75 réponses à ce sujet

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I've been looking back over the the demo they showed at PAX Prime and I tried to make sense of exactly what the mission choice was and how that quest worked. The Inquistor encountered several of his soliders and ultimately ordered them to leave their wounded and protect the keep. Varric asked to go to down to save Crestwood from the Red Templars. Instead the Inquisitor goes to the defend Keep and the Crestwood is destroyed.

I noticed they mentioned the attack on the Keep was a live event and there was a bar showing the Keep's strength  slowly getting lower, so he still would have had to go there to save it eventually. What exactly was the consequences of telling the soliders to return to the Keep? I think Laidlaw said it affected the gameplay.

[Alphia]

I've only watched the demo once, so this is an educated guess, but I think the Templar's siege on both the Keep and the Town are on timers. Sending the troops to either extends the timer giving you more time to deal with the threat there. So you could send the troops to the Keep and theoretically deal with the attack on the town and still have enough time to protect the Keep as well. If you allow the unit of troops to stay and tend their wounded, then you would likely have a stronger unit for some other important event in the game, or perhaps their captain would react to you more favorably because you showed compassion towards his men.

[JCAP]

I'm of the same opinion as Alphia.

I hope we can save both BUT it needs to be really hard to do that. Even on lowest difficulty.

[Cacharadon]

Was anyone able to make out what the bar was for? I assumed that sending the troops to either the keep or the town would auto resolve that problem and the bar represented how long you had to save the other place. I'd love it if it was a system like what alphia mentioned, so I can try and save both and be nice to the troops in the process. But it definitely should tax your abilities to the utmost if you are going for that kind of perfection.

[azarhal]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...
What exactly was the consequences of telling the soliders to return to the Keep? I think Laidlaw said it affected the gameplay.

The soldiers the Inquisitor sent to the keep took care of the catapults assaulting it giving you more time to save it.

[Eterna]

JCAP wrote...

I'm of the same opinion as Alphia.

I hope we can save both BUT it needs to be really hard to do that. Even on lowest difficulty.

I think it would be better if you couldn't save both and it was actually a hard choice. 

[Vicious]

Eterna5 wrote...

JCAP wrote...

I'm of the same opinion as Alphia.

I hope we can save both BUT it needs to be really hard to do that. Even on lowest difficulty.

I think it would be better if you couldn't save both and it was actually a hard choice. 

Bioware fans hate that

[JCAP]

Eterna5 wrote...

JCAP wrote...

I'm of the same opinion as Alphia.

I hope we can save both BUT it needs to be really hard to do that. Even on lowest difficulty.

I think it would be better if you couldn't save both and it was actually a hard choice. 

I think it would be more interesting having the possibility to save both. It would be less limiting and a little more realistic IMO.

In the demo, the village and the keep weren't that far away. Why can't I fight in the village first and join the battle at the keep as soon I am done? Don't misunderstand, I am not saying that the battle at the keep should wait for us, I am just saying if we can solve things at the village in record time, we could at least go right away to the keep.

But like I said, it needs to be hard. Close to impossible like in the old games.

Modifié par JCAP, 24 septembre 2013 - 01:30 .

[Plaintiff]

I hope we're able to re-take keeps that are lost.

[Alphia]

Eterna5 wrote...

JCAP wrote...

I'm of the same opinion as Alphia.

I hope we can save both BUT it needs to be really hard to do that. Even on lowest difficulty.

I think it would be better if you couldn't save both and it was actually a hard choice. 

I can't remember if it was in the demo or in one of the podcasts they put out around PAX time, but I thought they said it was possible to save both, just very difficult. I agree that they player should occasionally be faced with difficult decisions where you will lose something no matter which choices you make. However, I think there should only be a handful of such decisions in the game. If every choice you make in the game are these zero-sum decisions I'd start to feel mentally and emotionally exhausted after a while. Also, willingness to accept a highly difficult challenge should give you some extra benefit.

[Eterna]

JCAP wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

JCAP wrote...

I'm of the same opinion as Alphia.

I hope we can save both BUT it needs to be really hard to do that. Even on lowest difficulty.

I think it would be better if you couldn't save both and it was actually a hard choice. 

I think it would be more interesting having the possibility to save both. It would be less limiting and a little more realistic IMO.

In the demo, the village and the keep weren't that far away. Why can't I fight in the village first and join the battle at the keep as soon I am done? Don't misunderstand, I am not saying that the battle at the keep should wait for us, I am just saying if we can solve things at the village in record time, we could at least go right away to the keep.

But like I said, it needs to be hard. Close to impossible like in the old games.

It isn't interesting. It is boring. It takes away the choice and just gives you a cop out.  No consequence for your actions, just a streamlined experience to give you good feelings in your tummy.

Yawn. 

[Eterna]

Alphia wrote...


I can't remember if it was in the demo or in one of the podcasts they put out around PAX time, but I thought they said it was possible to save both, just very difficult.

You don't really believe that do you? They said the same thing about the suicide mission.

[JCAP]

Eterna5 wrote...

JCAP wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

JCAP wrote...

I'm of the same opinion as Alphia.

I hope we can save both BUT it needs to be really hard to do that. Even on lowest difficulty.

I think it would be better if you couldn't save both and it was actually a hard choice. 

I think it would be more interesting having the possibility to save both. It would be less limiting and a little more realistic IMO.

In the demo, the village and the keep weren't that far away. Why can't I fight in the village first and join the battle at the keep as soon I am done? Don't misunderstand, I am not saying that the battle at the keep should wait for us, I am just saying if we can solve things at the village in record time, we could at least go right away to the keep.

But like I said, it needs to be hard. Close to impossible like in the old games.

It isn't interesting. It is boring. It takes away the choice and just gives you a cop out.  No consequence for your actions, just a streamlined experience to give you good feelings in your tummy.

Yawn. 

If you say so *shrugs*

[Plaintiff]

Eterna5 wrote...

It isn't interesting. It is boring. It takes away the choice and just gives you a cop out.  No consequence for your actions, just a streamlined experience to give you good feelings in your tummy.

Yawn. 

Well, guess what. If it is an option, you don't have to take it.

If other people want to work for an optimal outcome in their own game, then how does that affect you at all? You can just roleplay it as 'impossible' and make your 'hard choices'.

[Clockwork_Wings]

Plaintiff wrote...

I hope we're able to re-take keeps that are lost.

Given that they mention the stuff you can do to weaken a keep in the first place, it's going to take a fantastic leap of logic to assume we couldn't just do it all again.  My worry is making this a regular occurance, of being in Orlais and having a keep in Fereldan get attatcked, and have to drop what I'm doing and go save it, every few minutes.

[Eterna]

Plaintiff wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

It isn't interesting. It is boring. It takes away the choice and just gives you a cop out.  No consequence for your actions, just a streamlined experience to give you good feelings in your tummy.

Yawn. 

Well, guess what. If it is an option, you don't have to take it.

If other people want to work for an optimal outcome in their own game, then how does that affect you at all? You can just roleplay it as 'impossible' and make your 'hard choices'.

Why would I purposely let people die if I could save them? Are you suggesting I intentionally sabotage my experience to get a shallow half hearted illusion of difficult decisions? 

For people who supposedly like rpg games, you guys sure hate hard choices and consequences. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 24 septembre 2013 - 01:43 .

[Plaintiff]

Clockwork_Wings wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I hope we're able to re-take keeps that are lost.

Given that they mention the stuff you can do to weaken a keep in the first place, it's going to take a fantastic leap of logic to assume we couldn't just do it all again.  My worry is making this a regular occurance, of being in Orlais and having a keep in Fereldan get attatcked, and have to drop what I'm doing and go save it, every few minutes.

Well, ideally we' be able to bolster a keep's defensive and offensive power, to the point that it would be able to take care of itself.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 24 septembre 2013 - 01:43 .

[Br3admax]

Clockwork_Wings wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I hope we're able to re-take keeps that are lost.

Given that they mention the stuff you can do to weaken a keep in the first place, it's going to take a fantastic leap of logic to assume we couldn't just do it all again.  My worry is making this a regular occurance, of being in Orlais and having a keep in Fereldan get attatcked, and have to drop what I'm doing and go save it, every few minutes.

Upgrade keep. Problem solved I think. 

I think you'll be able to, no reason not to. 

[Br3admax]

Eterna5 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

It isn't interesting. It is boring. It takes away the choice and just gives you a cop out.  No consequence for your actions, just a streamlined experience to give you good feelings in your tummy.

Yawn. 

Well, guess what. If it is an option, you don't have to take it.

If other people want to work for an optimal outcome in their own game, then how does that affect you at all? You can just roleplay it as 'impossible' and make your 'hard choices'.

Why would I purposely let people die if I could save them? Are you suggesting I intentionally sabotage my experience to get a shallow half hearted illusion of difficult decisions? 

For people who supposedly like rpg games, you guys sure hate hard choices and consequences. 

So do you apparently, since you only take them if they are forced on you. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 24 septembre 2013 - 01:59 .

[Eterna]

Br3ad wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

It isn't interesting. It is boring. It takes away the choice and just gives you a cop out.  No consequence for your actions, just a streamlined experience to give you good feelings in your tummy.

Yawn. 

Well, guess what. If it is an option, you don't have to take it.

If other people want to work for an optimal outcome in their own game, then how does that affect you at all? You can just roleplay it as 'impossible' and make your 'hard choices'.

Why would I purposely let people die if I could save them? Are you suggesting I intentionally sabotage my experience to get a shallow half hearted illusion of difficult decisions? 

For people who supposedly like rpg games, you guys sure hate hard choices and consequences. 

So do you apparently, sense you only take them if they are forced on you. 

The thing about middle ground and peace for all options is that you are usually punished for not taking them. 

[RogueWriter3201]

JCAP wrote...

I'm of the same opinion as Alphia.

I hope we can save both BUT it needs to be really hard to do that. Even on lowest difficulty.

They say in the Demo video that you can, if fact, save both the town and the keep. But that it's not easy. So...yeah, that works for me. As long as I don't need to meet some garbage requirement like having a particular companion along to do so. 

[Alphia]

Clockwork_Wings wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I hope we're able to re-take keeps that are lost.

Given that they mention the stuff you can do to weaken a keep in the first place, it's going to take a fantastic leap of logic to assume we couldn't just do it all again.  My worry is making this a regular occurance, of being in Orlais and having a keep in Fereldan get attatcked, and have to drop what I'm doing and go save it, every few minutes.

Yeah, that would get old fast. Maybe you'll be able to eventually garrison your keeps with a number of troops large enough to defend the keep without your intervention. Making sure a keep's defenses are up to snuff will just another hurtle you'll have to clear before you're ready to move to different areas. It would actually be pretty smart if they played it that way, Bioware's strength (I believe) is in guided narratives and an open world game can be a big impediment to that. It looks like their already trying to keep us away from certain set pieces by not doing any level scaling (big bad dragon keeps me out of zone X), this could be another way to guide the player through areas in the order you want them to without forcing them.

[Plaintiff]

Eterna5 wrote...
Why would I purposely let people die if I could save them?

Because that's the way you want to play it, you just said so.

Are you suggesting I intentionally sabotage my experience to get a shallow half hearted illusion of difficult decisions?

It's not 'sabotage'. Your experience is whatever you want it to be. If you want the choices to be 'hard', then they can be that way if you jut set limits for yourself. If you don't have the willpower to do it, then that's your issue. 

For people who supposedly like rpg games, you guys sure hate hard choices and consequences.

Since when are RPGs about 'hard choices and consequences'? Who says that? Just you?

As far as I'm concerned, RPGs are about freedom. The freedom to play the kind of character you want to play, and craft your own story. 'Best' is relative. The decisions I made in DA:O  and DA2 were the decisions that I thought would lead to a more interesting narrative, or fit my own moral stance, not the ones that necessarily lead to everyone being happy.

If you don't want to save everyone, you don't have to. But people who want to should be allowed to try.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 24 septembre 2013 - 01:57 .

[RogueWriter3201]

JCAP wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

JCAP wrote...

I'm of the same opinion as Alphia.

I hope we can save both BUT it needs to be really hard to do that. Even on lowest difficulty.

I think it would be better if you couldn't save both and it was actually a hard choice. 

I think it would be more interesting having the possibility to save both. It would be less limiting and a little more realistic IMO.

In the demo, the village and the keep weren't that far away. Why can't I fight in the village first and join the battle at the keep as soon I am done? Don't misunderstand, I am not saying that the battle at the keep should wait for us, I am just saying if we can solve things at the village in record time, we could at least go right away to the keep.

But like I said, it needs to be hard. Close to impossible like in the old games.

Not sure I'd want 'Close to Impossible', but by all means make it difficult. Make so you have to make the right choices to pull it off. I think there's a fine line between challenge and making things too difficult. Really that's what a difficulty slider is for.

Higher difficulty settings should mean things like less time to save both, more elite enemies that beat you into the ground and take a lot of time to defeat thereby limiting the chance you'll get it done in time, etc. However, on normal it shouldn't blatently try to punish you.

Easy? Well, I never play a game on easy so I couldn't say. I like to earn achieving the impossible, but I don't want it to be rediculous or outright impossible. Kind of defeats of the purpose of having an RPG where you're the Hero. Plenty of "they didn't make it in time" in the real world, thanks. 

[Br3admax]

Eterna5 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

It isn't interesting. It is boring. It takes away the choice and just gives you a cop out.  No consequence for your actions, just a streamlined experience to give you good feelings in your tummy.

Yawn. 

Well, guess what. If it is an option, you don't have to take it.

If other people want to work for an optimal outcome in their own game, then how does that affect you at all? You can just roleplay it as 'impossible' and make your 'hard choices'.

Why would I purposely let people die if I could save them? Are you suggesting I intentionally sabotage my experience to get a shallow half hearted illusion of difficult decisions? 

For people who supposedly like rpg games, you guys sure hate hard choices and consequences. 

So do you apparently, since you only take them if they are forced on you. 

The thing about middle ground and peace for all options is that you are usually punished for not taking them. 

Oh well, take the hard choice or no choice.