122 réponses à ce sujet

[Pauravi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

This is true. But in lines with the original topic, this smaller example of plot railroading from what we were presented pre-release was endemic of DEEPER examples of plot railroading later in the game.

Is this really plot railroading? Wouldn't that be "the same sibling dies regardless?"

Something different ends up happening. People are upset, though, because they want to be able to influence the choice. Would they not feel this way (if not moreso) if Bethany always died?

Couldn't the argument be made for any event in the game being "railroaded" if this is an example of railroading? Why *must* I go to Lothering? Why *must* I bring Alistair along? Why *must* I gather all the treaties?


At some point it starts to seem like it's more "You have branched the game, but it doesn't branch in a way that I consider logical (nor in a way that I want) and that makes me disappointed" as opposed to "There is no branch at this point in the game. It's the same thing every time and that makes me disappointed."

KA-CHING.  Winnar.
People are trying to make it into an issue of "player choice" because they are just upset about not being able to save Bethany, not because it is actually a reasonable example of the game taking away choice.  From within the story there was no actual choice to be made -- it is something that just happened.  There was no choice being taken away, it is just that the story went slightly differently depending whether the Champion was a mage or not (as well it should!).

[Wolfva2]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

The PC did not choose who died.  The PC choose which character class he wanted to play.  BIOWARE chose who died.  

This idea that many of you have...that you should be able to make every single decision in the game...is a ludicrous one to me.

Wait...  do you have a problem with Bio choosing who dies, or not?

Nope.  No problem at all whatsoever.  Because if they DIDN'T make those choices...if they didn't create this narrative framework that we play within, then there would be NO game.  We'd have an open world game like Skyrim.  Which is a great game.  I enjoyed it immensely.  When I want to play a game where I can just roam around doing whatever I want, I play Skyrim.  But when I want to play a game with structure, a game with a goal, I play a Bioware game.  People complain about why Carver died?  He died because he rushed an Ogre.  Yeah, Bioware's writers decided to go in that direction.  So what?  YOU are not writing the story.  You're playing a character who is LIVING in it, not a God that is controlling it.  There is a reason these are called 'role play games' after all.  That role is very seldom 'controller of all that happens'.

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

How
would being a noble protect from the templars, why would a mage
willingly stay in a place where the fade is thin which makes demon
possession more likely, if after making a fortune from the deep roads
would you stay in a place where the tensions between the mages and
templars is increasing, why would you stay in aplace where mages turn
into demons in huge numbers.

I had the same
problem with DAO. Why does the Warden stay in Ferelden to carry out a
suicide mission instead of rallying the rest of the Wardens in Orlais? 

Maybe it's because I just started another run-through in DAO, but your warden asks that question.  Answer?  They're to far away.  Thousands of miles, actuall.  By the time you got there Ferelden would be a blighted waste land.  Remember, a blight isn't just nasty creatures running around munching on the neighbors, it's an actual infection of the land.  Blighted lands are destroyed, rendered into nightmares suitable only for darksapwn and ghouls or ghoulish creatures like blightwolves and such.  Nothing grows.  Nothing lives.  Leaving Ferelden means the death of your home land.  The LITERAL death.  And let us also remember another thing about Grey Wardens.  Their lives ARE suicide missions.  From the moment they accept being a Grey Warden, they have volunteered for a suicide mission.  They either pass the innitiation, or they die.  If they pass, they know they're poisoned and will die in a few years if the dark spawn don't get them first.  And if they face an Arch Demon?  Then not only do they die...their very SOUL is destoyed.  It takes a special type of person to be willing to make such a sacrifice.  Most of the people here would not make that choice, it's clear from their comments.  But, your warden would.  It's why he's a warden.  That's the role we play.

But there's another reason why your warden stays in Ferelden.  It's called 'narative'.  The story is about a young person who fights to unify Ferelden and ends the blight, forever afterward being known as 'the Hero of Ferelden'.  It ISN'T about a young person who flees Ferelden to make his life elsewhere (that would be Hawke, in DA2).  Nor is it about a young person who rushes thousands of miles to deliver a message to the Grey Wardens then spends the rest of his time as a low level recruit being trained for war.  It's not even about a young Ferelden making his way to Orlais where he is helplessly lost in the intrigues of that sophisticated country while being completely ignorred by the nobility (who, after all, woud have NO reason to listen to you, even if you picked the noble role).  Some people call that 'being railroaded'.  I call them 'people who have NO EFFING CLUE what 'railroaded' means'.  

Honestly, I'm surprised how many people don't understand what 'roleplaying' is.  I'd hate to see these folks try to be actors.

[XX-Pyro]

^

You just used narrative to excuse the Warden's actions, and say the same can't be said for Hawke? Talk about a double-standard here. And saying the Orlesians are too far is a terrible excuse. You can go from Frostback Moutains to the Bresc. Forest to the Mage's Circle, to Denerim (TWICE!) and everywhere else, the cumulative distance is definitely more than the distance to Orlais.

[Twisted Path]

No overhead isometric camera again will be a big sign for me, or seeing that the cartoonish combat animations are making a return. Also any promotional stuff that sounds like "Think like a general, fight like a Spartan!"

[jamesp81]

It's a bad sign if it starts to look like they they will completely change the tone of DA3 from the other two like they did with ME3. They took ME1 and 2, both of which were these awesome heroic stories that threw back to classic scifi, and then went full tilt, facepalmtastic, derp grimdark at the end.

This is what to watch for. Watch for signs that the writing staff is going to undo the mythos they'd built up to this point. Frankly, after the disaster that ME3 was right at the end, I've become...suspect of the writing that goes into BW games, and, as a result, I have rather low expectations for DA3. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Modifié par jamesp81, 05 février 2013 - 05:58 .

[Wolfva2]

XX-Pyro wrote...

^

You just used narrative to excuse the Warden's actions, and say the same can't be said for Hawke? Talk about a double-standard here. And saying the Orlesians are too far is a terrible excuse. You can go from Frostback Moutains to the Bresc. Forest to the Mage's Circle, to Denerim (TWICE!) and everywhere else, the cumulative distance is definitely more than the distance to Orlais.

Huh?  When did I say narrative can't be used for Hawke?  Hawke's story has it's own completely different narrative.  I get the feeling you don't understand what a 'double standard' is. 

Hawke and the Warden are 2 completely different people.  Hawke is a young man with a family to protect.  The Warden is a young man who is protected from blight sickness via drinking a poison which is slowly destroying him who has been inducted into the ranks of an order whose SOLE EXISTANCE is to end blights and the arch demons that start them.  Their stories are different because THEY are different.  Or, tl;dr version....'DUH".

Saying the Orlesians is to far isn't a terrible excuse.  That you can go back and forth in the deliniated game map forever is meaningless.  Mileage and time doesn't exist in the map for game purpose.  We are told after Ostagar that the Grey Wardens are thousands of miles away and it would take to long to get there. It's part of the story. Personally, I wish in hindsight the Devs put in that option.  You're at Flemeth's camp and you say, "Screw it Alistair!  We're going to get the Wardens!"  at which point the game ends and you enter the epilogue about how Ferelden was completely destroyed by the blight, the young Warden went on to be a common foot soldier who died in some unnamed battle, and after a couple hundred years the dark spawn were finally beaten back.  Or, won.  Part of what makes the Warden great is that courage, that ability to stand up and do what others can not.  He is the Commander Sheppard of his time. 

[Mantaal]

Twisted Path wrote...

No overhead isometric camera again will be a big sign for me, or seeing that the cartoonish combat animations are making a return. Also any promotional stuff that sounds like "Think like a general, fight like a Spartan!"

True.

I kinda feel like that RPG fans are not wanted here anymore... "Move on to Bethestda if you want RPGs! We have the Awesome Button!" 

But we will see...my feeling could be wrong with DA:I. 

[Cutlasskiwi]

XX-Pyro wrote...

^

You just used narrative to excuse the Warden's actions, and say the same can't be said for Hawke? Talk about a double-standard here. And saying the Orlesians are too far is a terrible excuse. You can go from Frostback Moutains to the Bresc. Forest to the Mage's Circle, to Denerim (TWICE!) and everywhere else, the cumulative distance is definitely more than the distance to Orlais.

And that was the point of my comment.

To me, both the Warden and Hawke are BioWare's characters and sometimes (in DAO's case for me) I can't swallow the plot hook and roleplay the kind of character I want to.

[Aggie Punbot]

Wolfva2 wrote...

Honestly, I'm surprised how many people don't understand what 'roleplaying' is.  I'd hate to see these folks try to be actors.

I'm not. I recall some time a while back there was a thread where people were bitterly complaining about the 'third option' you could take in DA:O during the Redcliffe quest. They seem to think that just because an option is there, they are obligated to take it; in essence, they are physically incapable of role playing their characters as they see fit simply because they (the player) know there is a "better" way available that the character wouldn't know or care about.

Modifié par TS2Aggie, 05 février 2013 - 01:10 .

[Heimdall]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Honestly, I'm surprised how many people don't understand what 'roleplaying' is.  I'd hate to see these folks try to be actors.

I'm not. I recall some time a while back there was a thread where people were bitterly complaining about the 'third option' you could take in DA:O during the Redcliffe quest. They seem to think that just because an option is there, they are obligated to take it; in essence, they are physically incapable of role playing their characters as they see fit simply because they (the player) know there is a "better" way available that the character wouldn't know or care about.

The thing is, options like that which are blatantly superior to the rest make the whole choice ring hollow to the player.  Sure, I can roleplay a character that makes a different choice but I can't pretend that my knowledge of that third option doesn't leave me feeling unsatisfied.

[zyntifox]

Lord Aesir wrote...

TS2Aggie wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Honestly, I'm surprised how many people don't understand what 'roleplaying' is.  I'd hate to see these folks try to be actors.

I'm not. I recall some time a while back there was a thread where people were bitterly complaining about the 'third option' you could take in DA:O during the Redcliffe quest. They seem to think that just because an option is there, they are obligated to take it; in essence, they are physically incapable of role playing their characters as they see fit simply because they (the player) know there is a "better" way available that the character wouldn't know or care about.

The thing is, options like that which are blatantly superior to the rest make the whole choice ring hollow to the player.  Sure, I can roleplay a character that makes a different choice but I can't pretend that my knowledge of that third option doesn't leave me feeling unsatisfied.

I think the Redcliffe choice is masterfully done. That choice leaves so many roleplaying options. For example:

- My dwarven warrior was a pragmatic character that knew the threat of the darkspawn due to living underground  all of his life. And since he considered the life of the Arl as neccesary to combat the blight and he had a distrust of magic he killed Connor.

- On the other hand, my idealistic city elf thought there had to be a better way than using blood magic and killing a child. So she left Sten, Shale and Morrigan at Redcliffe to Kill Connor if things got out of hand again while she, Alistair, Feros ( the dog) and Leliana went to the mage's tower in search for help.

- My human mage simply used the blood magic route due to him considering blood magic a tool like any other magic. And he ruled out going to the tower simply due to he was at the tower prior to Redcliffe and saw the devastation. And he figured they would need the lyrium to heal the wounded templars and mages. And sacrificing one woman's life is better than potentially sacrificing many templar's and mage's lives.

And i don't feel the very least unsatisfied with any of the choices due to all of them having made the "right" choice given their backgrounds and prioritizations.

P.S . excuse the poor grammar it's been a long day at work.

Modifié par Cstaf, 05 février 2013 - 06:09 .

[LobselVith8]

Wolfva2 wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

^

You just used narrative to excuse the Warden's actions, and say the same can't be said for Hawke? Talk about a double-standard here. And saying the Orlesians are too far is a terrible excuse. You can go from Frostback Moutains to the Bresc. Forest to the Mage's Circle, to Denerim (TWICE!) and everywhere else, the cumulative distance is definitely more than the distance to Orlais.

Huh?  When did I say narrative can't be used for Hawke?  Hawke's story has it's own completely different narrative.  I get the feeling you don't understand what a 'double standard' is. 

Hawke and the Warden are 2 completely different people.  Hawke is a young man with a family to protect.  The Warden is a young man who is protected from blight sickness via drinking a poison which is slowly destroying him who has been inducted into the ranks of an order whose SOLE EXISTANCE is to end blights and the arch demons that start them.  Their stories are different because THEY are different.  Or, tl;dr version....'DUH".

Saying the Orlesians is to far isn't a terrible excuse.  That you can go back and forth in the deliniated game map forever is meaningless.  Mileage and time doesn't exist in the map for game purpose.  We are told after Ostagar that the Grey Wardens are thousands of miles away and it would take to long to get there. It's part of the story. Personally, I wish in hindsight the Devs put in that option.  You're at Flemeth's camp and you say, "Screw it Alistair!  We're going to get the Wardens!"  at which point the game ends and you enter the epilogue about how Ferelden was completely destroyed by the blight, the young Warden went on to be a common foot soldier who died in some unnamed battle, and after a couple hundred years the dark spawn were finally beaten back.  Or, won.  Part of what makes the Warden great is that courage, that ability to stand up and do what others can not.  He is the Commander Sheppard of his time. 

It's also mentioned by Riordian that the Orlesian Wardens won't enter Ferelden en mass while it's in the middle of a civil war, so that course of action wouldn't have done any good.

[Lurklen]

I've always thought DA2 should have started during the battle of Ostagar and then through the destruction of Lothering. That way you tie back to the first one from a different viewpoint and get more time to relate to the siblings so when you lose one of them it's more devestating.

[LinksOcarina]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Honestly, I'm surprised how many people don't understand what 'roleplaying' is.  I'd hate to see these folks try to be actors.

I'm not. I recall some time a while back there was a thread where people were bitterly complaining about the 'third option' you could take in DA:O during the Redcliffe quest. They seem to think that just because an option is there, they are obligated to take it; in essence, they are physically incapable of role playing their characters as they see fit simply because they (the player) know there is a "better" way available that the character wouldn't know or care about.

The same people also complain that they don't have enough options in Dragon Age II...

Then again, in the end since roleplaying has no definition, people complaining about such things sometimes may not even know about the contradictions in their arguments. 

[North Light36]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

All of those issues the Warden is unaware of until he or she arrives. Even though all the allies come with a catch 22 doesn't mean that they aren't assest that can be used. It also doesn't matter if Loghain believes its a Blight or not he sees the Darkspawn as a threat and he's doing his all to get ready for it (Like selling elves to pay for the expansion of the army).

Yes the numbers we see attacking Ostagar are large but that number is a shadow of what the Darkspawn numbers would be if they were given time to capture women on a large scale and turn them into broodmothers. How do you think the Darkspawn are able to fight wars that last for centuries? Once they get a hold on a country they turn that country into a breeding center for their forces. The reason the Darkspawn aren't that great of number right now is because they have limited broodmothers because Darkspawn don't come to the surface unless its a blight so they are limited to whatever females they can find in the Deep Roads.

Attacking with any force is better then just giving the country freely to the Blight. Also the Wardens story takes place within a year so it took about a year for the the Darkspawn to get as far as the battle of Denerim which means Fereldan was no where near the stage of abandoning it.

Because your party of what... 8? 12? really could make so much of a difference in reality? Particularly given only four of them are ever active at the one time.

If Fereldan was holding off the darkspawn so well without really any warden assistance (remember, for the most part those in charge of things want you dead), then what reason does the warden have to not leave them to it while they go and get even more help?

We aren't talking about everyone abandoning Fereldan. We are talking about two people going for help.

[In Exile]

Wolfva2 wrote...
epilogue about how Ferelden was completely destroyed by the blight, the young Warden went on to be a common foot soldier who died in some unnamed battle, and after a couple hundred years the dark spawn were finally beaten back.  Or, won.  Part of what makes the Warden great is that courage, that ability to stand up and do what others can not.  He is the Commander Sheppard of his time. 

Or how the the Warden became as great a hero as Garahel and ended the Blight in a few years. What makes the Warden great is being amazing at killing things, not at leading. Especially since leading, in DA:O, was meant to be "you are legally obligated to die for me". It's quite different from Shepard, who didn't just punch Sovereign to death. 

LobselVith8 wrote...
It's also mentioned by Riordian that the Orlesian Wardens won't enter Ferelden en mass while it's in the middle of a civil war, so that course of action wouldn't have done any good.

It wouldn't have saved Ferelden, but that was never the point of the complaint. 

[Medhia Nox]

I think there's a difference between metagaming to influence the story/power game and metagaming the design of the game.

I genuinely felt deceived that the storyline of Hawke's mother is totally railroaded (a topic argued to death - I'm well aware).

This IS a game - it's not some new life. If, once I'm out of the game - I find the design duplicitous - then I have to make a decision on how to proceed with that company from now on.

I'm not going to say - "Well, if I was a lobotomized lab rat who couldn't read or look at the internet... I would not know that the quest with Hawke's mother is a railroaded piece of offal - so I should just act like said rat otherwise I'm "metagaming". "

Real life - unlike a video game - has an overabundance of choice I can influence.

Asking for more in a game may not be possible due to restraints - but it isn't unreasonable.

[Plaintiff]

Medhia Nox wrote...
Real life - unlike a video game - has an overabundance of choice I can influence.

How do you know?

[Medhia Nox]

@Plaintiff: Maybe you don't, I couldn't say.

But I do - so perhaps I should say: "My real life..." because perhaps some people are... slaves? victims? Dunno.

[Allan Schumacher]

First, I'd expect real life to have greater variety of choice.

Second, real life is also fraught with situations where things don't play out the way I want them to, no matter how much influence I attempt to change the outcome.

Analogues to real life aren't really relevant, because you rarely get a chance to redo your experiences in real life. As such, it actually becomes exceedingly difficult to determine how much free will you actually exerted (There's whole schools of psychology that feel that free will is just an illusion).

As such, the only reason why you're actually able to conclude that you have no "real choice" with Hawke's mother is because you're able to completely replay the scene with prior knowledge that the character wouldn't have. A benefit I'm sure we'd all wish to have in real life, but do not.

[Medhia Nox]

@Allan Schumacher: I would also expect real life to have more choice - as per my last line stating there are obviously restraints.

And yes - while I'm aware that there's evidence that Free Will does not exist - those same schools, from what I've read at least, state that even if we were to find out it doesn't - we'd conduct ourselves as if it did.

Our ignorance of the future - and of possibility - supplies us with Free Will (or it's illusory equivalent - which conducts itself exactly the same way).

I'm not arguing why I'm able to conclude what I am - I'm suggesting that using the term metagaming about the real life aspect of "a game" is a bit disingenuous.

Metagaming could really only be employed if I had a choice at all - to manipulate that choice.

Like in tabletop when you know a D&D troll can only be killed with fire - but your character wouldn't know it. That's metagaming to win.

Realizing a product that claims it provides choices - does not allow me to make any impact on the moments the game is trying to relate as the most powerful - is not metagaming, and I do not feel wrong for feeling deceived - as it is only an opinion and there are many who loved that scene.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 10 février 2013 - 05:30 .

[Tremere]

The imposition of choice, is not choice.