122 réponses à ce sujet

[ISpeakTheTruth]

As some of you may remember when DA2 was about to be released they told us that the class Hawke starts as would automatically determine which of his/her siblings would survive and die. Now when I frist heard that you weren't going to have any control over which of your siblings would live and die that made me worried that the entire game would severly lack choice and as we know DA2 was a game that had virtually no real choice in it at all.

Now I think that when information is being given to us we should be very aware of any information that say we'd be given a situation that is similar to what happened with Carver and Bethany. If we have a situation that is similar then I'd say it might be fair to assume we have a game that is going to be more like DA2 then DAO.

Modifié par ISpeakTheTruth, 03 février 2013 - 01:45 .

[BigBad]

Actually, I never had a problem with the class-based sibling survival thing. From a narrative perspective, there were compelling, dramatic reasons to lose a sibling during the flight from Lothering. From a gameplay perspective, this severely impacts your starting party for the first quarter or so of the game, and provides potential redundancy or imbalancing issues. Letting Hawke's chosen class decide which sibling survives allows them to grant the player a more varied party than two Two-Handed Warriors or two Elemental Mages.

The lack of choices don't really begin until you get to Kirkwall, where Hawke has virtually no agency is more or less a puppet to circumstance. Nobody expects a prologue to be anything other than a strictly linear introduction to the game, and that's what we were given.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

How your party is structured should be your choice. If you want to be a mage ans start the game out with your mage sister you should be allowed to do that. Having the game dictate how my team should be structured is the ultimate lack of choice in an RPG. If I want the start the game with a team that is structured 'wrong' then that's my choice.

[AlanC9]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

How your party is structured should be your choice. If you want to be a mage ans start the game out with your mage sister you should be allowed to do that. Having the game dictate how my team should be structured is the ultimate lack of choice in an RPG. If I want the start the game with a team that is structured 'wrong' then that's my choice.

But why should the PC be able to choose who dies?

[Fast Jimmy]

Any signs that they would be taking control away from the player should set off flags.

To use DA2 again, if we say nice things to one person, our voice will change to sound nice to everyone... even our enemies. Vice versa for our friends if we start saying things with a tough/mean voice.

That could have been seen as a sign they would be taking control away from how we talk to people. Not a great sign.

In regards to DA3, if the backgrounds that Gaider hinted about this past Fall sound anything like "will determine how your character acts in certain situations" or "sets the tone for how your character reacts to certain things" I'm going to be very cautious.

I'd also put a flag out about any statements that are along the lines of "the game will keep track of which faction you side with and use that to reflect how your character reacts to members of the opposite faction." While having faction tracking is cool, I'd rather have my characters reasons for choosing one over another not be assumed. I may join the Mages because I agree with their stance, or I may join them because there is a better chance at better magical gear, or more gold, or my character is a true Chaotic Neutral and flipped a coin. Needless to say, don't make my character hate the other faction just because they threw their support behind an opposing one.

Lastly, I'd say any mention of the romances at all will leave me backpedaling. The comments about DA2's romances that say you have the options of "virginal girl next door to crazy, up-against-the-wall, let's have it on right here" make me just shake my head. If Bioware has romances, fine, no problem. But if Bioware includes their Virtual Pimp, sexual overtones sales pitch as part of their promo material, I'm going to have my shields up at full alert.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 03 février 2013 - 02:35 .

[Commander Kurt]

Not trying to be rude, but OP have you really thought this through?

You're basically saying that if a girl picks you up and then cheets on you, you'll turn the next girl trying to pick you up down 'cause she'll cheat on you too. Just, no. It doesn't work like that at all. There will be tons of stuff that you can't choose in the game no matter what. Learning about one of them before the game is out will not give you any clues about the rest of them or how many there will be.

[BigBad]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

How your party is structured should be your choice. If you want to be a mage ans start the game out with your mage sister you should be allowed to do that. Having the game dictate how my team should be structured is the ultimate lack of choice in an RPG. If I want the start the game with a team that is structured 'wrong' then that's my choice.

Sometimes, I wonder how much rose-tinting is going on when they remember Origins. I mean, does anyone else remember the strictly linear slog that might be termed O&O (Origin & Ostagar)? During which, you had absolutely no control over the makeup of your party and were often given temporary allies specifically to fulfill certain party roles for balancing purposes?

I mean, seriously. It's the prologue. Exactly what games are you playing that allow complete freedom in the prologue? Even Skyrim doesn't open up until after you escape Helgen.

[TJPags]

Personally, first time I hear "awesome button" mentioned, I'm done.

To be less specific, indications that BW is focusing on the flash will concern me that they are doing so at the expense of the substance.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

Commander Kurt wrote...

Not trying to be rude, but OP have you really thought this through?

You're basically saying that if a girl picks you up and then cheets on you, you'll turn the next girl trying to pick you up down 'cause she'll cheat on you too. Just, no. It doesn't work like that at all. There will be tons of stuff that you can't choose in the game no matter what. Learning about one of them before the game is out will not give you any clues about the rest of them or how many there will be.

Your analogy is rediculous. If in a game that is suppose to be about choice tells you that there are two characters that have an entire story arc of their own but you can only have one because the other will die then that would be great actually to be able to pick that. However to have those two characters be scripted to live or die based on nothing more than the class that you picked is not ok. If the developers of the game have no problem stripping that amount of control away from the PC then it stands to reason they won't have any trouble doing the same with the rest of the game which is exactly what happened in DA2.

If the next game has information saying that there are two or three major things that could happen but then you're railroaded into which one you get based on nothing other then your class then that is more than fair to say that they aren't going to have a problem doing it again.

Look at a game like the Walking Dead you can chose which one of two characters can live or die each character is unique. That is how they should have handled the siblings. The Ogre has both siblings down Hawke only has time to save one pick which one. There. Problem solved.

[Fiddles dee dee]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

As some of you may remember when DA2 was about to be released they told us that the class Hawke starts as would automatically determine which of his/her siblings would survive and die. Now when I frist heard that you weren't going to have any control over which of your siblings would live and die that made me worried that the entire game would severly lack choice and as we know DA2 was a game that had virtually no real choice in it at all.

Now I think that when information is being given to us we should be very aware of any information that say we'd be given a situation that is similar to what happened with Carver and Bethany. If we have a situation that is similar then I'd say it might be fair to assume we have a game that is going to be more like DA2 then DAO.

Err, OP what you're talking about would drastically change Hawke as a character and alter the theme of the game utterly. Instead of being the victim of circumstance Hawke would have made a choice killing their sibling. It would have set the entire game on a different course.

I'm not taking a stance on whether that would be good or bad just sayin', when you committ to a theme it's best to show continuous support for that theme rather than put player choice as one form of gamplay as the far more important element.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I think what the OP is suggesting is a situation where the ogre would have crushed both siblings and you can only dive in and save one of them (or some other type of contrivance, since that all this really was - a way to kill a sibling and pull on our heartstrings). You could save Bethany or Carver, your choice.


I guess they probably figured no one would save Carver if given the chance. Maybe that's why he's such a bummer to be around all of the time.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 03 février 2013 - 02:48 .

[Fiddles dee dee]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I think what the OP is suggesting is a situation where the ogre would have crushed both siblings and you can only dive in and save one of them (or some other type of contrivance, since that all this really was - a way to kill a sibling and pull on our heartstrings). You could save Bethany or Carver, your choice.


I guess they probably figured no one would save Carver if given the chance. Maybe that's why he's such a bummer to be around all of the time.

Fair point but it still removes the inevitability element partially and I agree there's no way I'd save Carver I think there's only one game where he even exists. 

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I think DA2 would have been invariably better if both siblings live and you had to take one to the Deep Roads, where they either died or became a Grey Warden.

Then, your remaining sibling would join the Circle/Templars, in roughly the same way as otherwise. Gets rid of both siblings and doesn't imbalance the game with more mages/warriors for anything more than just the first Act.

[Fiddles dee dee]

Actually that does sound better. The first death being so quick and early isn't ideal for resonance, waiting for bit is a good idea Jim.

[Fortlowe]

I would have liked to have had the choice of which to try to save and that that choice would not have saved said sibling. Having the option to chose, even if which one would have lived was predetermined, would have added a layer of emotional and narrative depth that would have served DA2 well, I think.

If you chose to save one sibling, and failed and say Aveline would have saved them, how interesting would the relationship between Hawke and the survivor would have been, then? Or even if the one you chose was the survivor?

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

I am choosing to remain cautiously optimistic. Not very much concrete info at the moment means not much if any warning signs which equals little to nothing to worry about.

Can we all just stop being a "preemptively displeased fanbase" here on the BSN? It's honestly kind of depressing...

Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 03 février 2013 - 03:45 .

[BigBad]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

I am choosing to remain cautiously optimistic. Not very much concrete info at the moment means not much if any warning signs which equals little to not in to worry about.

Can we all just stop being a "preemptively unpleasable fanbase" here on the BSN. It's honestly kind of depressing...

Agreed.

[Fortlowe]

Seconded.

[Steppenwolf]

I don't mind not always having control over who lives and dies around me. We're not gods in these games. I just don't like decisions being made for me in such an arbitrary way.
"You're a mage. Take this warrior. Now kindly **** off."

[Huntress]

Op the first warning sign was in the game title:
Dragon Age 3 Inquisition

The second and last warning is: the next hero is Human and working for the inquisition or an inquisitor.. meh pass.

I hope many like da3 but.. ill wait for Da4 ( IF theres one) and hopefully they'll include multiples races and the hero in DA4 is a freelancer.. like Hawke.

[Steppenwolf]

Huntress wrote...

Op the first warning sign was in the game title:
Dragon Age 3 Inquisition

The second and last warning is: the next hero is Human and working for the inquisition or an inquisitor.. meh pass.

I hope many like da3 but.. ill wait for Da4 ( IF theres one) and hopefully they'll include multiples races and the hero in DA4 is a freelancer.. like Hawke.

Why not wait for some context before having a hissy fit?

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I guess they probably figured no one would save Carver if given the chance. Maybe that's why he's such a bummer to be around all of the time.

Primarily narrative.  Part of the dynamic with the siblings was that there was something intrinsically different between them and the player character (one is a mage, one is not).  Allowing full player choice over which sibling dies would require additional writing for the sibling/PC dynamic to make sense.  Could be done, yes, but then this ends up becoming similar to other requests for more content.


The primary reason why I, as a game player, have little issue with who dies in the prologue is because it requires metagame knowledge to know that there's a difference, and it's a character that isn't the player making their own decision to do their own thing.  Yes, we do not strictly adhere to this in normal content.  Though in order to remain consistent would require us to remove all control from the party, and allow the player to only influence the player character.  In this sense it's something that wouldn't allow us to make everyone happy, because there are those that would miss the full party control in combat.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

I hate to question the time and resources that were being dealt with while the game was in production but I don't see how it would be too drastically different to have Bethany alive with a mage Hawke or Carver alive with a non-mage Hawke. I mean just a few lines of dialogue here or there would have made things completely fine.
Bethany 1: "You don't know what its like to always be afraid that someone's going to find out you're a mage."
Bethany 2: "You know what its like to always be looking behind your back wondering if someones found out we're mages."

I don't think that would have taken that much time for the VA to do things of that nature. Would it have made some of the tension between Hawke and the sibling away because they'd be more similar? Yes. But why is that a bad thing? Also I understand that there's a narrative that was being layed out in the game but did we really need that narrative pushed on us ever second by everyone? Anders and Fenris were basically mouth pieces for the Mages should be free, mages shouldn't be free. We don't also need our sibling to be on the other side of the fence that we are to drive the narrative home even more... trust me we know about the Mage/Templar thing we don't need our sibling to be a constant reminder of the 'other side'.

Also the fact that our sibling is only in 1/3 of the game again was it really that tight on time that it couldn't be done? Especially because it is the first thing you see in the game is a suddenly lack of influence in a game that is meant to make you feel like you have choices in the game tends to leave a bitter taste in some people's mouths right from the start.

Modifié par ISpeakTheTruth, 03 février 2013 - 04:41 .

[kathic]

You can't have 4 mages. This is why Beth had to die.

[Steppenwolf]

That's what mods are for.