616 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Not doing the Dark Ritual is only pointless if you're OK with giving Flemeth and/or Morrigan the soul of an Old God, with no indication of what they plan to do with it.

[WazzuMan]

Happy endings are overrated.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Goneaviking wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

This is idiotic.

Many people pick the Ultimate Sacrifice in DA:O and enjoy it.

Campaigning for less choice is foolish.

No you're idiotic!

People can enjoy the Ultimate Sacrifice all they want, still doesnt make it any less pointless, this isnt about "campaigning for less choice" but more campaigning for greater impact and integrity for choices relevant to the narrative. Do you really think that the ending to the Walking Dead (if you have played it, if you havent look away now) would have had as much impact if Clementine pulled out a Syringe full of "Zom-be-gone" and said "I can save you Lee" and Lee was all like "No Clementine you are going to have to shoot me, I am afraid of needles"?

Hyperbole.

Some people hold to their principles even in the face of avoidable death. Just think of those religious folk who are strictly opposed to transplants and refuse them despite being aware of the finality of their decision.

There are also the characters who dismissed Morrigan as a sinister creature and let her have her isolated tent away from camp and never got to like her. Why would they trust that monster to raise a baby with the soul of an Old God? Who knows what kind of power that kid will have? or what'll happen if it ever comes into contact with Dark Spawn later on? or if Morrigan will pull a Flemeth on her offspring to secure an immortal body for herself later on?

There are plenty of reasons to choose ultimate sacrifice. The "this is the only rational choice" argument is always hopelessly flawed.

Hyperbole? Do you know what the word means? Because I have no idea how it relates to my post and unless you have taken on talking habits like the Elcor and are using it to describe your own post I have no idea why you said it?

But I asked a question, do you honestly believe that the ending to the Walking Dead would have had as much impact if there was a choice at the end that allowed Lee to be cured and keep on living?

[Sierra0915]

I am seriously afraid to see how this third installment of Dragon Age goes... After a complex and involved story line in the Mass Effect Trilogy, it was totally butchered and a major dissapointment in the end... if i could refund the games and all the DLCs i would gladly wo a regret... to put sooooo much into the storyline of the trilogy and then nothing... u hear shepard breath, wow...

The first two Dragon Ages are quite different in alot of ways and if combined as far as combat and gameplay, as ive heard rumored, it could be quite awesome... I do enjoy the games... but I havent quite decided if i will be bothering with Dragon Age 3 and Bioware games anymore... Ive lost all faith after ME3 as the EC was a joke too (which i just got to finish recently as i have internet now)...

Im hoping this game may redeem them for me... ill b interested to see the demo in time unless it is only gonna be released on the new platforms for Xbox and Microsoft, as i have also heard rumors of...

[Wozearly]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...
I mean who in their right mind would believable choose an option they knew was only going to end in misfortune when there is a perfectly viable option available where everyone lives happily ever after?

Look at the ending of DA:O. Sure you have the Martyr ending but it is so ****ing pointless due to the fact that the only thing the Warden needs to do to survive is sleep with Morrigan, you might as well just place an option after you kill the Archdemon that allows you to run yourself through with a sword for no apparent reason or not run yourself through.

This is idiotic.

Many people pick the Ultimate Sacrifice in DA:O and enjoy it.

Campaigning for less choice is foolish.

The two most memorable endings of my playthroughs in DA:O was an Ultimate Sacrifice and having Alistair as LI sacrifice himself. They were more memorable because the decisions were harder for the characters to take, and the effect on the character and those that came after made them very bittersweet.

Its not that I didn't also enjoy the situations the Ritual ending led to - I just enjoyed them less. But I completely agree that the Dark Ritual had value by allowing a (comparatively) happy ending, rather than a blunt "pick who dies".

In all of those situations, the decisions at the endgame came about because of what the character would do, rather than being made as metagame decisions by me as a player knowing that sleeping with Morrigan would let everyone live happily ever after.

[Jeffonl1]

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

This is idiotic.

Many people pick the Ultimate Sacrifice in DA:O and enjoy it.

Campaigning for less choice is foolish.

No you're idiotic!

People can enjoy the Ultimate Sacrifice all they want, still doesnt make it any less pointless, this isnt about "campaigning for less choice" but more campaigning for greater impact and integrity for choices relevant to the narrative. Do you really think that the ending to the Walking Dead (if you have played it, if you havent look away now) would have had as much impact if Clementine pulled out a Syringe full of "Zom-be-gone" and said "I can save you Lee" and Lee was all like "No Clementine you are going to have to shoot me, I am afraid of needles"?

Hyperbole.

Some people hold to their principles even in the face of avoidable death. Just think of those religious folk who are strictly opposed to transplants and refuse them despite being aware of the finality of their decision.

There are also the characters who dismissed Morrigan as a sinister creature and let her have her isolated tent away from camp and never got to like her. Why would they trust that monster to raise a baby with the soul of an Old God? Who knows what kind of power that kid will have? or what'll happen if it ever comes into contact with Dark Spawn later on? or if Morrigan will pull a Flemeth on her offspring to secure an immortal body for herself later on?

There are plenty of reasons to choose ultimate sacrifice. The "this is the only rational choice" argument is always hopelessly flawed.

Hyperbole? Do you know what the word means? Because I have no idea how it relates to my post and unless you have taken on talking habits like the Elcor and are using it to describe your own post I have no idea why you said it?

But I asked a question, do you honestly believe that the ending to the Walking Dead would have had as much impact if there was a choice at the end that allowed Lee to be cured and keep on living?

Actually I think you meant to invoke strong feelings, so yeah it is hyperbole;  not necessarily a bad thing ...within reason.
But I agree with your point-  the plotline must proceed logically:  Plot is a purposeful progression of events. Such events must be logically connected, must be a natural outgrowth of the preceding, and all leading up to a final climax.  If the writers decide to have multiple plotlines dictated by player choice, it is still incumbent on them to stay true to the theme, and ensure logical connection. 

[Goneaviking]

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

This is idiotic.

Many people pick the Ultimate Sacrifice in DA:O and enjoy it.

Campaigning for less choice is foolish.

No you're idiotic!

People can enjoy the Ultimate Sacrifice all they want, still doesnt make it any less pointless, this isnt about "campaigning for less choice" but more campaigning for greater impact and integrity for choices relevant to the narrative. Do you really think that the ending to the Walking Dead (if you have played it, if you havent look away now) would have had as much impact if Clementine pulled out a Syringe full of "Zom-be-gone" and said "I can save you Lee" and Lee was all like "No Clementine you are going to have to shoot me, I am afraid of needles"?

Hyperbole.

Some people hold to their principles even in the face of avoidable death. Just think of those religious folk who are strictly opposed to transplants and refuse them despite being aware of the finality of their decision.

There are also the characters who dismissed Morrigan as a sinister creature and let her have her isolated tent away from camp and never got to like her. Why would they trust that monster to raise a baby with the soul of an Old God? Who knows what kind of power that kid will have? or what'll happen if it ever comes into contact with Dark Spawn later on? or if Morrigan will pull a Flemeth on her offspring to secure an immortal body for herself later on?

There are plenty of reasons to choose ultimate sacrifice. The "this is the only rational choice" argument is always hopelessly flawed.

Hyperbole? Do you know what the word means? Because I have no idea how it relates to my post and unless you have taken on talking habits like the Elcor and are using it to describe your own post I have no idea why you said it?

But I asked a question, do you honestly believe that the ending to the Walking Dead would have had as much impact if there was a choice at the end that allowed Lee to be cured and keep on living?

Hyperbole. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally.

I haven't played Walking Dead, and I don't need to have to know that the scenario you penned was ridiculous and hyperbolic. Like many uses of hyperbole, it was used to exaggerate your point to the extent that it distorted the opinions of those who disagree with you.

I also noticed you completely avoided responding to the point I made.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Goneaviking wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

This is idiotic.

Many people pick the Ultimate Sacrifice in DA:O and enjoy it.

Campaigning for less choice is foolish.

No you're idiotic!

People can enjoy the Ultimate Sacrifice all they want, still doesnt make it any less pointless, this isnt about "campaigning for less choice" but more campaigning for greater impact and integrity for choices relevant to the narrative. Do you really think that the ending to the Walking Dead (if you have played it, if you havent look away now) would have had as much impact if Clementine pulled out a Syringe full of "Zom-be-gone" and said "I can save you Lee" and Lee was all like "No Clementine you are going to have to shoot me, I am afraid of needles"?

Hyperbole.

Some people hold to their principles even in the face of avoidable death. Just think of those religious folk who are strictly opposed to transplants and refuse them despite being aware of the finality of their decision.

There are also the characters who dismissed Morrigan as a sinister creature and let her have her isolated tent away from camp and never got to like her. Why would they trust that monster to raise a baby with the soul of an Old God? Who knows what kind of power that kid will have? or what'll happen if it ever comes into contact with Dark Spawn later on? or if Morrigan will pull a Flemeth on her offspring to secure an immortal body for herself later on?

There are plenty of reasons to choose ultimate sacrifice. The "this is the only rational choice" argument is always hopelessly flawed.

Hyperbole? Do you know what the word means? Because I have no idea how it relates to my post and unless you have taken on talking habits like the Elcor and are using it to describe your own post I have no idea why you said it?

But I asked a question, do you honestly believe that the ending to the Walking Dead would have had as much impact if there was a choice at the end that allowed Lee to be cured and keep on living?

Hyperbole. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally.

I haven't played Walking Dead, and I don't need to have to know that the scenario you penned was ridiculous and hyperbolic. Like many uses of hyperbole, it was used to exaggerate your point to the extent that it distorted the opinions of those who disagree with you.

I also noticed you completely avoided responding to the point I made.

You had a point? Also do you know the meaning of "hypocrisy" or "hypocrite"?

[Jeffonl1]

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

This is idiotic.

Many people pick the Ultimate Sacrifice in DA:O and enjoy it.

Campaigning for less choice is foolish.

No you're idiotic!

People can enjoy the Ultimate Sacrifice all they want, still doesnt make it any less pointless, this isnt about "campaigning for less choice" but more campaigning for greater impact and integrity for choices relevant to the narrative. Do you really think that the ending to the Walking Dead (if you have played it, if you havent look away now) would have had as much impact if Clementine pulled out a Syringe full of "Zom-be-gone" and said "I can save you Lee" and Lee was all like "No Clementine you are going to have to shoot me, I am afraid of needles"?

Hyperbole.

Some people hold to their principles even in the face of avoidable death. Just think of those religious folk who are strictly opposed to transplants and refuse them despite being aware of the finality of their decision.

There are also the characters who dismissed Morrigan as a sinister creature and let her have her isolated tent away from camp and never got to like her. Why would they trust that monster to raise a baby with the soul of an Old God? Who knows what kind of power that kid will have? or what'll happen if it ever comes into contact with Dark Spawn later on? or if Morrigan will pull a Flemeth on her offspring to secure an immortal body for herself later on?

There are plenty of reasons to choose ultimate sacrifice. The "this is the only rational choice" argument is always hopelessly flawed.

Hyperbole? Do you know what the word means? Because I have no idea how it relates to my post and unless you have taken on talking habits like the Elcor and are using it to describe your own post I have no idea why you said it?

But I asked a question, do you honestly believe that the ending to the Walking Dead would have had as much impact if there was a choice at the end that allowed Lee to be cured and keep on living?

Hyperbole. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration. 2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally.

I haven't played Walking Dead, and I don't need to have to know that the scenario you penned was ridiculous and hyperbolic. Like many uses of hyperbole, it was used to exaggerate your point to the extent that it distorted the opinions of those who disagree with you.

I also noticed you completely avoided responding to the point I made.

You had a point? Also do you know the meaning of "hypocrisy" or "hypocrite"?

But I understand the use of informal fallacy

[Volus Warlord]

Jeffonl1 wrote...

But I understand the use of informal fallacy

This is BSN. Logic, even if only informal, has no place here.

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 03 mars 2013 - 01:42 .

[billy the squid]

Dasher1010 wrote...

That's the truth. Just make the Inquisitor able to have an ending where he/she lives if it's a completionist playthrough.

Rather, the truth is don't make an ending which simply disregards everything, for a cheap Deus Ex Machina.

And not every problem has to involve the big bad main plot either eg: Quarians vs Geth "It was da Reapers!" really? It could have just been sh!t happened, we all knew the conflict was coming in ME2, you didn't have to shoe horn a Reaper in there to make it relevant.

So long as endings and key events make sense and don't feel like there is this overwhelming need to bludgeon you with key aspects of the main story, because it assumes my attention span isn't longer than 5 minutes and I can't hold a coherent thought. Then I don't mind if the entire continent is reduced to a blasted wasteland, so long as there is a coherent reason for it. 

Realism or verisimilitude over big shiny ending which never really deals with anything. Hell the main plot line of ME3 had holes and issues, let alone the ending.

Modifié par billy the squid, 03 mars 2013 - 01:56 .

[WoolyJoe]

In other words, give the loudest fans what they want.
Despite what a chunk of BSN believe, Mass Effect 3 was a commercial and critical success. And as far as the ending's concerned, whilst some are unhappy with it, some are happy with it, and others are simply ambivalent.
Offer your opinion on what has been unveiled or delivered, discuss those opinions, and then get on with your own thing whilst BioWare get on with theirs.

[Volus Warlord]

Sierra0915 wrote...

I am seriously afraid to see how this third installment of Dragon Age goes... After a complex and involved story line in the Mass Effect Trilogy, it was totally butchered and a major dissapointment in the end... if i could refund the games and all the DLCs i would gladly wo a regret... to put sooooo much into the storyline of the trilogy and then nothing... u hear shepard breath, wow...

The first two Dragon Ages are quite different in alot of ways and if combined as far as combat and gameplay, as ive heard rumored, it could be quite awesome... I do enjoy the games... but I havent quite decided if i will be bothering with Dragon Age 3 and Bioware games anymore... Ive lost all faith after ME3 as the EC was a joke too (which i just got to finish recently as i have internet now)...

Im hoping this game may redeem them for me... ill b interested to see the demo in time unless it is only gonna be released on the new platforms for Xbox and Microsoft, as i have also heard rumors of...

It may be different in this case, for several reasons.

1.) The PCs were all different, there is no need for an "epic end" to long-running PC's story.

2.) There will almost certainly be no save import, which will simplify things on the writing and development end.

3.) There isn't much to suggest DA3 will be an end to a trilogy like ME3 was, so a bit of poor writing here or there will not be nearly as damning as it was in ME3.

4.) The differences between DA:O and DA2 should give them more space to innovate without a major backlash.

All in all, DA3 doesn't need to jump through as many hoops as ME3 did. Between player choice, established lore, and player expectations, the bar is not as high IMHO.

Bioware still has one of the better writing teams out there, so give them the benefit of a doubt. If you don't think they're worth it, hold off till reviews. Watching a Youtube vid can't hurt, can it?

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

The above post is eminently reasonable.

[AnubisOnly]

It can be a ''bad ending'' too, but this is a RPG game right? So at least give people choice for ''good ending'' too... 

Modifié par Lucas1987Dion, 03 mars 2013 - 02:16 .

[Get Magna Carter]

The main lessons to be learnt from the ME3 ending debacle are that
1) Bioware should think through the consequences of the ending
2) Bioware should not overpromise and under-deliver
3) Bioware should not create contradictions within the story in an attempt to make the final decision morally ambiguous
4) Bioware should get the game ready before release rather than rush it out unfinished

[Sacred_Fantasy]

The main lesson from the ME3 ending is that BioWare is a lousy storyteller. Sorry no offense to BioWare. Just trying to be honest. They should start actually design a craft-able story by the players' hand themselves and make sure those stories played out logically and appropriately to the theme. Video games is not a place for Bioware to tell their story to the passive audience ( Like DA 2 did ). It's a place for players to make decision and expect their decision to affect the story. Full Stop.

[Medhia Nox]

I think ME 3 would have gotten the same response if - upon meeting the stupid kid on the citadel - he said:

1) Choose to live happy
2) Choose to live free
3) Chose to live righteously.

Three pointless victories that didn't depend - at all on the rest of the story - would have, I believe, felt equally poor.

Though more people might have drawn logical rings around the storyline to support their victory.

[esper]

Some off us have the principle that dying a matyr death is stupid, escpically if it could have been easily avoided. (In fact I can only think off one situation where I can justify it)

Granted I give that Da:o happy ending at least had some grey in it, in that you might distrust Morrigan, or you might simply be jerkish enough that you might simply want Loghain to die. So I guess I can see that the dark exist in theory in the dark ritual, but I sure as hell can't feel it.

And when we come to situations like Nature of the  Beast and the Conner situation the existance off the third option completely prevent me from ever taking any off the more 'tragic' outcome. Because they become silly and stupid in comparison. The mental hoops I need to jump through to not pick the happy option simply take out any sense off enjoyment I get from the tragedy.

So the mere existance of the golden (happy) outcome destroys any enjoyment people like me could get out off the other endings and thus it is not idiotic to ask that they won't be included. It is in fact asking for more options, since the others endings no longer feel outright stupid in comparison.

[Medhia Nox]

@esper: Using a child to serve your own needs isn't "dark"?

I also feel that the Dark Ritual is a craven and cowardly act. I'm not a "sell my soul for meat survival" type.

But Morrigan is - and I'm glad it's there for anyone else who wants it.

As for Connor - don't metagame. I have zero problems with metagaming - but there's a lot of evidence that time is of the essence with Connor. If you roleplay that you don't have time - and don't game the system knowing that the designers place triggers in game - then it makes perfect sense. All discussion about going to the tower reminds the player that it might not work - the mages might not help - and you might not have enough time. Everything else is just knowing how video games work (and looking up the possible results on the internet - or multiple playthroughs)

Again - I have zero problems with metagaming. Anyone who wants to do it should be able to and restricting it by serving up only suck options is cheap.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 03 mars 2013 - 04:55 .

[SirPetrakus]

The reason why people were so unhappy about the ME3 ending was because you were told by an entity, that you really shouldn't trust, that suicide is the best option, when basically Shepard is the only thing that's successfully worked against the Reapers so far, to make the Crucible fire, a machine that nobody exactly know how it works or if it even will work. You are asking someone to make the ultimate leap of faith, for all the wrong reasons.

Add to that the pre-EC consequences and the complete lack of post ending epilogue, people, I think, had every right to be unhappy. This was the end of the trilogy and we had nothing to work on. In the epilogue sequence for Throne of Bhaal, you at least got a few stills explaining what happened to your friends, in detail. In the pre-EC, it was just colors, explosions and crashes. Nobody had a clue what had happened.

Post-EC, there was ... something. We saw Krogan back on Tuchanka, we saw Turians back on Palaven, we saw a few stills of our friends and a pompous speech that elaborated little more than a hollow "eff yeah". It was OK. It wasn't great, but as it was set up, expecting anything more would be unrealistic. There's still a lot of things we don't know, to this day, almost a whole year after release.

Maybe the intention was for ME4's prologue to play on the events after ME3, but that would be a cheap way to market a post-Shepard ME game. Find out what you did, only $59.99.

Truth is, however, an ending doesn't have to be happy. All we wanted, was an ending result derived directly from our actions. And being as diverse people as we are, losing and winning would be OK, as long we got varying degrees in between. Instead, we got 3 win scenarios that were all dubious in their result and 1 lose scenario. Out of the four, I chose the lose one, because at least I knew what happened then. That was what I could deal with.

[esper]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@esper: Using a child to serve your own needs isn't "dark"?

I also feel that the Dark Ritual is a craven and cowardly act. I'm not a "sell my soul for meat survival" type.

But Morrigan is - and I'm glad it's there for anyone else who wants it.

As for Connor - don't metagame. I have zero problems with metagaming - but there's a lot of evidence that time is of the essence with Connor. If you roleplay that you don't have time - and don't game the system knowing that the designers place triggers in game - then it makes perfect sense. All discussion about going to the tower reminds the player that it might not work - the mages might not help - and you might not have enough time. Everything else is just knowing how video games work (and looking up the possible results on the internet - or multiple playthroughs)

Again - I have zero problems with metagaming. Anyone who wants to do it should be able to and restricting it by serving up only suck options is cheap.

I don't remember Morrigan ever mentioning the players soul... and as my pc are always good friend with Morrigan (thanks again easy gift system), why should she not trust her to bring the child up. Yes, it is properly going to be brought up to be ruthless and perhaps cynic too, but in the world of Thedas that is not a bad traits as for all the other stuff, well Morrigan seems to know what she is doing in fact she knows more about it than the pc so it boils down to wherever you trust Morrigan or not.

As for Conner, I am sorry, but it is a video game. I know I have time enough, but if we need to keep it in universe: Since aborminatiuon Conner didn't have the strenght to destroy Red Cliffe during all the time it took me to travel to the three other zones (and I always do Redcliff last), it is hard for my character to belive that it should suddenly get the strength to do it in a week, espcially when it have to retake control over the castle.

[AlanC9]

Medhia Nox wrote...
I also feel that the Dark Ritual is a craven and cowardly act. I'm not a "sell my soul for meat survival" type.

But Morrigan is - and I'm glad it's there for anyone else who wants it.

I don't think that's quite accurate about Morrigan. She seems to think the DR is a good thing in itself.

As for Connor - don't metagame. I have zero problems with metagaming - but there's a lot of evidence that time is of the essence with Connor. If you roleplay that you don't have time - and don't game the system knowing that the designers place triggers in game - then it makes perfect sense. All discussion about going to the tower reminds the player that it might not work - the mages might not help - and you might not have enough time. Everything else is just knowing how video games work (and looking up the possible results on the internet - or multiple playthroughs)

Again - I have zero problems with metagaming. Anyone who wants to do it should be able to and restricting it by serving up only suck options is cheap.

And always having an easy way out isn't cheap?

I'm OK with getting away with risky plans sometimes. I'm not OK with having it be some sort  of design principle that those  plans always succeed.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 mars 2013 - 05:13 .

[AlanC9]

SirPetrakus wrote...
Add to that the pre-EC consequences and the complete lack of post ending epilogue, people, I think, had every right to be unhappy. This was the end of the trilogy and we had nothing to work on. In the epilogue sequence for Throne of Bhaal, you at least got a few stills explaining what happened to your friends, in detail. In the pre-EC, it was just colors, explosions and crashes. Nobody had a clue what had happened.

Note that some other Bio games had weak epilogues too, as far as telling you what happens to the world and characters goes. BG1, the NWN OC, and KotOR, for instance. BG2 and SoU don't count because we knew sequels were coming.

[Wozearly]

esper wrote...

So the mere existance of the golden (happy) outcome destroys any enjoyment people like me could get out off the other endings and thus it is not idiotic to ask that they won't be included. It is in fact asking for more options, since the others endings no longer feel outright stupid in comparison.

My concern is that these comments still arrive from a metagaming perspective. We as players know that there is a 'win' option, so why wouldn't we take it?

But the only reason you, the player, has to jump through mental hoops is to justify not picking the golden decision with metagame knowledge. The roleplaying perspective starts from "what would my character do, given these choices". From a character's perspective, its a balance of risks and the effects of past decisions - and not taken with any metagame knowledge about future outcomes.

If you boil the Connor situation down to its three parts:

1) Kill the child to prevent the demon causing more harm
2) Use blood magic to attack the demon in the Fade, hopefully saving the child
3) Travel to the Circle to persuade them to conduct a ritual to attack the demon in the Fade, hopefully saving the child.

Now if my character Psychic McSue uses the knowledge of me the player and knows that 2 and 3 have a guaranteed success rate, then choosing 1 is only going to appeal to someone vicious. But the character doesn't know this. What if the Circle won't help, or the demon runs riot while the Wardens are gone? What if the blood magic ritual makes things worse? 

Also, there is their own personality. A templar-like character that refuses to engage with blood magic and has already purged the Circle has only one palatable choice - the "worst" outcome from a metagame perspective. Otherwise they have to sacrifice the beliefs that they've held and resort to blood magic, without knowing if it will work. That's what makes it an interesting choice for the character - and, as such, an interesting choice for the player.