187 réponses à ce sujet

[Rodia Driftwood]

I wanted to support the Templars in DA2, but the whole corrupted-Meredith deal felt pretty lame. I felt like the fact that the idol caused her to go insane kinda diminished her as a character, and turned the game more in favor to the mages, despite them being all a bunch of as"holes.

[Flamingdropbear]

Looking for a third choice? How about, say, EVERYONE WHO ISN'T A MAGE OR TEMPLAR.
One of the things that bugged me in DA2 was the fact that I wanted to help the people of Kirkwall, not mages or templars. I wanted to help Gamlen (even though he smells), my cousin, my workers in the bone pit, the workers in the Rose:wub:.  I wanted to be Viscount to make the city better not to punish mages or templars.

[Chaos Lord Malek]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

Mage-Templar war will be primary theme of the game.

If the leaked info is accurate, it suggests that the goal will be hunting down a sinister force manipulating and somehow profiting from the war towards some nefarious end.  If that is so, I doubt you'll be a deciding factor in ending the war, at most I suspect it to be the focus of one of the main quests and a backdrop for several other quests.

You just describe the quest to kill Archdemon from Origins. Which is exactly what it will be - main theme and everything the game will be about.

[Noctis Augustus]

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Everything I've heard suggests that the battles of the Mage-Templar War will be more of a backdrop than the primary plot point. I'm skeptical that it will even be resolved.

Mage-Templar war will be primary theme of the game.

And to the OP - if you hate both Haremonth and Belen who do you side with? If you hate both Smuglers and Merceneries who do you side with? If you hate both Geth or Quarians who do you side with? There is no third option, except with Geth and Quarians and that's to have them both.

Also, the choice will be between Chantry and Templars, not between Chantry and mages, because current Chantry is already on mages side.

Oh no. What if what David Gaider said about you not having to side with the Chantry, it means that you can either side with the Mages/Chantry or Templars...?

I want to side with the mages but not with the Chantry.

Modifié par ibbikiookami, 12 avril 2013 - 01:40 .

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There could be a choice to pursue compromise. Would that count as a neutral option?

They had that in DA2.  You picked the middle option and both sides angrily tell you that it really isn't an option, and that option disappears from what you can select at that point.

Does that count?

Modifié par MerinTB, 12 avril 2013 - 02:44 .

[Heimdall]

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

You just describe the quest to kill Archdemon from Origins. Which is exactly what it will be - main theme and everything the game will be about.

...What?

I have no idea how you got that from what I said.

[frankf43]

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

[esper]

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

Those forces mattered nothing in the final fight. Both in terms of game mechnanics and terms of story.

[Noctis Augustus]

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

Those forces mattered nothing in the final fight. Both in terms of game mechnanics and terms of story.

That's not the point. In DAO we had choices and they were significant.

[frankf43]

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

Those forces mattered nothing in the final fight. Both in terms of game mechnanics and terms of story.

Elves and Wares you got melee troops or archer troops. I'm glad I picked diplomacy because the Dalish archers helped me take down the Arch Demon at the end. 

[esper]

frankf43 wrote...

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

Those forces mattered nothing in the final fight. Both in terms of game mechnanics and terms of story.

Elves and Wares you got melee troops or archer troops. I'm glad I picked diplomacy because the Dalish archers helped me take down the Arch Demon at the end. 

The archers doesn't make much difference once you figure out what the archdemons greatest weakness is bastiallas. It apperently locks it into place and prevents if from flying or attacking, and my mages could aoe the swarming hordes to oblivion on nightmare.

[esper]

ibbikiookami wrote...

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

Those forces mattered nothing in the final fight. Both in terms of game mechnanics and terms of story.

That's not the point. In DAO we had choices and they were significant.

I found the choices in dao utterly boring, illogical for the worst of them (dwarves and landsmeet) or there being no choice at all because there was a blinking coercion option with a 'this is the best solution'. And the worst of all is that none of the choices mattered outside their own hub.

Don't get me wrong. I liked da:o, but its choice and consequence technic was nothing to write home about and even utterly prevented me from roleplaying.

[LobselVith8]

Renmiri1 wrote...

I think David Gaider and other writers mentioned they went a bit overboard on blood mages on Kirkwall, in their effort to not make Templars / Chantry the obvious bad choice.

That's an understatement. The mage antagonists were insane and stupid. There were only about two sane mage antagonists in the entire game. It would be much better if we could encounter mages and blood mages without being forced to kill them simply because they're mages or even blood mages. If I'm pro-mage, then I'd like to actually help out the mages, rather than being forced to kill them because the Plot Dictates.

As for the OP, I'm not opposed to players having a third choice if they are disinclined to side with either the mages or the templars.

[frankf43]

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

Those forces mattered nothing in the final fight. Both in terms of game mechnanics and terms of story.

Elves and Wares you got melee troops or archer troops. I'm glad I picked diplomacy because the Dalish archers helped me take down the Arch Demon at the end. 

The archers doesn't make much difference once you figure out what the archdemons greatest weakness is bastiallas. It apperently locks it into place and prevents if from flying or attacking, and my mages could aoe the swarming hordes to oblivion on nightmare.

But to have the Dalish archers there with me at the end was my choice and it was important to me. Your choice was to have the mages. We had a choice that was my point.

And I actually took it down with bows every time I've killed it. I'm glad that I didn't know you could ground it and make it ineffectual, it would have made the ending too easy.  I liked that I only escaped the final battle by the skin of my teeth on most play-throughs, it made beating the game an achievement.

[DarthCaine]

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

And the only actual ingame consequence you got was a bunch of crappy text and some alternative units. You never actually SEE any effect of your choices ingame.

In The Witcher 2 one single choice split the game, different quests, different locations, different characters, different choices, different items...

Modifié par DarthCaine, 12 avril 2013 - 07:21 .

[LobselVith8]

Sutamina wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Greagoir also beats pregnant women. Doesn't seem that reasonable to me. 

Proof ? 

It's from the Dragon Age comic by Orson Scott Card and Humberto Ramos, published by IDW Publishing. There was a preview page of Greagoir striking a pregnant mage. Ethereal Writer Redux might know where you can find the preview page if you're looking to see it.

Plaintiff wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

^Wow I didn't know Orson Scott Card wrote DA stuff I gotta read those, his Superman stuff looks promising.

Frankly it disappoints me that Bioware gave work to an outspoken homophobic bigot. 

It's disappointing that there are still people like that.

[esper]

frankf43 wrote...

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

Those forces mattered nothing in the final fight. Both in terms of game mechnanics and terms of story.

Elves and Wares you got melee troops or archer troops. I'm glad I picked diplomacy because the Dalish archers helped me take down the Arch Demon at the end. 

The archers doesn't make much difference once you figure out what the archdemons greatest weakness is bastiallas. It apperently locks it into place and prevents if from flying or attacking, and my mages could aoe the swarming hordes to oblivion on nightmare.

But to have the Dalish archers there with me at the end was my choice and it was important to me. Your choice was to have the mages. We had a choice that was my point.

And I actually took it down with bows every time I've killed it. I'm glad that I didn't know you could ground it and make it ineffectual, it would have made the ending too easy.  I liked that I only escaped the final battle by the skin of my teeth on most play-throughs, it made beating the game an achievement.

I am not talking about the circles mages, I am talking about my companions, specifically Morrigan and My warden. I do think that I employed my 'armies' at some point in the fight, but the armies made little to no difference, and I the following battles I never bothered to push the 'call' army bottoms.

And yes, I am irritated that I ran into and option that made the final boss trivial. It is also the reason why I purposely do not build optimal builds anymore.

[Noctis Augustus]

esper wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

Those forces mattered nothing in the final fight. Both in terms of game mechnanics and terms of story.

That's not the point. In DAO we had choices and they were significant.

I found the choices in dao utterly boring, illogical for the worst of them (dwarves and landsmeet) or there being no choice at all because there was a blinking coercion option with a 'this is the best solution'. And the worst of all is that none of the choices mattered outside their own hub.

Don't get me wrong. I liked da:o, but its choice and consequence technic was nothing to write home about and even utterly prevented me from roleplaying.

What is more important? Having more choices and not seeing most of their consequences on the same game or having less choices and seeing, somewhat, their consequences?

Modifié par ibbikiookami, 12 avril 2013 - 07:29 .

[esper]

DarthCaine wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

And the only actual ingame consequence you got was a bunch of crappy text and some alternative units. You never actually SEE any effect of your choices ingame.

In The Witcher 2 one single choice split the game, different quests, different locations, different characters, different choices, different items...

I don't like that either. It shortens the game considerably and it is really just one choice.

For a game like dragon age I prefer, small, personal choice that helps me define my character. And a some larger choices that, helps or dooms people in realistic way for a character of the main characters status or strenght.

[esper]

ibbikiookami wrote...

esper wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

Those forces mattered nothing in the final fight. Both in terms of game mechnanics and terms of story.

That's not the point. In DAO we had choices and they were significant.

I found the choices in dao utterly boring, illogical for the worst of them (dwarves and landsmeet) or there being no choice at all because there was a blinking coercion option with a 'this is the best solution'. And the worst of all is that none of the choices mattered outside their own hub.

Don't get me wrong. I liked da:o, but its choice and consequence technic was nothing to write home about and even utterly prevented me from roleplaying.

What is more important? Having more choices and not seeing most of their consequences on the same game or having less choices and seeing, somewhat, their consequences?

Having a realistic amount of choices that fits the status and scope of the main character. And having more choices to define the personality of the main character, and the main character's place in the world.

Da:o was mostly Pick A or Pick B, or have five in coercion and pick both.

[Noctis Augustus]

esper wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

esper wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

Those forces mattered nothing in the final fight. Both in terms of game mechnanics and terms of story.

That's not the point. In DAO we had choices and they were significant.

I found the choices in dao utterly boring, illogical for the worst of them (dwarves and landsmeet) or there being no choice at all because there was a blinking coercion option with a 'this is the best solution'. And the worst of all is that none of the choices mattered outside their own hub.

Don't get me wrong. I liked da:o, but its choice and consequence technic was nothing to write home about and even utterly prevented me from roleplaying.

What is more important? Having more choices and not seeing most of their consequences on the same game or having less choices and seeing, somewhat, their consequences?

Having a realistic amount of choices that fits the status and scope of the main character. And having more choices to define the personality of the main character, and the main character's place in the world.

Da:o was mostly Pick A or Pick B, or have five in coercion and pick both.

I support that. But can Bioware do that?

[esper]

ibbikiookami wrote...

esper wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

esper wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

esper wrote...

frankf43 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

This isn't The Witcher. Bioware doesn't do consequences

Meaning that we're not going to have a choice in the war, that is going to be railroaded in one outcome? It's possible. If DAI's main plot is going to be something else, it might be because Bioware thinks it'd be difficult to develop sequels to DAI with multiple outcomes on this war.

That's not true Origins was all about choices.

Take the Elves plotline you could chose to side with the elves and kill the Wares, side with the Wares and kill the elves or find a diplomatic solution.

Same with the Golems, destroy the anvil or harvest the Golems.

The ashes, tell the world or keep it secret.

and so on.

Origin was all about choice and the story changed depending on your choices. What forces you had available for the final battle for one.

Those forces mattered nothing in the final fight. Both in terms of game mechnanics and terms of story.

That's not the point. In DAO we had choices and they were significant.

I found the choices in dao utterly boring, illogical for the worst of them (dwarves and landsmeet) or there being no choice at all because there was a blinking coercion option with a 'this is the best solution'. And the worst of all is that none of the choices mattered outside their own hub.

Don't get me wrong. I liked da:o, but its choice and consequence technic was nothing to write home about and even utterly prevented me from roleplaying.

What is more important? Having more choices and not seeing most of their consequences on the same game or having less choices and seeing, somewhat, their consequences?

Having a realistic amount of choices that fits the status and scope of the main character. And having more choices to define the personality of the main character, and the main character's place in the world.

Da:o was mostly Pick A or Pick B, or have five in coercion and pick both.

I support that. But can Bioware do that?

I don't know. They have yet to get it completely right in dragon age, and I fear that they will fall back to some big, non-human evil, that will force all choice back into, who/what can we get to join us in the final fight.

Theorecthically, getting involved in the Orlais civil war should give plenty of such choices. (Intrigies, politics, spionage, assasinations and of course fights), but if the rumours are right we will go myth hunting, which will properly lead right back to unrealistically big choices or being railroded by some magical form of brain washing into fighting the big bad (or possible both).

[Senya]

I want my Inquisitor to be able to see the good and bad in both groups and find a middle ground where both can reach a lasting peace,

On my Evil!Alt, though, I will be a blood mage who hates other mages. I will call him... Amon:



See? He has an Orlesian mask already.

[LobselVith8]

almostinsane99 wrote...

I want my Inquisitor to be able to see the good and bad in both groups and find a middle ground where both can reach a lasting peace 

I don't think a compromise is realistic when the mages want to be free of the templars, and the templars want dominion over the mages. The two groups want the exact opposite of the other. And for people to want to side with one over the other, it would make our actions meaningless to reset everything back to the status quo.

[esper]

I can see the two groups weaken each other that and all out war is no longer possible, but actually peace? Not in this age. And not by compromise.

I will prefer if each contry found its own solution, and/or that the mage-templar was an part of the background fighting for the rest of the series.

What I don't want is a peace orcerstrahed by the chantry. They had their chance, they failed and they are not neutral.