1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Ravensword]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

I think shepard managing to dodge roll a reaper blast is more pressing an issue then the destroy ending, in terms of bad writing.

Shepard is the Second Coming.

[Fawx9]

Morocco Mole wrote...

So basically you hate ambiguity.

Depends on the level.

DA:O left open ended futures for each character, including the warden, based on what choices were made.

ME3, the definitive end for the set of charcaters we had been been with for 3 games, left the main character stuck in rubble on a falling apart space startion and the rest of the crew on some random world looking at flowers.


I think theres an obvious difference between the two and points towards one reason why most say they like DA:O endings over ME3

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

Video games should have the option of being easy. You are perfectly free to enjoy games on the ultra-hardest difficulty. Nobody is threatening that. However, a game should not be made frustratration, or work, or tedium for someone to enjoy the story. The story exists as the same regardless of what the player is or how good he is.

If the story is always the same, then it's a lousy RPG.

The core narrative of a roleplaying game is constructed, in part, by the player himself, not by the game's writers.  This is called emergent narrative.

That's the fundamental difference between roleplaying games and films.  Both media feature authored narrative, but only roleplaying games offer emergent narrative.

[Welsh Inferno]

Br3ad wrote...

I don't play games to be heroic.
I don't play games to be Jeebus.
I don't play games so I can have control that I lack in real life.
I don't play games to live out my fantasies.
I don't play games to escape my suicidal thoughts.
I don't play games because it gives me a way to get out my frustrations.
I don't play video games to forget real life.

Am I the only one who just wants to and does play video games to hear a compelling story, to see a compelling world, to experience both and remember it as quality entertainment? Not to force my morals onto every single character, especially my own? Not to save the world from what I think it needs saving from? To make a statement about mankind? To just play a video game for an hour? Why should making "heroic" choices matter?

+1

[Fast Jimmy]

Fawx9 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

So basically you hate ambiguity.

Depends on the level.

DA:O left open ended futures for each character, including the warden, based on what choices were made.

ME3, the definitive end for the set of charcaters we had been been with for 3 games, left the main character stuck in rubble on a falling apart space startion and the rest of the crew on some random world looking at flowers.


I think theres an obvious difference between the two and points towards one reason why most say they like DA:O endings over ME3

Yes, but ME3 (especially the original endings) had ambiguity about what choice Shephard EVEN MADE.

Let's not forget that an entirely valid interpretation of the endings at the time (that was more lore-friendly and coherent than the "real" endings, BTW) was a "it was all just a dream."

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Video games should have the option of being easy. You are perfectly free to enjoy games on the ultra-hardest difficulty. Nobody is threatening that. However, a game should not be made frustratration, or work, or tedium for someone to enjoy the story. The story exists as the same regardless of what the player is or how good he is.

If the story is always the same, then it's a lousy RPG.

The core narrative of a roleplaying game is constructed, in part, by the player himself, not by the game's writers.  This is called emergent narrative.

That's the fundamental difference between roleplaying games and films.  Both media feature authored narrative, but only roleplaying games offer emergent narrative.

Sylvius, I beseech you to not engage in forum members who pride themselves in being willfully ignorant, yet act as if talking from a point of authority. I know it will only frustrate you, particularly, to no end.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

Everyone on this thread seems to be so very confident that if choices are based on 'reason,' they won't have any problems. That they're smart enough to tackle whatever challenges the narrative throws at them (and the narrative is good enough to provide honest challenges.')

We're not necessarily making choices in order to get the best ending, or even any ending in particular.  Some of us just want to make in-character choices, and then see where that ultimately leads.

[dreamgazer]

Sylvius, I admire your patience and diligence, no matter how fruitless it will end up being.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius, I beseech you to not engage in forum members who pride themselves in being willfully ignorant, yet act as if talking from a point of authority. I know it will only frustrate you, particularly, to no end.

I would expect my Socratic conversation style to be particularly useful when dealing with those people.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

Sylvius, I admire your patience and diligence, no matter how fruitless it will end up being.

I do it too. What can I say, I'm a masochist.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius, I beseech you to not engage in forum members who pride themselves in being willfully ignorant, yet act as if talking from a point of authority. I know it will only frustrate you, particularly, to no end.

I would expect my Socratic conversation style to be particularly useful when dealing with those people.

Trust me, there's nothing that gets through to these kinds of people. You'd have more luck clawing your way out of reinforced concrete with a spoon.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius, I beseech you to not engage in forum members who pride themselves in being willfully ignorant, yet act as if talking from a point of authority. I know it will only frustrate you, particularly, to no end.

I would expect my Socratic conversation style to be particularly useful when dealing with those people.

LOL It would seem logical that it would, but I don't think it will here.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

We know he's a member of the Wardens. We know he's sharp-witted. We know (or we might infer, rather) that he was the closest thing to Duncan's second-hand-man. I would say that gives weight to his opinion.

I don't know how In Exile might have responded to this later in the thread, but Alistair is the most junior Warden at Ostagar when you arrive.  I would suggest that Duncan keeps him close primarily because he doesn't trust him on his own, yet.

[Dave of Canada]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius, I beseech you to not engage in forum members who pride themselves in being willfully ignorant, yet act as if talking from a point of authority. I know it will only frustrate you, particularly, to no end.

I would expect my Socratic conversation style to be particularly useful when dealing with those people.

Trust me, there's nothing that gets through to these kinds of people. You'd have more luck clawing your way out of reinforced concrete with a spoon.

That's how I escaped from prison.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LOL It would seem logical that it would...

And thus you should have predicted my response.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Everyone on this thread seems to be so very confident that if choices are based on 'reason,' they won't have any problems. That they're smart enough to tackle whatever challenges the narrative throws at them (and the narrative is good enough to provide honest challenges.')

We're not necessarily making choices in order to get the best ending, or even any ending in particular.  Some of us just want to make in-character choices, and then see where that ultimately leads.

David will say that is impossible. You can't play a video game without wanting to be heroic, according to him.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Dave of Canada wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius, I beseech you to not engage in forum members who pride themselves in being willfully ignorant, yet act as if talking from a point of authority. I know it will only frustrate you, particularly, to no end.

I would expect my Socratic conversation style to be particularly useful when dealing with those people.

Trust me, there's nothing that gets through to these kinds of people. You'd have more luck clawing your way out of reinforced concrete with a spoon.

That's how I escaped from prison.

Did your spoon have sour cream on it?

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LOL It would seem logical that it would...

And thus you should have predicted my response.

I should have. Hence why I added the word "beseech." I'm imploring you - down that road lies only madness. 

And not the type of madness you'd enjoy, either, Sylvius the Mad.

[Allan Schumacher]

Star fury wrote...

Can you please tell me, is it okay for one poster to consistently post offtopic? Is it okay for that poster to consistently write about Mass Effect in the Dragon Age forum? You always go to great lengths to defend David7204, even when all he does is writing offtopic or thread derailing.

Why mods never punish for that? Stop one poster from violating forum rules, it's much more simple.   

If the discussion is about general RPG themes and how they can be applied to Dragon Age, I don't care.  I don't consider it off topic within the context of the discussion nor a violation of the forum rules.

When people constantly focus and berate for this particular point, and continue to bring previous baggage from other threads into future threads, I do start to get annoyed.

If a poster is bothering you, don't engage the poster. If you're finding yourself getting angry, there's a good chance your probably going to do something that DOES get you in trouble.


Further, it's best to not speak about whether or not I am favouring a poster.  Everyone is the victim, and I get dozens of appeals about how when I ban someone I'm being unfairly scrutinizing towards that particular person, and clearly never the person that was involved in the altercation.

If people are going to get on MY case because they're annoyed at David or any other poster, you're just going to put me in a sour mood too.

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

You see, it's just the funniest thing. I say what I have to say, and I get all these accusations of wanting a 'power fantasy.' From people such as yourself, and including yourself.

And it's so ironic because the simple and obvious truth is that everything I say separates me from heroism. It's other people that argue their character is heroic because they're heroic. It's other people that argue for that connection. It's other people that attempt to piggyback off of their favorite fictional characters. Me? I argue in the opposite direction. I distance myself from it. I make it clear that what occurs in fiction is no reflection of me as a person. Everything I say only makes me look uglier and weaker. To an untrained mind, at least. And for embracing that, I get accused of seeking a 'power fantasy.'

You notice what's even more ironic? The people announcing how much they despise heroism, the ones talking about 'power fantasies,' they're the ones who become enraged when I examine that connection and question it. It's like...desperation, wouldn't you say? Desperation. Like I'm threatening something they need very, very badly. Something they depend on.

Lets not play amateur psychologist either.


A lot of people on thin ice.

[rashie]

DragonKingReborn wrote...

We've been given reason to believe that these troubles are 'man-made' and part of a larger plan for mischief.  Would players be ok where, like Origins, there were three (or more) options where you could die, for varying reasons, but all ended up well (the meaningful death) and another where you were able to live, but only by letting the villain responsible slip free, possibly with the world knowing that you did so (the empty life).

Just wondering a thing, would be nice if someone that knows more about DA:O lore than me could explain how Morrigan was a villain and responsible for the blight, that is assuming the OP do not mean letting Loghain live and have him die while killing the archdemon saving the Warden but seems unlikely due to the wording "slip free" as thats more of a redemption for his deeds then a escape tbh.

[Steelcan]

Lets not get this thread locked and forgotten, it needs to be remembered.

[Dave of Canada]

rashie wrote...

Just wondering a thing, would be nice if someone that knows more about DA:O lore than me could explain how Morrigan was a villain and responsible for the blight, that is assuming the OP do not mean letting Loghain live and have him die while killing the archdemon saving the Warden but seems unlikely due to the wording "slip free" as thats more of a redemption for his deeds then a escape tbh.

I'm certain that the poster didn't intend on making the connection but letting the Architect live basically means you let the one responsible for the Blight go away.