38 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

If you support Harrowmont, you could have him being deposed after a few months by Bhelen supporters (which means a new king is selected, with unknown consequences). He could be totally ineffectual at getting anything done, where the Dwarven Houses rule Orammar. He could be isolationist to the point where Orzammar's economy suffered. If you saved the Anvil, Harrowmont uses it wisely and infrequently, meaning it was in wise, good hands.

Uh.
Harrowmont wipes out Dust Town with the golems, and Branka takes some to launch raids against the surface. So... no.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 08 janvier 2013 - 03:07 .

[BBK4114]

Take Zev along the 1st time you talk to Harrowmont. He pretty much points out what a spineless wimp he is and questions the warden on why she would want him to rule. Then talk to the commoners and nobles, and it'll leave a bad taste in your mouth. So he's nice up front but he's a biased bigot.

Do you still feel sleazy for choosing Bhelen? Sure but it's better than the effed up caste system they currently have. Imho

[nightscrawl]

deatharmonic wrote...

I don't agree with Gaider's view there, I also don't agree with thte assumption that gamers will always pick the 'better' outcome. For me, when I've played Connors choice my hard-arse wardens will always kill him, or perform the blood magic ritual whilst my goodie goodie wardens will head to the circle. I don't play for the outcome of the choice, I play the choice itself dependant on what my characters moral compass is like. Having said that, I'm not opposed to negative consequences as long as I don't sit there and think 'where did that come from?'

I've done that as well. My non-mage Warden didn't really "get" the whole blood magic thing. I also felt that it was right to let Connor's mother sacrifice herself because that is what she, as a mother, wanted. My mage Warden (my canon plays) naturally thinks going to the Circle to be a great alternative.

[Navasha]

I disagree with the OP. Choices shouldn't all lead to butterflies and daisies. You're character is not in control of all events in the world. You simply have a choice of doing what is "right" or "wrong" when a choice is presented to you. My good wardens would ALWAYS choose Harrowmont, because Bhelen was clearly a underhanded manipulator with what he asked my warden to do. It is NOT in my wardens control to have Harrowmont become some grand and wise leader.

Consequences (at least unforseeable ones) that lie outside of my characters control are not really that concerning to me. You make a choice based on the information you have at hand. Even if my warden somehow saw the future and what poor choices Harrowmont might make, I still would have chose him over Bhelen. My wardens actions wouldn't see an unethical leader put into power.

[philippe willaume]

hello
i am not in favour of choices without consequences, far from it. and it is good to have choices that turn out not to be what you expected, as long as you have information to make the choice.
in fact those information can be false or half truth but we need something to base our decision on,

phil

[leighzard]

Celene II wrote...

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

But you can't always know the consequences of your actions. I suspect that at the time Neville Chamberlain thought his policy of appeasement was truly the best course of action. If it's only a bad decision in hindsight, you wouldn't have done anything differently given the information that was available to you at the time. That doesn't stop me from doing a little meta-gaming here and there where the consequences are immediate, but it's an awful lot harder to do the first time around if you don't have line of sight to the outcome. I rather liked that aspect of DA:O. It felt a little more authentic to me that way. Something that seemed like the "right" thing to do at the time, twisted my expectations.

However, if your complaint is that you make all these decisions and then have to wait to see what happens until the epilogue 40 hours later, that's a different story. I think DA2 tried to address the epilogue situation by having more of your decisions play out across the different acts. Like, what you do with Feynriel plays out throughout the game. But then I've also heard people say that the DA2 ending was too abrupt and open-ended. So I don't know what way is best. Are certain decisions set aside for the epilogue? It'll be interesting to see how BW handles the endgame of Inquisition.

[In Exile]

HJF4 wrote...
In addition, Bhelen had the distinct advantage of wanting to do away with the caste system. Most players aren't going to agree with the caste system.

If you investigate the stuff Bhelen gives you, you find out it's all fraudulent. And you see Bhelen's men kill someone in cold blood at the start of the game.

Talking to the Shaperate about Bhelen at that point also tells you he researched how to use a blight to get rid of the assembly and rule alone.

Harrowmont's one advantage was his supposed honor - yet it resulted in nothing positive in the epilogues.

Good people aren't good politicians.

[upsettingshorts]

Bhelen: Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Harrowmont, despite living his whole life in Orzammar politics, doesn't seem to get that there's a game being played.

[King Cousland]

XX-Pyro wrote...

"I want every ending to be a happy one regardless of my choices." No. I heartily disagree.

[BubbleDncr]

I actually rather liked the fact that the guy who appears to be the "good guy" choice ends up being the worse choice (if you're judging by what's good for Orzammar in the long run). Mixes things up.

I think that's what the OP is saying he doesn't like? I dunno, the post was a little confusing?

Edit - rereading the OP's post, I have more to add:

If in every choice presented to you, no matter what you choose, something good happens and everyone lives happily ever after, aren't those choices then meaningless? Part of the reason the chocies are hard is because there are no clear right and wrongs, and you always risk having something bad come out of it. That's what I like about DA.

Modifié par BubbleDncr, 08 janvier 2013 - 07:59 .

[rapscallioness]

I like the choices to be a mixed bag. It makes you consider them more carefully. And also makes you search the game more thoroughly in order to make a more informed choice.

Orzammar was a tough one.

[Auintus]

All choices are not all good. Look at Dagna and Brother whats-his-face down in Orzammar. Do their quests and you almost start a religious crusade. But then most of the other quests help people in the long run. It's fair.
However, something large, and mandatory, like Harrowmont vs. Bhelen should break even for goods and bads. There's no reason why one should be perfect and the other horrific. But they shouldn't both be rainbows and butterflies either. They should be good and bad in different ways. Bhelen does great things for the dwarves, but turns the entire political system completely on its head and becomes a dictator(for better or for worse). Harrowmont is more individually "good," reinforces the political system, which I'm sure the nobles loved, and took a more traditionalist approach.
Depending on what you consider good, it's a fairly even decision.

Modifié par Auintus, 08 janvier 2013 - 08:29 .

[Fraq Hound]

Celene II wrote...

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

When people post this stuff, it just sounds like they want a game built around stroking their ego.

Like they just want to create a character and then spend the next 60 hours listening to the game tell them how awesome they are.

The world isn't like that, you make the wrong decision more often then not. What's more important is how you feel about that situation after the fact.

[mopotter]

nightscrawl wrote...

deatharmonic wrote...

I don't agree with Gaider's view there, I also don't agree with thte assumption that gamers will always pick the 'better' outcome. For me, when I've played Connors choice my hard-arse wardens will always kill him, or perform the blood magic ritual whilst my goodie goodie wardens will head to the circle. I don't play for the outcome of the choice, I play the choice itself dependant on what my characters moral compass is like. Having said that, I'm not opposed to negative consequences as long as I don't sit there and think 'where did that come from?'

I've done that as well. My non-mage Warden didn't really "get" the whole blood magic thing. I also felt that it was right to let Connor's mother sacrifice herself because that is what she, as a mother, wanted. My mage Warden (my canon plays) naturally thinks going to the Circle to be a great alternative.

 I also  had a warden who agreed with Connor's mother sacrificing herself.   I would not have liked being forced to pick Connor or his mother each time since  I always want more choices not less,   so i also disagree with DG about this.   I do think games who re-play pick hard choices because their characters are not all alike.