332 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Isolaede wrote...

I’d say the story should be as dark or light as the player makes it.  This is what made DA:O so special. Dark and terrible things happened in the story, but almost every dark situation could be circumvented by player decision.   For example: The arl of Redcliffe’s child, Connor, was possessed by a demon.  The easiest solution to this dilemma was to kill him.  However you could also sacrifice Conner’s mother to save him.  OR – the lightest choice – you could get help from the mage tower and save everyone involved.

I disagree. I think being able to save everyone defeated the purpose of the choice. The option of asking the mages for help should have existed, certainly, but there should be a downside to it rather than simply be a "choose this option to win" type of choice.
It should,at the very least, take a week to travel between Redcliff and the Circle and back in which time the Desire Demon took control of Connor again and killed a few dozen villagers.

I disagree with your disagreements. Third options are totally fine with me, for those intelligent enough to find them and leave open opportunities to take them.

[Isolaede]

MisterJB wrote...

Isolaede wrote...
I’d say the story should be as dark or light as the player makes it.  This is what made DA:O so special. Dark and terrible things happened in the story, but almost every dark situation could be circumvented by player decision.   For example: The arl of Redcliffe’s child, Connor, was possessed by a demon.  The easiest solution to this dilemma was to kill him.  However you could also sacrifice Conner’s mother to save him.  OR – the lightest choice – you could get help from the mage tower and save everyone involved.

I disagree. I think being able to save everyone defeated the purpose of the choice. The option of asking the mages for help should have existed, certainly, but there should be a downside to it rather than simply be a "choose this option to win" type of choice.
It should,at the very least, take a week to travel between Redcliff and the Circle and back in which time the Desire Demon took control of Connor again and killed a few dozen villagers.

I think Bioware dealt with this well.  They made the “best” endings the hardest to get.  I can’t tell you how many friends I know that played through the game, never knowing you could save Conner AND his mother, or the humans and the werewolves in the Brecilian forest.  You had to make just the right choices, and select the perfect set of dialog options to get the best end. Those endings were like beautiful Easter eggs – you had to work for them, but they were so worth it.

I love darkness in games, but ultimately I play them because I want to feel like a hero. If I wanted no-win situations with hopeless outcomes, there are plenty to be found in real life.  I play fantasy RPG games that make me feel good. I want my character to be the one that sets the world aright, even if it costs her life. 

Modifié par Isolaede, 30 janvier 2013 - 12:09 .

[katiebour]

 What DA2 did for me that DA:O did not was to make me appreciate the emotional value of sacrifice.

In DA:O, I felt like I had an "I win!" button out of almost every scenario, including the end.

Sure, I made my buddy have a one-night-stand with a sexy woman that he detested, and his baby with said woman has the soul of an Old God (whatever that means in the context of the story to come) but I saw zero consequences of it except that everyone lived.

I saved Connor AND his parents!  Piece of cake!

Saved everyone in the Tower except Niall, but I didn't really know him anyway, right?  Cullen went nuts afterward and slaughtered a bunch of apprentices, but that happened in a text slide, so I didn't feel the emotional impact of it.  Text on the page, nothing more.

Saved the elves AND cured the werewolves!  Grand!

Could pretty much make any choice of succession that I wanted and it was an equal win.  Al's a good and popular king; Anora knows her business; marry the two of them for extra awesomesauce, or have my PC take the throne with either.

Of course there's the possibility that none of them are capable of offspring, leaving the country open to civil war when they die, but that's a consequence I didn't see in-game.

I romanced my assassin, we both lived, and he wrote me love letters from Antiva.

Kept everyone in my party and they all loved me.

There were minor characters who died, and I was sad and sorry for them, but I didn't lose anyone that I really, REALLY cared about in game.

DA2 hurt me so, so good in that respect.  

Lost my sibs, either to death or duty.  Lost my parent in horrific circumstances.  My lover grew increasingly distant from me (Anders' Act III dialogue was a punch in the gut every time I talked to him- MAN THAT HURT SO GOOD.)

And at the end of the game, the choices I made resulted in Fenris fighting me to his death, because he and I didn't get along well enough for him to join me.  I couldn't help Merrill- the first time around I killed her entire clan, going "Oh, god nooo, noo, no," as they attacked me.

I lost Seb- and I sort of liked the jerk, right up to the end. (He's actually one of my favorite toons- so complex and conflicted, Waffle-Boy!)

Isabela deserted me because I was TOO much of a goody-two-shoes the first time around.

in summary:
-taking my sib to the Deep Roads, or not, had consequences.
-helping my friends made me an unwitting accomplice to the Chantry Boom.
-not meta-gaming made me lose one of my party members in a fight to the death- and you know what, I liked it, because damn if that boy and I didn't disagree 3/4ths of the time on everything, and it was a perfect expression of the see-saw that was the relationship, and god, hurt so good.
-Picking Anders, staying with Anders, had CONSEQUENCES.  Lost Seb, lost Fen, my toon is now a wanted woman fleeing with her apostate.
-not meta-gaming made me lose one of my party members even after I helped her get her book back, etc.

Many people would say these were all bad things- they WANTED the "I Win!" button that they'd had in DA:O, and the character's inability to resolve situations to the player's satisfaction pissed them off.

I loved it.

The way I played had consequences, the choices I made were made in the full faith that I'd get that "I Win!" situation, and then I didn't, and it shocked me.  In a good way.

You've seen the movie- the villain twirls his mustache while the girl screams on the train tracks, and then the hero swoops in JUST IN TIME and saves the day.  I've seen that movie over and over again on TV, in film, in video games, in books.

They didn't do it in the Walking Dead- people we cared about died, tragically.
They didn't do it in Game of Thrones- Ned Stark DIED.  He changed sides, admitted his "guilt," and was all ready to take the Black up North.  We were ready for the "I Win!" button, and then IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.  And that was what made it shocking, horrifying, and a good story.

So, how dark do I want it?

I want my actions to have consequences, and I want to see those consequences, in that same game.
I want to have companions respond differently to my actions- I don't want to be able to please everyone, because then the choice of what I say and do MATTERS.  I want Virmire.  I want to make choices, take chances, and have circumstances get the best of me sometimes, no matter what I do.  Sometimes the bad guy gets to my mother first, and then my character has to live with that outcome.  That outcome influences other choices I might make.  It results in my companions speaking to my character with sympathy, with some truly emotional moments.  Aveline talking about her father was an amazing conversation.

And maybe in the end, I'm the big hero, but I lose the person I love.  Or maybe I save the person I love, but am branded a traitor.  It's the trade-offs that make decisions matter, and THAT is what I want.

[Fawx9]

Is it just me, or is it that every time I read this thread more people asked to be punched in the gut because it makes the story better?

How?

A story isn't good just because of the mood but the entirety of the narrative. If I get half way through the game and the only thing I've taken from it is "How is this quest going to screw me over" then to me it has failed.

If every major choice comes with consequences that are negative, then they start to be pointless, and are no different than choices that have all win scenarios.

Make the mood fit the story you want to tell. Don't throw in dark and brooding because its deep. Cause most of the time it's not.

[upsettingshorts]

People explicitly ask to be punched in the gut to drown out all the people complaining that they were.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 janvier 2013 - 01:20 .

[Fawx9]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

People explicitly ask to be punched in the gut to drown out all the people complaining that they were.

Nothing more, nothing less.

So as long as the mood ebs and flows along with the story we're fine. No need to try and force it in one direction or the other. 

[SilentK]

When everything is fine and dandy in my RL I sometimes set up a really horrible PT:s for myself. Companions die, things go wrong. I sit in front of the computer sniffling *So many FEELS *


When both of the family pets died, I was sick and it was a gray cold winter. Then I started the happiest PT I could think off with all the right choices taken in the earlier game for me to get my favorite companions and possible outcomes.


I like a combination of both of dark and light, but the thing that really would make me happy would be if I could influence my game towards a lighter or darker path.Well, this perhaps works better when you replay games as I do. If it is possible it would makes replays even more fun for me.

Modifié par SilentK, 30 janvier 2013 - 01:46 .

[Darth Krytie]

katiebour wrote...


So, how dark do I want it?

I want my actions to have consequences, and I want to see those consequences, in that same game.
I want to have companions respond differently to my actions- I don't want to be able to please everyone, because then the choice of what I say and do MATTERS.  I want Virmire.  I want to make choices, take chances, and have circumstances get the best of me sometimes, no matter what I do.  Sometimes the bad guy gets to my mother first, and then my character has to live with that outcome.  That outcome influences other choices I might make.  It results in my companions speaking to my character with sympathy, with some truly emotional moments.  Aveline talking about her father was an amazing conversation.

And maybe in the end, I'm the big hero, but I lose the person I love.  Or maybe I save the person I love, but am branded a traitor.  It's the trade-offs that make decisions matter, and THAT is what I want.

Yes! To all of this. I love consequences. I love having to think about what to do and how it'll end up. I love getting a Mordin scenario even if I cried. CRIED. So hard.

[Janktrio]

 How dark do I want my DA3 experience?

www.youtube.com/watch

Blacker than the blackest black, times infinity.

[Twisted Path]

mousestalker wrote...

I'd rather the game not be especially dark. My eyesight is very good and a dark game would be pretty hard to see. Since Bioware is touting the new graphics it would be awfully nice if they were clearly visible.

Yeah. Speaking of which my eyesite is okay but Mass Effect 3 was way too dark for me in a very visual sense. There was something about the lighting, color pallet and or/special effects in the game that made it seem kind of ugly and also really hard to see what was going on during certain sections. Would rather have a pretty game than a game that's so GrimDark that it's hard to see what's going on.

[Isolaede]

katiebour wrote...

 What DA2 did for me that DA:O did not was to make me appreciate the emotional value of sacrifice.

In DA:O, I felt like I had an "I win!" button out of almost every scenario, including the end.

Sure, I made my buddy have a one-night-stand with a sexy woman that he detested, and his baby with said woman has the soul of an Old God (whatever that means in the context of the story to come) but I saw zero consequences of it except that everyone lived.

I saved Connor AND his parents!  Piece of cake!

Saved everyone in the Tower except Niall, but I didn't really know him anyway, right?  Cullen went nuts afterward and slaughtered a bunch of apprentices, but that happened in a text slide, so I didn't feel the emotional impact of it.  Text on the page, nothing more.

Saved the elves AND cured the werewolves!  Grand!

Could pretty much make any choice of succession that I wanted and it was an equal win.  Al's a good and popular king; Anora knows her business; marry the two of them for extra awesomesauce, or have my PC take the throne with either.

Of course there's the possibility that none of them are capable of offspring, leaving the country open to civil war when they die, but that's a consequence I didn't see in-game.

I romanced my assassin, we both lived, and he wrote me love letters from Antiva.

Kept everyone in my party and they all loved me.

There were minor characters who died, and I was sad and sorry for them, but I didn't lose anyone that I really, REALLY cared about in game.

DA2 hurt me so, so good in that respect.  

Lost my sibs, either to death or duty.  Lost my parent in horrific circumstances.  My lover grew increasingly distant from me (Anders' Act III dialogue was a punch in the gut every time I talked to him- MAN THAT HURT SO GOOD.)

And at the end of the game, the choices I made resulted in Fenris fighting me to his death, because he and I didn't get along well enough for him to join me.  I couldn't help Merrill- the first time around I killed her entire clan, going "Oh, god nooo, noo, no," as they attacked me.

I lost Seb- and I sort of liked the jerk, right up to the end. (He's actually one of my favorite toons- so complex and conflicted, Waffle-Boy!)

Isabela deserted me because I was TOO much of a goody-two-shoes the first time around.

in summary:
-taking my sib to the Deep Roads, or not, had consequences.
-helping my friends made me an unwitting accomplice to the Chantry Boom.
-not meta-gaming made me lose one of my party members in a fight to the death- and you know what, I liked it, because damn if that boy and I didn't disagree 3/4ths of the time on everything, and it was a perfect expression of the see-saw that was the relationship, and god, hurt so good.
-Picking Anders, staying with Anders, had CONSEQUENCES.  Lost Seb, lost Fen, my toon is now a wanted woman fleeing with her apostate.
-not meta-gaming made me lose one of my party members even after I helped her get her book back, etc.

Many people would say these were all bad things- they WANTED the "I Win!" button that they'd had in DA:O, and the character's inability to resolve situations to the player's satisfaction pissed them off.

I loved it.

The way I played had consequences, the choices I made were made in the full faith that I'd get that "I Win!" situation, and then I didn't, and it shocked me.  In a good way.

You've seen the movie- the villain twirls his mustache while the girl screams on the train tracks, and then the hero swoops in JUST IN TIME and saves the day.  I've seen that movie over and over again on TV, in film, in video games, in books.

They didn't do it in the Walking Dead- people we cared about died, tragically.
They didn't do it in Game of Thrones- Ned Stark DIED.  He changed sides, admitted his "guilt," and was all ready to take the Black up North.  We were ready for the "I Win!" button, and then IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.  And that was what made it shocking, horrifying, and a good story.

So, how dark do I want it?

I want my actions to have consequences, and I want to see those consequences, in that same game.
I want to have companions respond differently to my actions- I don't want to be able to please everyone, because then the choice of what I say and do MATTERS.  I want Virmire.  I want to make choices, take chances, and have circumstances get the best of me sometimes, no matter what I do.  Sometimes the bad guy gets to my mother first, and then my character has to live with that outcome.  That outcome influences other choices I might make.  It results in my companions speaking to my character with sympathy, with some truly emotional moments.  Aveline talking about her father was an amazing conversation.

And maybe in the end, I'm the big hero, but I lose the person I love.  Or maybe I save the person I love, but am branded a traitor.  It's the trade-offs that make decisions matter, and THAT is what I want.

Great points all around, Katiebour! : )

Imo there is a difference between actions having consequences and persistent no win situations.  One of my biggest frustrations with DA2 was how many times there was absolutely nothing I could do to change the course of any of the major events.  Let me speak to some of your points first:

1. The sibling story in the Deep roads – this was amazing.  You could “save” your sibling if you’d imported a game (and had your Grey Warden buddy, Nathaniel handy), or left them behind in the city.   Every decision had consequences but it wasn’t a no win situation. For me the "win" was the Grey Warden one.  I love the Wardens! : )

2. Chantry boom – this was a no win situation.  Help Anders or not – it was going to happen.  Argue with Anders, romance him, rivalmance him – it didn’t matter.  There was nothing you could do to avoid it. I tried.  This is a no win situation, but I can't fault Bioware for it.  It needed to happen for the story. I would have appreciated a way to reach Ander's more though -to help him with Justice. Either before or after the Chantry boom.  That romance was so beautiful but it felt so hopeless at the same time.

3. Party members abandoning you based on decisions – this could be avoided with high enough faction, so I liked it. I liked this. My first play through Isabella bailed – second time around I worked on my friendship with her more and she stuck by my side.  Fenris' faction was high enough- I never had issues with him bailing.

4. Staying with Anders and loosing Seb - I liked that story element too. I had a choice – I could keep Ander’s and loose Seb, or murder knife Anders and Seb would stay.
 
Now here are a few of the no win situations that really didn't sit well with me:

1. Orsino's conversion - this made absolutely no sense to me.  I'd already fought the Templar's and was winning. Why couldn't he have held out and trusted I'd take care of things? There is no way to prevent it or help him.  I know he'd played around with the darkness before (exchanging letters with the bloodmage that killed Leandra), but throughout the game he was a voice of reason, then suddenly at the end he goes into crazy blood mage mode. And there was NOTHING that could be done to stop him or save him.  This wasn't a consequence of my actions - it was just random and senseless.  Unfortunately this also added very little to the story - it wasn't a necessary plot device - so imo it should have been preventable.

2. Hawke's Mother's death - there is no way to stop it.  You can take the blood mage up on his offer to track her or not - she will always die.  I appreciate the emotional depth this added to the story, but it wasn't 100% essential for the over arcing plot of the story, so I wish there had been some way to rescue her.

3.The quest Best Served Cold - My PC was a mage, and 100% pro-mage in all of her actions. Yet I was forced to take a quest from Merideth that required that I spy on and kill mages. No even blood mages - just normal mages standing up against the Templars and meeting in secret!  I'd rather have joined them then kill them. And then said mages kidnap one of my companions, and there's no way I can reason with them. Ander's confirmed I'd made a name for myself in the Mage community. You'd think they'd give me the benefit of the doubt with all the very public support I'd shown them, not to mention all the mages I'd rescued and hidden. Yet slaughtering my own people was my only option.

Modifié par Isolaede, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:18 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

I'm generally fine with "dark" options as long as it doesn't:

1) leave the feeling of "well, that choice was pointless". One example here is the gunship mechanic in ME2, where the choice to spare or kill him only knocks a tiny bit of armor off it. Your friend gets his face blasted off either way.

2) leave the player feeling like they've been forced into being stupid. Hawke's mother or Anders' little quest in DA2 are huge examples here. You can't mention that a serial killer with a specific gender, age range, and calling card is around the city to Hawke's mother, even if you think of doing so. If you choose to gather Anders' materials, you're not the least bit suspicious - even as a mage who might know what alchemical properties those items have? Even if you choose not to do that quest, it happens anyway, and that's the ultimate feeling of "then why even give me the option?"

3) be dark simply for the sake of being dark. There are some games where you're actively screwed for picking the more benevolent choice, and that's a little irritating. Take a lesson from Morrowind here, in which picking a third option (like say, "nobody dies") might involve some real work from the player in finding and executing an alternate solution. You might even include a timer on some of these (one on the "go back and get the mages to fix Connor" choice would've been ideal) so the player can't just screw around for six months while a supposedly urgent choice is looming in the background.

Modifié par Sopa de Gato, 30 janvier 2013 - 03:15 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Darth Death wrote...

What do people think when they hear the word "dark fantasy"? And how much of that do you want to experience in DA3?  

Well Dark Souls did it right.

• Has grotesque enemies.
• Twisted enviroments.
• Horror atmosphere in some instances (New Londo, Tomb of Giants, Chasm of The Abyss).
• No "happily ever after" endings for the story or even for characters (although some do have good endings but they are normally hard to achieve).

I'd simply like Inquisition to contain some areas over-run by abominations which should look even more grotesque and disgusting than their counter-parts from Origins and DA2. Also there needs to be atmosphere when entering caves filled with Darkspawn/abominations/undead such as noises echoing from within, corpses near the entrance and blood trails.

That's all I'd like to see. Origins got this right with the Circle Tower and Awakening done it especially well. Story-elements have always been fine in DA. Never extemely dark but never happily heroic either. Discussions about choices and consequences are another matter.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 30 janvier 2013 - 04:01 .

[wwwwowwww]

I want it to feel more real I guess. I mean DAO was a great game, but for an impending hoard ravaging the land, it just seemed like everyone was like "oh well I'm sure someone will do something about it" We all know what happens in the world when things change and panic ensues, people kill, riot, loot and so on. I'd like to see that sort of thing going on myself.

[Darth Krytie]

Sopa de Gato wrote...
If you choose to gather Anders' materials, you're not the least bit suspicious - even as a mage who might know what alchemical properties those items have? Even if you choose not to do that quest, it happens anyway, and that's the ultimate feeling of "then why even give me the option?"

I was disappointed with that quest for the fact that you couldn't side with him. One of my many, many, many playthroughs, I was a Mage, just as radical as he was. And I wanted to be able to be in on it. I think it would have been better if there was an option, if you made certain choices in earlier quests, that he'd confide in you and you could do it together.

So, yeah, I was fine with the Chantry blowing up regardless of if we helped or not...I just think the choice should have been only offered to mage sympathizers or something.

[upsettingshorts]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

If you choose to gather Anders' materials, you're not the least bit suspicious - even as a mage who might know what alchemical properties those items have? Even if you choose not to do that quest, it happens anyway, and that's the ultimate feeling of "then why even give me the option?"

Because roleplaying.

[Biotic Sage]

I would like darker than DA:O (no epic, cut and dry heroism, e.g. hero battles an ancient evil), but not "pleather-dark" like DA2 (why are there blood mages freakin EVERYWHERE in this city; how does it function on a day to day basis?!). Basically I would like more politics grounded in very real-world scenarios, more win-lose situations and decisions, and more agony for the player to better flavor the moments of exultance.

One can only hope they completely abandon the visual style for DA2 for an appropriate visual style for dark fantasy so, you know, we can enjoy our dark fantasy content.  Just for clarification, when people use the word "dark," it seems to me (and maybe this is just me) that what they mean is greater verisimilitude...like, you know, closer to reality / actual human nature.  Why does human nature have to be branded as "dark"?  Can't it just be neutral, since we are judging everything from the limited perspective of being human?

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 30 janvier 2013 - 01:07 .

[imbs]

It shouldnt really matter how "dark" something is and it really doesn't. In dragon age 2 when your mother dies - thats just a terrible random storyline (of a story that has been done way too many times). Its very dark but it's still awful and had me laughing rather than emotionally attached. On the other hand storylines such as Jowan from the Circle of Magi were interesting and not nearly as dark. People often mistake darkness for depth which is probably why there are people who can stand fenris, anders in da2.

Edit: darkness should be a result in these games and not a standard like some people are calling for. Someone above me suggested that people would be rioting in dao prior to the darkspawn horde and he is absolutely right. Point is storylines shouldn't be rejected because they are not dark enough, but rather on the merit of that storyline. DA2 got this very wrong. So many nosensical things happen in that game and some of the storylines and sidequests are downright terrible/boring.

Modifié par imbs, 30 janvier 2013 - 01:21 .

[Darth Death]

imbs wrote...

It shouldnt really matter how "dark" something is and it really doesn't. In dragon age 2 when your mother dies - thats just a terrible random storyline (of a story that has been done way too many times). Its very dark but it's still awful and had me laughing rather than emotionally attached. On the other hand storylines such as Jowan from the Circle of Magi were interesting and not nearly as dark. People often mistake darkness for depth which is probably why there are people who can stand fenris, anders in da2.

Edit: darkness should be a result in these games and not a standard like some people are calling for. Someone above me suggested that people would be rioting in dao prior to the darkspawn horde and he is absolutely right. Point is storylines shouldn't be rejected because they are not dark enough, but rather on the merit of that storyline. DA2 got this very wrong. So many nosensical things happen in that game and some of the storylines and sidequests are downright terrible/boring.

Assuming if "darkness" is done right in DA3, would you want it? 

[Vilegrim]

Fawx9 wrote...

Is it just me, or is it that every time I read this thread more people asked to be punched in the gut because it makes the story better?

How?

A story isn't good just because of the mood but the entirety of the narrative. If I get half way through the game and the only thing I've taken from it is "How is this quest going to screw me over" then to me it has failed.

If every major choice comes with consequences that are negative, then they start to be pointless, and are no different than choices that have all win scenarios.

Make the mood fit the story you want to tell. Don't throw in dark and brooding because its deep. Cause most of the time it's not.

I wanted the option to be the darkest human on the planet.   Cruel, sadistic, manipulative and amoral, guy wont talk?  Torture his wife in front of him, Guy screws you over?  That's his family and friends gone, he dies last.  If people can have the paragons of light, let us have a paragon of darkness.

[esper]

Isolaede wrote...

katiebour wrote...

 What DA2 did for me that DA:O did not was to make me appreciate the emotional value of sacrifice.

In DA:O, I felt like I had an "I win!" button out of almost every scenario, including the end.

Sure, I made my buddy have a one-night-stand with a sexy woman that he detested, and his baby with said woman has the soul of an Old God (whatever that means in the context of the story to come) but I saw zero consequences of it except that everyone lived.

I saved Connor AND his parents!  Piece of cake!

Saved everyone in the Tower except Niall, but I didn't really know him anyway, right?  Cullen went nuts afterward and slaughtered a bunch of apprentices, but that happened in a text slide, so I didn't feel the emotional impact of it.  Text on the page, nothing more.

Saved the elves AND cured the werewolves!  Grand!

Could pretty much make any choice of succession that I wanted and it was an equal win.  Al's a good and popular king; Anora knows her business; marry the two of them for extra awesomesauce, or have my PC take the throne with either.

Of course there's the possibility that none of them are capable of offspring, leaving the country open to civil war when they die, but that's a consequence I didn't see in-game.

I romanced my assassin, we both lived, and he wrote me love letters from Antiva.

Kept everyone in my party and they all loved me.

There were minor characters who died, and I was sad and sorry for them, but I didn't lose anyone that I really, REALLY cared about in game.

DA2 hurt me so, so good in that respect.  

Lost my sibs, either to death or duty.  Lost my parent in horrific circumstances.  My lover grew increasingly distant from me (Anders' Act III dialogue was a punch in the gut every time I talked to him- MAN THAT HURT SO GOOD.)

And at the end of the game, the choices I made resulted in Fenris fighting me to his death, because he and I didn't get along well enough for him to join me.  I couldn't help Merrill- the first time around I killed her entire clan, going "Oh, god nooo, noo, no," as they attacked me.

I lost Seb- and I sort of liked the jerk, right up to the end. (He's actually one of my favorite toons- so complex and conflicted, Waffle-Boy!)

Isabela deserted me because I was TOO much of a goody-two-shoes the first time around.

in summary:
-taking my sib to the Deep Roads, or not, had consequences.
-helping my friends made me an unwitting accomplice to the Chantry Boom.
-not meta-gaming made me lose one of my party members in a fight to the death- and you know what, I liked it, because damn if that boy and I didn't disagree 3/4ths of the time on everything, and it was a perfect expression of the see-saw that was the relationship, and god, hurt so good.
-Picking Anders, staying with Anders, had CONSEQUENCES.  Lost Seb, lost Fen, my toon is now a wanted woman fleeing with her apostate.
-not meta-gaming made me lose one of my party members even after I helped her get her book back, etc.

Many people would say these were all bad things- they WANTED the "I Win!" button that they'd had in DA:O, and the character's inability to resolve situations to the player's satisfaction pissed them off.

I loved it.

The way I played had consequences, the choices I made were made in the full faith that I'd get that "I Win!" situation, and then I didn't, and it shocked me.  In a good way.

You've seen the movie- the villain twirls his mustache while the girl screams on the train tracks, and then the hero swoops in JUST IN TIME and saves the day.  I've seen that movie over and over again on TV, in film, in video games, in books.

They didn't do it in the Walking Dead- people we cared about died, tragically.
They didn't do it in Game of Thrones- Ned Stark DIED.  He changed sides, admitted his "guilt," and was all ready to take the Black up North.  We were ready for the "I Win!" button, and then IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.  And that was what made it shocking, horrifying, and a good story.

So, how dark do I want it?

I want my actions to have consequences, and I want to see those consequences, in that same game.
I want to have companions respond differently to my actions- I don't want to be able to please everyone, because then the choice of what I say and do MATTERS.  I want Virmire.  I want to make choices, take chances, and have circumstances get the best of me sometimes, no matter what I do.  Sometimes the bad guy gets to my mother first, and then my character has to live with that outcome.  That outcome influences other choices I might make.  It results in my companions speaking to my character with sympathy, with some truly emotional moments.  Aveline talking about her father was an amazing conversation.

And maybe in the end, I'm the big hero, but I lose the person I love.  Or maybe I save the person I love, but am branded a traitor.  It's the trade-offs that make decisions matter, and THAT is what I want.

Great points all around, Katiebour! : )

Imo there is a difference between actions having consequences and persistent no win situations.  One of my biggest frustrations with DA2 was how many times there was absolutely nothing I could do to change the course of any of the major events.  Let me speak to some of your points first:

1. The sibling story in the Deep roads – this was amazing.  You could “save” your sibling if you’d imported a game (and had your Grey Warden buddy, Nathaniel handy), or left them behind in the city.   Every decision had consequences but it wasn’t a no win situation. For me the "win" was the Grey Warden one.  I love the Wardens! : )

2. Chantry boom – this was a no win situation.  Help Anders or not – it was going to happen.  Argue with Anders, romance him, rivalmance him – it didn’t matter.  There was nothing you could do to avoid it. I tried.  This is a no win situation, but I can't fault Bioware for it.  It needed to happen for the story. I would have appreciated a way to reach Ander's more though -to help him with Justice. Either before or after the Chantry boom.  That romance was so beautiful but it felt so hopeless at the same time.

3. Party members abandoning you based on decisions – this could be avoided with high enough faction, so I liked it. I liked this. My first play through Isabella bailed – second time around I worked on my friendship with her more and she stuck by my side.  Fenris' faction was high enough- I never had issues with him bailing.

4. Staying with Anders and loosing Seb - I liked that story element too. I had a choice – I could keep Ander’s and loose Seb, or murder knife Anders and Seb would stay.
 
Now here are a few of the no win situations that really didn't sit well with me:

1. Orsino's conversion - this made absolutely no sense to me.  I'd already fought the Templar's and was winning. Why couldn't he have held out and trusted I'd take care of things? There is no way to prevent it or help him.  I know he'd played around with the darkness before (exchanging letters with the bloodmage that killed Leandra), but throughout the game he was a voice of reason, then suddenly at the end he goes into crazy blood mage mode. And there was NOTHING that could be done to stop him or save him.  This wasn't a consequence of my actions - it was just random and senseless.  Unfortunately this also added very little to the story - it wasn't a necessary plot device - so imo it should have been preventable.

2. Hawke's Mother's death - there is no way to stop it.  You can take the blood mage up on his offer to track her or not - she will always die.  I appreciate the emotional depth this added to the story, but it wasn't 100% essential for the over arcing plot of the story, so I wish there had been some way to rescue her.

3.The quest Best Served Cold - My PC was a mage, and 100% pro-mage in all of her actions. Yet I was forced to take a quest from Merideth that required that I spy on and kill mages. No even blood mages - just normal mages standing up against the Templars and meeting in secret!  I'd rather have joined them then kill them. And then said mages kidnap one of my companions, and there's no way I can reason with them. Ander's confirmed I'd made a name for myself in the Mage community. You'd think they'd give me the benefit of the doubt with all the very public support I'd shown them, not to mention all the mages I'd rescued and hidden. Yet slaughtering my own people was my only option.

1. We agree on that.

2. You can morally break Anders down to the point where he can side with the templars (and bioware managed to make it plausible too). That is reaching him.

3. Sometimes party member should abondon you no matter you affections. I respect Sebastian for this. I wouldn't want to stay around my surrogate Mother murderer.

4. See above.

5. Orsino was... badly done. Okay if bioware wanted both side go crazy for the sake of balance. But they could and should have done it better. It just adds to the insult that we have later been told that it was because the dev's wanted an extra boss fight. WTF, bioware.

6. There shouldn't be a way. If there was a way everyone would take it and just load that one up. No matter how obscur it was. Bioware
have said that they considered allowing for you to have Zombie-Leandra
around (I assume that this means helping Gasgard), that would have been
awesome option. But saving Leandra, no.

7. You must have made a mistake. I was sent on that quest by Orsino and was sent to spy if it was a danger and only intervene if it was. As for Grace it is crazy. It is delusional. But her reaction are still very human. She faulty blames Hawke for her lover's death (you can hear that already when you meet her) and then just continues to push blame on Hawke. For Grace it is personal and f*** the cause. She is in no way rational but there are sadly people who do think like her and it is foreshadowed. I do wish they had presented the kidnap a little more tense (and that the kidnapping would take circlesib, lover, friend, importance and not just sib>everyone) so it made more sense why Hawke couldn't intervene to save Thrask.

As for my personal preferred level of darkness I think that Katiebour has said it perfectly why I prefer da2 over da:o any day as her description is exactly how I feel it.

[Eilaras]

katiebour wrote...

 What DA2 did for me that DA:O did not was to make me appreciate the emotional value of sacrifice.

In DA:O, I felt like I had an "I win!" button out of almost every scenario, including the end.

Sure, I made my buddy have a one-night-stand with a sexy woman that he detested, and his baby with said woman has the soul of an Old God (whatever that means in the context of the story to come) but I saw zero consequences of it except that everyone lived.

I saved Connor AND his parents!  Piece of cake!

Saved everyone in the Tower except Niall, but I didn't really know him anyway, right?  Cullen went nuts afterward and slaughtered a bunch of apprentices, but that happened in a text slide, so I didn't feel the emotional impact of it.  Text on the page, nothing more.

Saved the elves AND cured the werewolves!  Grand!

Could pretty much make any choice of succession that I wanted and it was an equal win.  Al's a good and popular king; Anora knows her business; marry the two of them for extra awesomesauce, or have my PC take the throne with either.

Of course there's the possibility that none of them are capable of offspring, leaving the country open to civil war when they die, but that's a consequence I didn't see in-game.

I romanced my assassin, we both lived, and he wrote me love letters from Antiva.

Kept everyone in my party and they all loved me.

There were minor characters who died, and I was sad and sorry for them, but I didn't lose anyone that I really, REALLY cared about in game.

DA2 hurt me so, so good in that respect.  

Lost my sibs, either to death or duty.  Lost my parent in horrific circumstances.  My lover grew increasingly distant from me (Anders' Act III dialogue was a punch in the gut every time I talked to him- MAN THAT HURT SO GOOD.)

And at the end of the game, the choices I made resulted in Fenris fighting me to his death, because he and I didn't get along well enough for him to join me.  I couldn't help Merrill- the first time around I killed her entire clan, going "Oh, god nooo, noo, no," as they attacked me.

I lost Seb- and I sort of liked the jerk, right up to the end. (He's actually one of my favorite toons- so complex and conflicted, Waffle-Boy!)

Isabela deserted me because I was TOO much of a goody-two-shoes the first time around.

in summary:
-taking my sib to the Deep Roads, or not, had consequences.
-helping my friends made me an unwitting accomplice to the Chantry Boom.
-not meta-gaming made me lose one of my party members in a fight to the death- and you know what, I liked it, because damn if that boy and I didn't disagree 3/4ths of the time on everything, and it was a perfect expression of the see-saw that was the relationship, and god, hurt so good.
-Picking Anders, staying with Anders, had CONSEQUENCES.  Lost Seb, lost Fen, my toon is now a wanted woman fleeing with her apostate.
-not meta-gaming made me lose one of my party members even after I helped her get her book back, etc.

Many people would say these were all bad things- they WANTED the "I Win!" button that they'd had in DA:O, and the character's inability to resolve situations to the player's satisfaction pissed them off.

I loved it.

The way I played had consequences, the choices I made were made in the full faith that I'd get that "I Win!" situation, and then I didn't, and it shocked me.  In a good way.

You've seen the movie- the villain twirls his mustache while the girl screams on the train tracks, and then the hero swoops in JUST IN TIME and saves the day.  I've seen that movie over and over again on TV, in film, in video games, in books.

They didn't do it in the Walking Dead- people we cared about died, tragically.
They didn't do it in Game of Thrones- Ned Stark DIED.  He changed sides, admitted his "guilt," and was all ready to take the Black up North.  We were ready for the "I Win!" button, and then IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.  And that was what made it shocking, horrifying, and a good story.

So, how dark do I want it?

I want my actions to have consequences, and I want to see those consequences, in that same game.
I want to have companions respond differently to my actions- I don't want to be able to please everyone, because then the choice of what I say and do MATTERS.  I want Virmire.  I want to make choices, take chances, and have circumstances get the best of me sometimes, no matter what I do.  Sometimes the bad guy gets to my mother first, and then my character has to live with that outcome.  That outcome influences other choices I might make.  It results in my companions speaking to my character with sympathy, with some truly emotional moments.  Aveline talking about her father was an amazing conversation.

And maybe in the end, I'm the big hero, but I lose the person I love.  Or maybe I save the person I love, but am branded a traitor.  It's the trade-offs that make decisions matter, and THAT is what I want.

Totally agree! 

[Paul E Dangerously]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

If you choose to gather Anders' materials, you're not the least bit suspicious - even as a mage who might know what alchemical properties those items have? Even if you choose not to do that quest, it happens anyway, and that's the ultimate feeling of "then why even give me the option?"

Because roleplaying.

So if I'm a mage, my roleplaying choices here are:
1) "Sure, Anders. I'm a nice guy and I'll help you out anyway"
2) "This seems really suspicious and I know what these ingredients are used for, but I'll do nothing because there's no way you could possibly gather these yourself"
Gotcha.

[Solmanian]

I want the full spectrum. Probably start at top (with puppies!) and progress to the darkest dephts by endgame (it's all fun and game until the antagonist cook and eat you LI); it will represent the inevitable loss of innocence that comes from with growing up.

[Solmanian]

I'm against being railroaded to my doom. However, I strongly support for as many "no-win" scenarios as possible, when your all your choices are: bad, worse, and door No.3 (hint: there's no cake behind that door). It's the whole point of the "kubayashi Maru" test. When you take victory off the table, that's where the real roleplaying starts. Your choices must have consequences, and you will need to contend with them. Choosing a violent approach over a "diplomatic" solution should be penalized just like in real life; most law enforcement agencies, modern or medieval, don't respond kindly to: I went down the sewers and killed 20 man, but I had a REALLY good reason! Mainly: I REALLY didn't like them."