Aller au contenu

Photo

So in the PAX demo decisions...


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
75 réponses à ce sujet

#26
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

Alphia wrote...

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.


I really doubt this.  Having the opportunity to save both defeats the purpose of having to make the choice between the two in the first place, and that defeats what Bioware's been trying to drive home with Inquisition about making hard choices.

#27
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

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. 


This is precisely what I do in the Redcliffe quest for Connor.  It never made sense to me to have a happy ending for Connor and his family, with zero negative consequences at all.  And since I never thought it was plausible that the demon would just sit on its thumbs for the convenience of Warden & Friends, I always either kill Connor over everyone's objection, or I "rig" the game so that it's impossible to do otherwise (the Circle is gone, Jowan dead, etc).  Far less often, I let Isolde be a sacrifice. 

I don't really like that this quest has the option to save both Connor and Isolde, just because by rights there SHOULD be a consequence for doing so.  So I just pretend that the option doesn't exist.

#28
Lebanese Dude

Lebanese Dude
  • Members
  • 5 545 messages
Er... Unless you're metagaming, being able to save everything is obviously going to be rather difficult

Not only do you have to manage your scarce resources, but you're going to have to do it all in the correct combination to pull off anything.

Also it is apparent that you'll need to explore and be innovative in your planning and execution

If you are able to pull it off then your inquisitor is competent and the player deserves having the happy ending.


If you choose to roleplay your character in a set ideology and character, then you might not be able to accomplish that goal. That is your choice.


I always play the friendly heroic shield bearer as my first character in these games, and I'm looking forward to this challenge of saving everyone in the hardest difficulty without any prior experience. THAT is fun for me.

#29
Lebanese Dude

Lebanese Dude
  • Members
  • 5 545 messages

Silfren wrote...
This is precisely what I do in the Redcliffe quest for Connor.  It never made sense to me to have a happy ending for Connor and his family, with zero negative consequences at all.  


I never understood this argument. If you are really looking for logic and sensibility in these games then act accordingly.

if you have done the circle tower already, kinloch hold is a day journey across the lake. Pretend you left all your inactive companions with Jowan/Teagan/Perth etc... and travel alone or  with two others back and forth. that regiment is more thn capable of suppressing the demons activity. 

If you haven't done the circle tower, then going there is still acceptable but then you have to decide if you wish to help the tower immediately or return to redcliffe and deal with that situstion first. That choice depends on your character.

This is all assuming you saved Redcliffe etc... If you didn't save Redcliffe nor did you get Perths help in the courtyard nor did you spare Jowan upon first encounter then things change, but if your character is that ruthless and/or stupid then your character shouldn't go out of his way and travel to the circle.

logic. It's good.

Modifié par Lebdood, 24 septembre 2013 - 04:35 .


#30
Beerfish

Beerfish
  • Members
  • 23 867 messages
There should be a win win scenario if things are done just right. Having a guaranteed lose situation is just as boring, uninspired and useless as a win win. (Ashley/Kaiden, Batarian terrorist town vs radar facility)

For sure a tougher quest to get the ultimate solution but in many cases it should be doable.

The cliche these days is the lose situation or make one of two choices and one of them is going to be bad. Time to change that back a bit.

Modifié par Beerfish, 24 septembre 2013 - 04:26 .


#31
esper

esper
  • Members
  • 4 193 messages

Alphia wrote...

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.


I do hope that we are not forced to run back to old keeps constantly to defend them, because if that is the case I am properly just going to abandon all keeps that are not directly next to a city with important quests in it.

That said, didn't they say that this would affect quests? (Such as if the city is lost the sidequest in the side is lost too. I assume it is the same for the keep). Because if that is the case the attacks might be scripted events and not something that repeats itself. In fact I hope the attacks are scripted events and not something that repeats itself within certain time frames.

As for retaken the keep. I guess that depend on if the enemy destroy the keep or not. If they... say burn it down, there might not be much to retake.
Also since the

#32
Taleroth

Taleroth
  • Members
  • 9 136 messages

Plaintiff wrote...

If other people want to work for an optimal outcome in their own game, then how does that affect you at all? 

Because it makes the other choices dumb.

This is a game. You're not working for anything. You're playing out content. And all content should be roughly equal as a choice.

Further, this can help push the themes of the work. Key to doing that is some element of consistency.

#33
Beerfish

Beerfish
  • Members
  • 23 867 messages

Taleroth wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

If other people want to work for an optimal outcome in their own game, then how does that affect you at all? 

Because it makes the other choices dumb.

This is a game. You're not working for anything. You're playing out content. And all content should be roughly equal as a choice.

Further, this can help push the themes of the work. Key to doing that is some element of consistency.


These either or choice are almost never balanced properly and some do not have any real big consequnces other than feel bad due to this choice or feel bad for the other choice.  In replability one choice almost always becomes the premium choice.

Mass Effect 2 handled this really well in the suicide mission.  You could save everyone but only if you take a number of steps to do so and those steps were not always apparent as being important.  I'd much rather have a thread on a decison and be told, 'there is a way to get both done, you just have to figure out how to do it.' than "Tough luck, you either save a town or a keep and it will alywas be that way, impossible no matter what to have any other outcome.

#34
Vicious

Vicious
  • Members
  • 3 221 messages
This kinda up there with the death of Hawke's mother. Originally, you COULD save her, but it required a very specific step of decisions. So what happened? Everyone reloaded till they got it 100% right and saved her, which means her death, all the content and dialogue that it resulted in (reconciling with Gamlen, your love interests/siblings dialogue, refences by other characters such as Meredith etc) was not seen.

in other words a waste of time and development resources because when people feel they 'failed' in a video game and success was possible, they tend just reload, reload, reload, or start completely over till they get it right.

So why bother making failure a possibility at all? For the tiny percentage of people who sat through Ser Cauthrien beating them, (vs the comparatively large amount of people who kept reloading the fight till they killed her and were unaware that loss simply resulted in capture?) That's a lot of development resources for that small amount of people willing to 'roll with defeat.'

If there is a 'choice' then any special content is usually a waste of time, as people will strive and network to get the best possible solution. Ultimately i can't see the point of 'failure' being a possibility with this playerbase.

Modifié par Vicious, 24 septembre 2013 - 05:01 .


#35
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

Lebdood wrote...

Silfren wrote...
This is precisely what I do in the Redcliffe quest for Connor.  It never made sense to me to have a happy ending for Connor and his family, with zero negative consequences at all.  


I never understood this argument. If you are really looking for logic and sensibility in these games then act accordingly.

if you have done the circle tower already, kinloch hold is a day journey across the lake. Pretend you left all your inactive companions with Jowan/Teagan/Perth etc... and travel alone or  with two others back and forth. that regiment is more thn capable of suppressing the demons activity. 

If you haven't done the circle tower, then going there is still acceptable but then you have to decide if you wish to help the tower immediately or return to redcliffe and deal with that situstion first. That choice depends on your character.

This is all assuming you saved Redcliffe etc... If you didn't save Redcliffe nor did you get Perths help in the courtyard nor did you spare Jowan upon first encounter then things change, but if your character is that ruthless and/or stupid then your character shouldn't go out of his way and travel to the circle.

logic. It's good.


What's hard to understand about it?  I'm fine with the option of saving both Connor and Isolde, just not with that decision having zero negative results.  It is absurd that the demon actually sits around and does nothing at all while the Warden wanders to the Circle and back.  Under the game's lore, though, this is exactly what happens.  So if I have to pretend, I'm going to pretend something that makes sense.  Your way does not.  

That regiment is NOT more than capable of suppressing the demon, given that it's likely many of the defenders are dead, and anyway, it's not reasonable to expect people to be able to keep up the same level of defense night after night after night, and this is when the demon is PLAYING, and not actively pissed off and probably seeking revenge.

Nor do I think it's a smart thing for a Warden to go waltzing back to the Circle alone.  Given the chaos, traveling alone isn't wise under any circumstance, but if you go to Redcliffe later in the game, you do so with the knowledge that darkspawn ambushes are quite likely, as are assassination attempts.   For that matter, when I play a non-mage Warden, I usually execute Jowan, though not always.  As as Human Noble, my Warden looked at this escaped Circle mage who was hired by Loghain to infiltrate the Guerrin family estate, and all she sees are those mages that were working with Howe to destroy her own family.  She kills him on the spot--regretting it later, sometimes (sometimes not).  So no, not ruthless or stupid.  Just me working within the confines of the lore to come up with logical characterization.

Going to the mage tower when Redcliffe is active makes even less sense, because now you have to decide whether to make Connor wait even longer--which increases the risk of the demon razing the village, see above--or to try to solve the mages' problem, given that in terms of the Blight, this is arguably the more pressing goal.  But the game doesn't react to this at all.  You can do the Broken Circle quest right then and it does not affect Redcliffe in the slightest. 

There's nothing logical in your scenario at all. It assumes things as a given which aren't, necessarily, and it ignores the lore the game itself provides.

ETA: FYI, having the option to abandon Redcliffe doesn't make sense to me either..  Not the option, but the way the game handles it.  The game tries to make it look like a pragmatic decision, but it comes off rather as hamfistedly assholish, since you have to come back to Redcliffe and find Teagan anyway, even if you do abandon them first.

#36
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

Taleroth wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

If other people want to work for an optimal outcome in their own game, then how does that affect you at all? 

Because it makes the other choices dumb.


The other choices are only dumb if you metagame them.  If you make your decisions from the character's standpoint, they aren't. 

I don't see why having one optimal choice should invalidate the other ones.  This is what YOU are bringing into it, that's all.

#37
Vicious

Vicious
  • Members
  • 3 221 messages

Silfren wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

If other people want to work for an optimal outcome in their own game, then how does that affect you at all? 

Because it makes the other choices dumb.


The other choices are only dumb if you metagame them.  If you make your decisions from the character's standpoint, they aren't. 

I don't see why having one optimal choice should invalidate the other ones. This is what YOU are bringing into it, that's all.


human nature. Also cuts replay value (if you have your cake and eat it too then there's no reason to tackle the situation differently, ever, when you can just watch what happens otherwise on youtube) supporting the other two choices winds up being a waste of development resources when 90% of players will just reload reload reload till they get the best one.


People metagame. People will always metagame. Do you remember how many people hit the board after DA2 hit to see if they could save mama hawke? Many of those folks stopped when she died, reloaded, then hit the forums. That's what most casual players tend to do nowadays.

Modifié par Vicious, 24 septembre 2013 - 05:23 .


#38
The Elder King

The Elder King
  • Members
  • 19 630 messages
To be fair, Bioware said that we could save both the keep and the village. They didn't say it'll be the best outcome.
Saving both could lead to lose more forces (agents) or have the keep damaged, and the village partially destroyed, while if you choose one of the other choices you could have the keep or the village completely safe.
I'm not saying that it'd going to be like this, but having a third choice doesn't necessarily mean that the latter should be better than the other two.

#39
OdanUrr

OdanUrr
  • Members
  • 11 058 messages

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.


Why?

#40
Dycho

Dycho
  • Members
  • 96 messages
IMPORTANT David Gaider in a interview with Adam Sessler (sp?) said you CAN save both but it would be hard!

#41
FenrirBlackDragon

FenrirBlackDragon
  • Members
  • 364 messages
While is true that human nature drives people to get the best solution possible, I am more for having the option but making the possibility of saving both require more work. I sort of like hhh89's idea of having the option to save both not necessarily being the best decision, which is something I would find interesting.
Well, that's all I have to say about that. :)

#42
LobselVith8

LobselVith8
  • Members
  • 16 993 messages

hhh89 wrote...

To be fair, Bioware said that we could save both the keep and the village. They didn't say it'll be the best outcome.
Saving both could lead to lose more forces (agents) or have the keep damaged, and the village partially destroyed, while if you choose one of the other choices you could have the keep or the village completely safe.
I'm not saying that it'd going to be like this, but having a third choice doesn't necessarily mean that the latter should be better than the other two.


It would be interesting if it worked that way... if there were different fallouts to all three choices, as opposed to one being optimal over the other two.

#43
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

To be fair, Bioware said that we could save both the keep and the village. They didn't say it'll be the best outcome.
Saving both could lead to lose more forces (agents) or have the keep damaged, and the village partially destroyed, while if you choose one of the other choices you could have the keep or the village completely safe.
I'm not saying that it'd going to be like this, but having a third choice doesn't necessarily mean that the latter should be better than the other two.


It would be interesting if it worked that way... if there were different fallouts to all three choices, as opposed to one being optimal over the other two.


This is exactly what I want.  There is no reason in the world why one of any number of options should be the ideal one.  It should be up to the player to decide which is optimal.

#44
Lebanese Dude

Lebanese Dude
  • Members
  • 5 545 messages

Silfren wrote...

Lebdood 


There's nothing logical in your scenario at all. It assumes things as a given which aren't, necessarily, and it ignores the lore the game itself provides.



Excuse my zillion typos. iPads are weird here.

You proved my point in your post. Well done. Imagination justifies any logic. In your scenarios, you find it impossible. In mine, it's feasible. That doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. You were much more specific in your reply above. I can craft a more detailed approach if I cared to but that's a bit long.

What lore are you referring to? There are so many variables cannot take into consideration due to production limitations. It is up to you to fill in the missing pieces with your head.

Regarding the solo journey, it's a boat ride. Are we expecting naval dark spawn now?

Also by stupid and ruthless I was implying that you would be long against our characters traits if you chose to leave hundreds to die then decided that you met take a risk and travel to the circle o save one boy.



the lore we 

Modifié par Lebdood, 24 septembre 2013 - 06:18 .


#45
Redcrosse Knight

Redcrosse Knight
  • Members
  • 16 messages
I don't mind win-win/perfect outcomes ONLY if you had to have previous compounding choices be "perfect."

Example, the suicide mission in ME2 required x loyalty missions and picking right characters for right tasks, etc. The mechanics were not readily apparent (unless you looked online). I won't comment on the consequences (or lack thereof) of a given character dying though.

Bad example: Genophage cure - many ways to do so with the only penalty being some minor character dies should you not have previous "right" choices. It should have only been possible if you made the "right" choices previously.

Having a scenario, where you could make a decision (e.g., save the keep), but still save both via combat would be boring. Same with being able to just re-capture a keep via more combat later. Boring.

Having real consequences is good. If someone wants to meta-game completely to obtain a perfect world, then whatever. Just don't make it easy (i.e., by picking the right dialogue one time or win via combat).

#46
JCAP

JCAP
  • Members
  • 1 118 messages

OdanUrr 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.


Why?


If we could save them both without much effort... what would be the point?

#47
Vortex13

Vortex13
  • Members
  • 4 186 messages

Silfren wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

To be fair, Bioware said that we could save both the keep and the village. They didn't say it'll be the best outcome.
Saving both could lead to lose more forces (agents) or have the keep damaged, and the village partially destroyed, while if you choose one of the other choices you could have the keep or the village completely safe.
I'm not saying that it'd going to be like this, but having a third choice doesn't necessarily mean that the latter should be better than the other two.


It would be interesting if it worked that way... if there were different fallouts to all three choices, as opposed to one being optimal over the other two.


This is exactly what I want.  There is no reason in the world why one of any number of options should be the ideal one.  It should be up to the player to decide which is optimal.


I agree with this sentiment. 

Saving both the keep and the village, making peace between the Mages and Templars, ect. all of these possibilities should be possible, but they should incure a sarifice of some sort. 

The keep and village; while saved; are both damaged and are both unable to provide the full amount of resources as picking one over the other would. The Mages and Templars would reach an accord but not before the Inquistior had to remove the extremist hardliners from both groups there by weakening both factions.

I want the choices in the game to have variety, not to have one option be 'better' or more optimal then all the others, because otherwise why pick anything else?

#48
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 408 messages
God I hate people bringing up the saving Conner issue as not making sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense. The warden isn't allowed to do the solution that WOULD make sense (leaving half his/her party there in case Conner gets out of hand. Especially if he/she cleared out the circle tower already).

And before anyone even says it the Warden clearly can travel with just a couple of people at his/her side. It's more difficult but not impossible. So yes my warden taking Morrigan, Alistair and Dog with her while leaving Shale, Sten (possibly) Wynne and Oghren behind would be an ideal solution. Alas I'm not allowed to do it.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 septembre 2013 - 08:03 .


#49
Sister Goldring

Sister Goldring
  • Members
  • 1 551 messages
Just as an aside on the Connor thing, the sensible thing to do seemed to me to be that the Warden should stay put with my party at the castle because we ARE able to deal with Connor's zombie apocalypse, we've just done it. Isolde and Tegan should be the ones off pleading for help at the tower. Why can't they get off their arses and do something useful? Sending the rich, powerful and noble people to the circle to plead seems way more logical to me than my Warden risking everything he's just won. So if you haven't cleared out the tower first then they've failed but at least they've tried to save him and you haven't risked Redcliffe like a total fool.

I just wanted to get this off my chest, I feel better now :)

#50
Urazz

Urazz
  • Members
  • 2 445 messages

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. 

Nah, I think we should be allowed to save both but have fewer troops for a future mission which affects decisions then.  That way there are consequences for what you do even if you try to have it all.