75 réponses à ce sujet

[Taleroth]

Silfren wrote...

The other choices are only dumb if you metagame them.  

That's a mighty big if.

Everything is "metagame"d. Character attributes, the journal system, party composition and roles, entire subsystems within the game. We are encouraged to make educated choices of tradeoffs. Not make wholly ignorant in-character decisions.

Being able to make educated choices is what distinguishes player agency from writer fiat. Choices leading to the intended outcomes. As opposed to choices leading to random stuff the writer decided should happen.

And just as combat should be roughly balanced to try to create interesting combats for various character builds, content should be roughly balanced to try and create interesting content for various choices.

Modifié par Taleroth, 24 septembre 2013 - 09:55 .

[KainD]

Eterna5 wrote...

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

The way the demo mission was shown it is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of gameplay prowess. Good tactics and mechanical skills would reward the player with being able to have the best outcome. 

[Ferretinabun]

Okay, am I missing something here? Or is everyone forgetting that there are, in fact, THREE objectives we want to save: the keep, the village, AND the wounded soldiers?

Fair enough Gaider said that it would be possible, though hard, to save both the keep and the village. But I imagine that would involve sending the soldiers to one of them as backup to help you out. So even in this scenario the wounded soldiers still luck out.

Or has anyone actually said that we can feasibly save all three?

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I should mention that they implied that while you could save both in that particular case, that won't always the so.

[MadParrot]

In regards to the whole 'hard choices vs save everyone' conversation, I think both have their own time and place. I mean, in a game where your primary objective is to find out who is behind the impending apocalypse, does a choice of "a small keep or a tiny village in a rural backwater region of Ferelden" really carry that much weight?

Also, as Ferretinabun stated above, in the case of Crestwood there's also the wounded soldiers to consider. Those guys might be vital in a future campaign, so why sacrifice them to salvage the current situation?

[Damien-III]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Okay, am I missing something here? Or is everyone forgetting that there are, in fact, THREE objectives we want to save: the keep, the village, AND the wounded soldiers?

Fair enough Gaider said that it would be possible, though hard, to save both the keep and the village. But I imagine that would involve sending the soldiers to one of them as backup to help you out. So even in this scenario the wounded soldiers still luck out.

Or has anyone actually said that we can feasibly save all three?

It's always about the village and the keep.

Possible outcome: leave the wounded and send the soldiers to the keep -> boost timer
                                   head to the village and save it as fast as possible -> run like hell to the keep
                                   help your soldiers at the keep -> keep saved

Problem: your wounded soldiers are dead which lowers the morale of your troops

[sky_captain]

Dycho wrote...

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

Link please, I googled it and it linked me back here

[Urazz]

Damien-III wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

Okay, am I missing something here? Or is everyone forgetting that there are, in fact, THREE objectives we want to save: the keep, the village, AND the wounded soldiers?

Fair enough Gaider said that it would be possible, though hard, to save both the keep and the village. But I imagine that would involve sending the soldiers to one of them as backup to help you out. So even in this scenario the wounded soldiers still luck out.

Or has anyone actually said that we can feasibly save all three?

It's always about the village and the keep.

Possible outcome: leave the wounded and send the soldiers to the keep -> boost timer
                                   head to the village and save it as fast as possible -> run like hell to the keep
                                   help your soldiers at the keep -> keep saved

Problem: your wounded soldiers are dead which lowers the morale of your troops

I'm assuming you will probably also lose additional soldiers at the keep because you took a side trip to the village.

It's all about the consequences of your actions.  The whole Redcliff scenario in DA:O should've had the situation where you end up losing the village if you went to the Circle and the Circle wasn't completed beforehand and if you did clear the Circle beforehand, you still lose some of the villagers.

Modifié par Urazz, 25 septembre 2013 - 12:14 .

[OdanUrr]

JCAP wrote...

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?

Yes, I understand that. But you're proposing for it to be hard irrespective of the difficulty setting. Why don't do away with the difficulty setting altogether then?

[Urazz]

OdanUrr wrote...

JCAP wrote...

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?

Yes, I understand that. But you're proposing for it to be hard irrespective of the difficulty setting. Why don't do away with the difficulty setting altogether then?

Nah, they don't need to do that.  They can actually make it hard on all difficulty levels adjusting the amount of time each difficulty level has to make it more of a matter of time management than combat.  For example, the easiest difficulty level will have the least amount of time since combat is so easy but they still want it to be a challenge to achieve the best result.

Even then, if you can save both, there should be some sort of consequence of your actions, like you'll have fewer troops around for awhile.

Modifié par Urazz, 25 septembre 2013 - 12:20 .

[OdanUrr]

Urazz wrote...

Nah, they don't need to do that.  They can actually make it hard on all difficulty levels adjusting the amount of time each difficulty level has to make it more of a matter of time management than combat.  For example, the easiest difficulty level will have the least amount of time since combat is so easy but they still want it to be a challenge to achieve the best result.

Even then, if you can save both, there should be some sort of consequence of your actions, like you'll have fewer troops around for awhile.

But then the difficulty setting loses purpose. Or is difficulty only related to combat? And if so, why?

[Urazz]

OdanUrr wrote...

Urazz wrote...

Nah, they don't need to do that.  They can actually make it hard on all difficulty levels adjusting the amount of time each difficulty level has to make it more of a matter of time management than combat.  For example, the easiest difficulty level will have the least amount of time since combat is so easy but they still want it to be a challenge to achieve the best result.

Even then, if you can save both, there should be some sort of consequence of your actions, like you'll have fewer troops around for awhile.

But then the difficulty setting loses purpose. Or is difficulty only related to combat? And if so, why?

I don't think difficulties should make everything easy.  Some things should remain challenging,  I'm not saying the challenge of saving both should frustratingly hard, but that it should be hard enough to provide a challenge since that's the option that requires the most work and skill.

Modifié par Urazz, 25 septembre 2013 - 02:02 .

[Uccio]

Having some magic bar hanging in the air and showing how things are going is stupid. Player should just see for himself how events play out. After deciding what to do.

Modifié par Ukki, 25 septembre 2013 - 02:29 .

[Mahumia]

I like having multiple options, even if only for roleplay purposes.

The Connor-options all made more or less sense, depending on the character. The fact that the 'save mother' option from DA2 was removed is pure fail to me. I don't want to be forced to take the metagamers-fail-option. I want to be able to see various outcomes when I replay the game. Mum dead is just a consequence, not 'omg, I failed the game!). Same for the various outcomes for the siblings.

I would like to see various effects on whether you choose to save the wounded soldiers, village and/or keep. Still think it is weird that there was no option to check the keep after saving Amarantine in Awakening. Even if it would have no effect (batttle already over). I wanted the option to check for survivors or something, instead of the out of sight, out of mind abandoning

[Urazz]

Silfren wrote...

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.

I don't think the option to saving both the village and the keep is necessarily a bad thing.  It has to be done right and give some actual side effects of doing so.

For example, in DAO on Redcliff, you can save both Conner and his mother by going to the Circle of Magi but there is not consequence to doing so.  That is one of DA:O's biggest flaws I think and having some sort of consequence to going to the Circle to saving both Conner and his mother should've been included.

I think something like having the village destroyed by Conner if you didn't finish the Circle of Magi before doing Redcliff.  But if you did do the Circle of Magi before doing Redcliff, then it should only be something like part of the village is destroyed.

This way there are some major consequences to your actions and as long as we have something like that for the keep/village example and other scenarios in DA:I then I'll be fine with it.

[Deflagratio]

This is how I understood the gameplay from PAX.

The "Live Event" was the assault on the keep. I don't think the assault on the village (Crestwood?) was live, at least not individually. If you defend the keep before defending Crestwood, the village is razed. If you defend Crestwood before defending the keep, you run the risk of losing the keep instead, but quick action and preparation would allow you to save both. The whole time you fight in Crestwood, the timer on the Keep is ticking away. (Crestwood would still have to be defended before the keep as it seems its hard-scripted to be destroyed after the keep is secure)

Sending Soldiers back to the keep probably slows down the timer, and sending them to Crestwood I imagine would assist in defeating the Red Templars more quickly...

I assume that the attack on Crestwood is just to goad the keep's garrison into engaging on the field, so if you're wondering why Crestwood is auto-destroyed as a scripted event, it makes as much sense to say that the Red Templars had the capacity to destroy the village much faster than they let on... so when the assault on the keep fails... Scorched earth policy I guess?

[clone wars]

can anyone put a link of the demo video up for me

[movieguyabw]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Or has anyone actually said that we can feasibly save all three?

Goal for my first playthrough:  find a way to save all 3.  That sounds like such an epic challenge. 


If this is a sign of what's to come in this game, I'm very intrigued.  As for everyone saying that this makes the game lame and everyone's just going to try to save everyone - well, that's kind of the point.  Everyone's going to try.  Not everyone will succeed.  If you think it's too easy to save everyone, bump up the difficulty.  But from what I gather from this, I don't think that will be an issue. 

[The Six Path of Pain]

I hope there aren't too many options to save everything. That gets boring because then most people, me included, will probably go out of their way to save both. I liked the Amaranthine/Vigil's Keep choice as well as the Bhelen/Harrowmont and Caradin/Branka choices in Origins.

Not saying choices like that suck though. A few here and there is nice. But since Bioware keeps bragging about there being hard choices in this game i'm hoping they make things difficult for us.

Modifié par The Six Path of Pain, 28 septembre 2013 - 06:16 .

[Uccio]

How is it possible to defend your keep if even one of the enemy soldiers has a shield? He can just hulk smash the gate down ala Cassandra and in they go.

[Lasien]

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.

I don't think that Silfren meant that there shouldn't be a happy ending, period, but that if you decide to save the whole family, more townspeople would die, or you would come back to find Jowan, Isolde, etc holed up in the throne room and all the non-named guards dead. Because even a day seems like a long time for an untrained little boy to hold a demon at bay.

[Lasien]

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

I hope there aren't too many options to save everything. That gets boring because then most people, me included, will probably go out of their way to save both. I liked the Amaranthine/Vigil's Keep choice as well as the Bhelen/Harrowmont and Caradin/Branka choices in Origins.

Not saying choices like that suck though. A few here and there is nice. But since Bioware keeps bragging about there being hard choices in this game i'm hoping they make things difficult for us.

I'm kind of hoping you can save both, but if you do, you don't get either one at full strength.

For instance, if you save the town, the keep is destroyed, but the town is whole

If you save the keep, the town is utterly destroyed, but you get a better starting condition on the keep (to upgrade from later)

If you save both, depending on your troop's strength and the time it takes you, about half the people in town die, and the keep is in worse condition when you win it.

I would also like to see how thouroughly you explore affect your outcome. Even if you know exactly where all the codexes are and all the loot is in town and you only take a minute and a half to complete the town. the keep is affected because you found everything of value in town.

 I'd also like to see some areas completely razed if you don't help - so if they had a unique gift item for a companioin, you won't ever get it - because you can't go back, there's no rubble to sift through.

[philippe willaume]

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'.

^
that, in fact being a tad facecious I would even say that it is what RPG is all about.

Phil