who you pick. You get slapped in the face with an epilogue slide, instead.

I agree that, in DA2, Bioware handled consequences in future acts poorly. But that has nothing to do with their quest design. The quests are done exactly the same way.  And consequences are handled exactly like in DA:O -  they matter for the duration of the quest, and then are completely ignored.

Eamong gives you two lines if you kill his son and then that's it. 

And DAO doesn't lie about. It IS about killing the arcdemon. Compare to DA 2? What is DA 2 about again? Picking side for the mage-templar war? or a ****ing story being told where nothing you choose matter at all because it's already set in the sone. 

What does this rant have do with anything? Again, I am commenting on quest design, not what you like or hate about each game.

[AlexanderCousland]

In Exile wrote...

Oh, please. In DA2 you can kill or spare the Arishok. There will be a new political leader. That "totally changes the nation". My Hawke can have three different beards, but a cosmetic difference doesn't mean anything. There you go: you just impacted the future of one nation.

If you want to go on about stuff like this, we can go on making up what's more significant about each game all day.

Let's go with another one: Feynriel becomes an incredibly powerful abomination if you choose that outcome and can be as much as threat as the DA:O codex say a pride demon is. There you go: I created an absolute horror that will impact many nations.

Arishok Spareishok,  Hawke had absolutley nothing do with that situation and how it came about...just another WHY IS THIS HAPPENING BATTLE? One, of the two choices that might mean something, oh and then again, the Arishok is just a glorified soilder who listens to the Ari-Qun for his direction, and irrelevant because the Qunari plan to conquer all of  Thedas anyway.

Feynriel is a side-quest.

In Exile wrote...

You mean like how all you did in DA:O was run fetch quests for people who were more important than you, and how the entire plan was invented by Flemeth, and how in the end you are only alive so you (or Alistair) can get Morrigain pregnant at the end of the game? 

I wont dignify that with a response, I'll just get to my original point :

What I mean is, How I should have had the option to steal the relic, not Isabela making me fight the Ari**** War cause she stole something, I should have had the option to Blow-Up the Chantry, not watching Ander's go rouge mage on me. Why is Varric a business man/theif, Aveline a captian....and Hawke...oh NOTHING? Why are my companions having more Impact on Kirkwall then I am? IDK. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.

 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
The point is he dies. Not he live. Get it? It's exactly what I expected him to be. If I choose to build a castle, I want to see the castle as the result. Not chicken farm. I don't give a damn what happen to the castle next or what happen happen to connor next.

You're right. How could I not have seen it!? The fact that you have three options and identical quest design is completely irrelvant when the future consequence is a funnel. That's the most relevant point to a conversation about how quest design is different - the future consequnce. Because if there's one thing that DA:O did in-game, it's show you the consequence of your actions.

My favourite parts include seeing how Orzammar developed after Bhelen became King with all of the changes in the city, and all of the dialogue in the Assembly. Wait...

In Exile wrote...

damn whether he goes to Terventer Imperium or be tranqualized or whatever.  All I care is my choice had been invalidated by this ridiculous plot, which never happen in DAO. 

Holy crap, yeah! You're completely right. This is also a point that matters in quest design, and is very different from the same point that you made above. It's good that you have such sophisticated and well-thought out arguments, that are relevant to things I've said before.

You still don't get it, don't you? Connor lives or dies IS the consequence based on my choices. You are expecting far more eloberated consequences when you described your choice on Bhelen's Part. Bhelen is the king, is he not? The game did show you that, did it not? Did the game slap your face and told you otherwise?

I've already given you a simple example.The game offer me to build a castle or chicken farm. I pick the castle. DAO show me the castle as the result. DA 2, however, show me chicken farm. Do you understand that? 

In Exile wrote...

If you have ( a ) Anders or ( Merill - which mean you are metagaming to make such choice. Just like you know beforehand that Idunna going to cast a charmed spell on you to make a choice whether to bring a mage or not to counter the spell.

Or © Bethany. You're completely right. In an RPG, it's completely metagaming to have a mage in your party, or to be a mage yourself. I totally knew beforehand about that, and didn't bring a mage with me because that's how I play the game or anything. This point is even more insightful than the last!

So now do you're agree it's isn't about choice at all? Or continue to justify those scenes as player's choice?

In Exile wrote...

The point is Connor dies because I made it so with my choice. I'm the one who control the plot here,  while Thrask dies is not my choice at all. The choices given are nothing but lies.

And Thrask does live. When you let him live. And then he dies later. It's almost like you're being obtuse, but that would be silly. Because we're having a reasonable conversation where you're not ignoring anything I've said or making things up at all.

Yeah, "and then he dies later." He dies, OK?  

In Exile wrote...

Exactly like how Harrowmont lives when you pick Bhelen. You get to control that plot, and Bhelen absolutely gives a flying fudge about what you have to say.

I never pick Bhelen. As far as I recalled, I killed Bhelen after I picked Harrowmont. Bhelen dies at my hand. I control that plot too. It's not the same with Thrask. I saved Thrask at the warehouse only for Grace to kill him in ACT III when I could have just kick Grace's butt right there. 

In Exile wrote...

DA:O's choices don't have in-game consequences. They give you a quest resolution, much like DA2 does. And then DA:O gives you an epilogue screen. That's it. DA:O's choices don't have consequences - they have a quest end, like DA2's choices have, and then DA:O doesn't have to bother to show what happens 3 years later.

DA 2 doesn't resolute the quest based on my choices either. Who decide Feyneriel to run away to Dalish camp when I choose him to go to the Circle? Who decide Isabela to run away with the tome when I already agree to help her? Who decide to shut Anders's mouth into revealing his plan when I already agree to help him with the ingredients? Who decide Anders's to bomb the chantry anyway? Who slap my face and shoved me into siding the mages when I choose to remain neutral? Who decide all those things to happen when  I choose for them NOT to happen?  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 janvier 2013 - 06:15 .

[AlexanderCousland]

In Exile wrote...

1) Mage/Templar choice, obviously.
2) Execute/Save Anders.
3) Pro-Templar Non-Mage, decide if Bethany is executed or not (or decide if the survivors are executed).
4) Companion plotlines - Fenris for example might leave you, confront you, and you can convince him to side with you.
5) Pair up with your sibling with a unique intro based on their background.

Lots of in-game choices that result from your other in-game choices.

DA2 does this, sorry.

Mages or Templar's?.... Templar's take the city , Mages escaped to tell people. Hawke may or not be Viscount based upon that decision. 
 
2-5 are all subjective to who you like/dislike and further reinforces my point that the game was made for you to choose which companions you like, not about your personal character. You can decide the same thing in Origin's..who lives or dies mumbo jumbo, and your companion's have no bearing at all on the descisions of your Main Quests.

This topic is about a protagnist that's important to the plot, Hawke isnt.  

In Exile wrote...

The armies are an arbitrary plot coupon, and there's no real in-game explanation why (for example) you even need the dwarves. There's no sense that somehow they were crucial, or that the actual troops in Ferelden as humans couldn't have served as cannon fodder long enough for the GW to kill the archdemon.

You run errands in DA:O, just like you run errands for most of DA2.

Okay, I know what my goal is for DA:O.

Would you mind explaining to me what Im working towards in DA2?, am I working to choose a side?

[In Exile]

FreshIstay wrote...
Arishok Spareishok,  Hawke had absolutley nothing do with that situation and how it came about...just another WHY IS THIS HAPPENING BATTLE?

The Warden has nothing to do with the Elves, or with the Tower, or with Arl Eamon, or with Loghain ...

...but you're roped into solving their problems anyway.

One, of the two choices that might mean something, oh and then again, the Arishok is just a glorified soilder who listens to the Ari-Qun for his direction, and irrelevant because the Qunari plan to conquer all of  Thedas anyway. 

Are you kidding? That's like saying that the King of Ferelden is irrelvant because he could be deposed by the Landsmeet. Whatever you want to make up is your business.

I wont dignify that with a response, 

Because you don't have one.

What I mean is, How I should have had the option to steal the relic, not Isabela making me fight the Ari**** War cause she stole something, I should have had the option to Blow-Up the Chantry, not watching Ander's go rouge mage on me.

Like how we had the choice to make the Cousland King instead of be Anora's lickspittle and let her rule completely? Or like how the Dwarf Noble had a choice to name himself King? Or how we could abandon Ferelden to the Blight?

Yes, all those choices we had in DA:O.

Why is Varric a business man/theif, Aveline a captian....and Hawke...oh NOTHING? Why are my companions having more Impact on Kirkwall then I am? IDK. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.

Hawke is the Champion of Kirkwall. He slays the Arishock or otherwise sends him running.

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
You still don't get it, don't you? Connor lives or dies IS the consequence based on my choices. You are expecting far more eloberated consequences when you described your choice on Bhelen's Part. Bhelen is the king, is he not? The game did show you that, did it not? Did the game slap your face and told you otherwise? 

It's great that you mention this! Because here is a thread I'm quoting from on this very forum:


DAO (SPOILS FOR A 3 year old game)



Oh I have a choice between 2 dwarfs and who rules the City of Orzammar?

Interesting. I pick A.

Ending shows up, oh hey your pick stank, only bad things happened, and things are worse then ever for this portion of the game.

Please dont do this, dont decide that oh you get some choices here, but one of them is going to be awful so pick the other one.

I
can just imagine how hard i would throw the disk out of my computer if
at the end of DA:I and i was able to end the game pro mage, and  the
writers decided that oh you picked mages, well they all fell to the
influence of blood magic and became a 2nd tevinter imperium

People want to be proud and happy of their decisions. I didnt decide something to see my path go down in flames.

This is what another poster, Celene II, says about the dwarf choice. So, apparently, no, you're completely wrong. People think that DA:O does exactly this with their ending choice. And not to mention that for the fifth time, I wasn't talking about choices, but quest design.

I've already given you a simple example.The game offer me to build a castle or chicken farm. I pick the castle. DAO show me the castle as the result. DA 2, however, show me chicken farm. Do you understand that?

Whatever exists in your head isn't my problem, because as I've repeatedly shown you (and now quoted other posters!) that opinion is by no means universal about DA:O. What DA:O does it that it only gives you the immediate consequence of your choice. DA2 does this too, in Act I. Where Bioware changes things is... in Act II/III. And what did Celene say about DA:O? That she didn't like the consequence.

So there you go: even the completely meaningless epilogue slides inspire rage. Your rants continue to be irrelevant and wrong.

So now do you're agree it's isn't about choice at all? Or continue to justify those scenes as player's choice?

Are you illiterate? First it's meta-gaming, now I'm agreeing with you?

Yeah, "and then he dies later." He dies, OK?

And Harrowmont is a ****ty King. So?

I never pick Bhelen. As far as I recalled, I killed Bhelen after I picked Harrowmont. Bhelen dies at my hand. I control that plot too. It's not the same with Thrask. I saved Thrask at the warehouse only for Grace to kill him in ACT III when I could have just kick Grace's butt right there. 

Well, guess what? I killed Thrask. He died in Act I. He dies by my hand. I control that plot. It's exactl the same as with Bhelen. He's never there in Act III, because he died in Act I. My choice.

There you go! The same garbage argument thrown in your face.

DA 2 doesn't resolute the quest based on my choices either. Who decide Feyneriel to run away to Dalish camp when I choose him to go to the Circle? Who decide Isabela to run away with the tome when I already agree to help her? Who decide to shut Anders's mouth into revealing his plan when I already agree to help him with the ingredients? Who decide Anders's to bomb the chantry anyway? Who slap my face and shoved me into siding the mages when I choose to remain neutral? Who decide all those things to happen when  I choose for them NOT to happen?  

Who decides that I can't abandon Ferelden? Who decides that Alistair has to follow me? Who decides that I can't declare my Cousland who found the Sacred Ashes and slew Loghain as King instead of Alistair and without Anora? Who decides that I can't make my Dwarf Noble King of Orzammar? Who decides that I can't side with the Uldred? Who decides that I can't ....

We can do this forever. You're still wrong.

[In Exile]

FreshIstay wrote...

This topic is about a protagnist that's important to the plot, Hawke isnt.  

Actually... "The most interesting character should be the protagonist."

That's the title of the topic. So, no, it's not. It's funny how you can be wrong even about the little things.

Okay, I know what my goal is for DA:O.

Yes, run errands for people more important than you.

Would you mind explaining to me what Im working towards in DA2?, am I working to choose a side?

Go on an expedition, deal with the qunari, deal with the mage/templars.

There you go. You're working to do that.

[AlexanderCousland]

In Exile wrote...

The Warden has nothing to do with the Elves, or with the Tower, or with Arl Eamon, or with Loghain ...

...but you're roped into solving their problems anyway.

The difference is that Im well aware of the reason that I NEED to solve those problem's, in actuallity their problems are my problems until I get what I want.
 
Why does Hawke need to solve anything? oh right, he/she doesnt, Hawke would rather stand by and watch things happen.

In Exile wrote...

I wont dignify that with a response, 

Because you don't have one.

If I wasnt aware that your trying to provoke me, Id do my best to take a Shot at you, but I digress.

In Exile wrote...
Like how we had the choice to make the Cousland King instead of be Anora's lickspittle and let her rule completely? Or like how the Dwarf Noble had a choice to name himself King? Or how we could abandon Ferelden to the Blight?

Yes, all those choices we had in DA:O.

Hawke is the Champion of Kirkwall. He slays the Arishock or otherwise sends him running.

"Champion"....Im asuming that you Haven't read the in-game codex that defines the significance of that title, It hold's no lands, or riches...It's little more then a Glorified bully.

and Yes, you can be a consort, and Your Cousland can hold a title, and yes that was a choice. and If you think the people of Ferelden regard a Cousland Hero as anyone's "lickspittle" your sadly mistaken.

and abandoning Ferelden to the blight would defeat the purpose of the Game,oh wait, you can play Chronicles if you want that, maybe Bioware will make Chronicle's 2.

^BUT ALL OF THAT IS IRRELEVANT^

It circumvent's my point,  the companions of DA2 were more important to the Plot of DA2 then Hawke was.

[AlexanderCousland]

In Exile wrote...

Actually... "The most interesting character should be the protagonist."

That's the title of the topic. So, no, it's not. It's funny how you can be wrong even about the little things.

  I must have touched a nerve, Okay so let's get on topic

Explain to me how Hawke was more interesting then His/Her companions? because clearly some people feel otherwise.

In Exile Wrote...
Go on an expedition, deal with the qunari, deal with the mage/templars.

There you go. You're working to do that.

  Oh wise one.

WHY am I doing it, what's the point? 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
You still don't get it, don't you? Connor lives or dies IS the consequence based on my choices. You are expecting far more eloberated consequences when you described your choice on Bhelen's Part. Bhelen is the king, is he not? The game did show you that, did it not? Did the game slap your face and told you otherwise?  [/quote]

It's great that you mention this! Because here is a thread I'm quoting from on this very forum:


DAO (SPOILS FOR A 3 year old game)



Oh I have a choice between 2 dwarfs and who rules the City of Orzammar?

Interesting. I pick A.

Ending shows up, oh hey your pick stank, only bad things happened, and things are worse then ever for this portion of the game.

Please dont do this, dont decide that oh you get some choices here, but one of them is going to be awful so pick the other one.[/quote]
Defined "Bad things happened" 


[quote]In Exile wrote...

I
can just imagine how hard i would throw the disk out of my computer if
at the end of DA:I and i was able to end the game pro mage, and  the
writers decided that oh you picked mages, well they all fell to the
influence of blood magic and became a 2nd tevinter imperium [/quote]

The game already inform you the condition under the Tervinter Imperium's rule and the consequences of blood magic, did it not? And you continue to follow that path, that's your choice. Deal with it. Next time, pay more attention to the game detail. 


[quote]In Exile wrote...

People want to be proud and happy of their decisions. I didnt decide something to see my path go down in flames.[/quote]
Sure. I didn't decide to see my path lead to somewhere else either, in the same manner I didn't decide to remain neutral only to be shoved to side the mages in the end.


[quote]In Exile wrote...

This is what another poster, Celene II, says about the dwarf choice. So, apparently, no, you're completely wrong. People think that DA:O does exactly this with their ending choice. And not to mention that for the fifth time, I wasn't talking about choices, but quest design.[/quote]
There is no wrong or right with opinion. Celene II only stated her/his opinion which you happen to agree. She/he didn't stated a fact which you can proven as right or wrong. I assume she's picking Bhelen? What so bad about picking Bhelen as the king? You don't like the game consequences? It's still the consequence of your choices. If you cannot deal with the consequences then don't pick the "wrong" side.


[quote]In Exile wrote...



[quote]I've already given you a simple example.The game offer me to build a castle or chicken farm. I pick the castle. DAO show me the castle as the result. DA 2, however, show me chicken farm. Do you understand that? [/quote]

Whatever exists in your head isn't my problem, because as I've repeatedly shown you (and now quoted other posters!) that opinion is by no means universal about DA:O. What DA:O does it that it only gives you the immediate consequence of your choice. DA2 does this too, in Act I. Where Bioware changes things is... in Act II/III. [/quote]
 Wow you still don't understand even I already provide a simple example to ilustrate the difference between DAO and DA 2's choices. 


[quote]In Exile wrote...



And what did Celene say about DA:O? That she didn't like the consequence. [/quote]
So you are going to back up your entire argument based on someone's else opionion and preference? 


[quote]In Exile wrote...


So there you go: even the completely meaningless epilogue slides inspire rage. Your rants continue to be irrelevant and wrong.[/quote]
Completely meaningless consequences inspire even more rage as shown by ME3's and DA 2's endings.



[quote]In Exile wrote...




[quote]So now do you're agree it's isn't about choice at all? Or continue to justify those scenes as player's choice? [/quote]

Are you illiterate? First it's meta-gaming, now I'm agreeing with you?[/quote]
Wow, so now you are calling me illiterate? I advise you to read the forum rules before you post that. It's not my fault that you cant understand choice based on metagaming isn't a choice at all. If you want to talk about metagaming choices I could do so by completely ignore all the companion's quest and even side quest. Wait I did that too..
That's a choice too. Metagaming choices. 


[quote]In Exile wrote...

And Harrowmont is a ****ty King. So?[/quote]
Harrowmont is  a ****ty King because I made him a king. Get it? 

[quote]In Exile wrote...





Well, guess what? I killed Thrask. He died in Act I. He dies by my hand. I control that plot. It's exactl the same as with Bhelen. He's never there in Act III, because he died in Act I. My choice.

There you go! The same garbage argument thrown in your face.[/quote]
Well I don't killed Thrask. That's the problem. But you don't care, don't you. Because your entire agurment is garbage, subjected to your preference. If you have no intention to   address the issue for those who save Thrask, then I suggest you to refrain yourself from replying.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]DA 2 doesn't resolute the quest based on my choices either. Who decide Feyneriel to run away to Dalish camp when I choose him to go to the Circle? Who decide Isabela to run away with the tome when I already agree to help her? Who decide to shut Anders's mouth into revealing his plan when I already agree to help him with the ingredients? Who decide Anders's to bomb the chantry anyway? Who slap my face and shoved me into siding the mages when I choose to remain neutral? Who decide all those things to happen when  I choose for them NOT to happen?  [/quote]



Who decides that I can't abandon Ferelden? Who decides that Alistair has to follow me? Who decides that I can't declare my Cousland who found the Sacred Ashes and slew Loghain as King instead of Alistair and without Anora? Who decides that I can't make my Dwarf Noble King of Orzammar? Who decides that I can't side with the Uldred? Who decides that I can't ....

We can do this forever. You're still wrong.

[/quote]
Do you get the choice to abandon Ferelden? Do you get choice to dismiss Alistair etc... You don't have the ****ing choices. Do you get the choice to send Feyneriel to the Circle. Yes you do. Do you get the choice to help Isabela or not? Yes You do. Do you get the choice to help Anders or not. Yes you do. Do you get the choice to be neutral. Yes you do. All my examples are based on choices. . While none of your examples provide such condition with choices. So if you have no intention to argue properly, just said so. It would be easier for me to quit replying to your garbage. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 janvier 2013 - 07:41 .