168 réponses à ce sujet

[TurretSyndrome]

I think there will be enough explanation on what you choose to do this time around, both on the dialog screen(the text explaining exactly what the choice you're making will do), and by the companions as seen in the demo. That means we can safely say that we'd know exactly what the consequences will be when the choice is given.

So there will be no one who might be hesitant to make a choice on the dialogue screen, like in DA 2. Simply put, there will be no accidental choices made by the player.

As for people feeling that they didn't get what they wanted after playing through the game for a bit and reaching the consequence of the choices they made, I find this to be an annoying attitude. This is exactly like that companion relationship I was talking about in the other thread. You treat the person like crap and you keep doing so the entire game(which you choose to do so), but when push comes to shove, they should just shut up, stay in your party and follow orders.

I don't understand the kind of attitude where people expect lots of choices, expect them to be different from one another, but none of their consequences should be penalizing in any way. If they make a choice that benefits them(or they believe it should), they expect a positive consequence(most times they expect it to be immediate too). But when they make a choice whose consequence is supposed to penalize them, they shun it, and say it's unfair.

As for people saying that some gamers will use save/load function to get to the best choice, well let them. Honestly, why do you care what the other guy does with his copy? Why do you care that that guy uses cheats/trainers/console commands/mods to play the game. It's his copy and he can do whatever he wants with it. Neither you nor the developer has any right to force the other person to play the way you think is right or "as intended"(that use of the word really annoys me).

Anyway, that's all I wanted to say about this. It may seem a bit off the topic but I don't think so, as basically, we are talking about choice and consequence here.

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 16 novembre 2013 - 03:26 .

[Xilizhra]

I didn't ask if it made you FEEL better... I asked if it made the STORY better. There's a large degree of difference there. I'm not an advocate for sad just to be sad... but Mordin, a conflicted scientist who needed to dedicate his life to healing and helping others after reinfecting the Krogan with the genophage, made the heroic sacrifice to knowingly die to correct his mistake.

It's one of the few instances I've teared up in a video game. And it has earned my undying respect for Patrick Weekes. Personally, I think the Tuchanka section was great, but it would have been a little humdrum if the ending to it all was just "we deployed the cure" or "we tricked the Krogan" and everyone went smiling back to the ship.

I don't think his death made the story particularly better or worse. He had a nice scene, but his survival could also have been a nice scene were it written that way.

[Fast Jimmy]

...as for Leandra, development says we used to be able to save her. (I don't know at what cost though, they didn't say. Probably letting Quentin go.) Problem was that it ultimately wasn't a choice at all because people would always save her, every single time. And we know Bioware staff live of delicious fan tears, they couldn't let that go down.

Sheryl Chee, one of the DA writers, stomped out this rumor a little while ago. The only other "option" they discussed was to keep Leandra "alive" through blood magic, where she would be moaning in agony as a zombie in Hawke's mansion. And she said that was scrapped VERY early on in the process because it was kind of ridiculous.

[Thomas Andresen]

Sheryl Chee, one of the DA writers, stomped out this rumor a little while ago. The only other "option" they discussed was to keep Leandra "alive" through blood magic, where she would be moaning in agony as a zombie in Hawke's mansion. And she said that was scrapped VERY early on in the process because it was kind of ridiculous.

Ah, the dangers of misquoting. Let's learn from this, shall we? Or not.

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

I didn't ask if it made you FEEL better... I asked if it made the STORY better. There's a large degree of difference there. I'm not an advocate for sad just to be sad... but Mordin, a conflicted scientist who needed to dedicate his life to healing and helping others after reinfecting the Krogan with the genophage, made the heroic sacrifice to knowingly die to correct his mistake.

It's one of the few instances I've teared up in a video game. And it has earned my undying respect for Patrick Weekes. Personally, I think the Tuchanka section was great, but it would have been a little humdrum if the ending to it all was just "we deployed the cure" or "we tricked the Krogan" and everyone went smiling back to the ship.

I don't think his death made the story particularly better or worse. He had a nice scene, but his survival could also have been a nice scene were it written that way.

That may be your perspective, but I don't think that the entire Tuchanka arc would have been nearly as impactful if it didn't have these scenes where Shephard had to watch a core character die or even kill that core character themselves. I've heard many people say that Tuchanka was the best section in ME3, with the Wrex or Mordin scenes being the best in the game. I simpy don't think a "eveyrone lived and the day was saved" outcome would have stuck with people nearly as much. 

[Xilizhra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I didn't ask if it made you FEEL better... I asked if it made the STORY better. There's a large degree of difference there. I'm not an advocate for sad just to be sad... but Mordin, a conflicted scientist who needed to dedicate his life to healing and helping others after reinfecting the Krogan with the genophage, made the heroic sacrifice to knowingly die to correct his mistake.

It's one of the few instances I've teared up in a video game. And it has earned my undying respect for Patrick Weekes. Personally, I think the Tuchanka section was great, but it would have been a little humdrum if the ending to it all was just "we deployed the cure" or "we tricked the Krogan" and everyone went smiling back to the ship.

I don't think his death made the story particularly better or worse. He had a nice scene, but his survival could also have been a nice scene were it written that way.

That may be your perspective, but I don't think that the entire Tuchanka arc would have been nearly as impactful if it didn't have these scenes where Shephard had to watch a core character die or even kill that core character themselves. I've heard many people say that Tuchanka was the best section in ME3, with the Wrex or Mordin scenes being the best in the game. I simpy don't think a "eveyrone lived and the day was saved" outcome would have stuck with people nearly as much. 

Personally, I think that Rannoch was the best section in the game, and Legion's death didn't help that at all.

[Dr. Doctor]

I wonder if those trebuchets we saw in the demo can be burned like the boats? If you could fight your way to them and take them out then you've drastically reduced the strength of the Red Templars' siege efforts. That could buy you enough time to save Crestwood and the keep.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...

Personally, I think that Rannoch was the best section in the game, and Legion's death didn't help that at all.

Rannoch isn't really a redemption arc, though. Tuchanka was (for Mordin). It was just a case of redemption = death (in his eyes). 

Modifié par In Exile, 17 novembre 2013 - 03:42 .

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Personally, I think that Rannoch was the best section in the game, and Legion's death didn't help that at all.

Rannoch isn't really a redemption arc, though. Tuchanka was (for Mordin). It was just a case of redemption = death (in his eyes). 

I much prefer redemption in life. Death has no value to me.

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: Really? A shame. It's the only thing you're guaranteed to do.

[Xilizhra]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: Really? A shame. It's the only thing you're guaranteed to do.

I hope not to.

[fiveforchaos]

frankf43 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm torn about this.

On one hand, having story outcomes that vary depending on gameplay is something I really like. But, on the other hand, many players will just reload or drop down to easy to get the "best outcome" evey time. If that's the case, where it becomes just tedium that most players realize the ways to game the system to get the happiest outcomes, what is really gained? It isn't a darker story, it is just a game with a happy path that takes some tedium to get and also story content if you fail to get the happy path instead of a "Game Over" screen.

I'm not sure if that's the best way. Then again, binary choices via dialogue may, also, not be the best way.

I can't see why the problem with some people reloading the game time and again to get t he best outcome, it is their game play-through and if they want to spend the time getting their happy ever after then why not let them.

If you want to play through once taking the breaks the game gives you good and bad then that is your choice.  I do think that there should be an achievement for playing a game through once on nightmare with no reloads though.

I'm of the opinon that any "good" outcome in a game should be achievable through either a great amount of skill, or a great amount of patience. An unskilled player that continues reloading until they get lucky enough the save both has invested just as much patience into the game as you have invested skill into yours by saving the keep the first time, and neither method is better or worse than the other. 

[Hellion Rex]

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: Really? A shame. It's the only thing you're guaranteed to do.

I hope not to.

You do not wish to die? That is perfectly reasonable thing to fear, but it is one of the inevitable things that humanity is bound together in. We were not made to live forever.

[SgtSteel91]

eluvianix wrote...

You do not wish to die? That is perfectly reasonable thing to fear, but it is one of the inevitable things that humanity is bound together in. We were not made to live forever.

But we do want to do as much stuff during that life as we want to. To hell if I'm going to die without doing the things I wanted to experience.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: Really? A shame. It's the only thing you're guaranteed to do.

I hope not to.

Awww that's adorable.

We're all just dust in the wind my little playground stalker.

[Nightdragon8]

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Fast Jimmy: And they should be allowed to - they paid for an experience.

People who reload for the best "write" their experience, and I find it a totally viable way to play.

I prefer to roleplay the game and face the consequences of my actions - both good and bad.

I think there is room for both, but what should NEVER be done - is to declare the person that "writes" the story an enemy, and remove choices so you can shove some edgy dark emotion down someone's throat.

I really hope there is a way to save both - and I hope that it is VERY difficult, and required forthought (like, you have to have troops with great morale and great equipment - which would have been something you had to do WAY before the event).

So a recipe for large amounts of spoiler mapping out, then?

yea like walkthoughs and stuff are not out withen a week of relsease anyway...

The term is save scumming... I 'am" a major user of it in Xcom, becuase yea sometimes bs is just bs, 95% chance and a miss... yea... no that didn't happen.. Or the ever hateful, "paniced rookie, kills officer when causes everyone else to panic and run out of cover to get killed, or worse mind controled.

Never really used it in DA2 unless what Hawke said wasn't the same as what was "para phrased" in the choices.

Modifié par Nightdragon8, 17 novembre 2013 - 08:51 .

[Hellion Rex]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

You do not wish to die? That is perfectly reasonable thing to fear, but it is one of the inevitable things that humanity is bound together in. We were not made to live forever.

But we do want to do as much stuff during that life as we want to. To hell if I'm going to die without doing the things I wanted to experience.

Oh, I agree entirely. But that does not mean it is not inevitable that we will die eventually. That fact alone forces us to live.

[durasteel]

Xilizhra wrote...
Personally, I think that Rannoch was the best section in the game, and Legion's death didn't help that at all.

I agree with you that Rannoch was possibly the best section of the game (Tuchanka was really, really good) but Legion's death was absolutely critical. The theme of the entire geth arc was summed up in the question "Does this unit have a soul?" and Legion's sacrifice is the final answer to that question, not just for the characters in the game but for the player. When you, the player, witness the passing of Legion, you feel the loss of someone from the game world, not something.

The important thing about the deaths of Mordin and Legion is that they were both triumphant. In both cases, these characters achieved 100% of their objectives and died heroes, their deaths being a price they gladly paid for victory. Contrast that with blue or green Shepard, who had no reason to perish other than the star child said that's how the space magic worked. Any sense of triumph or tragedy was quashed by the sheer ridiculousness of the entire catalyst encounter.

Returning to the issue raised by the OP, I too want to be able to save the village, the keep, and the soldiers. I'm fine with it being difficult, but this is a big factor in replayability for me. My first time through I would probably do something reasonable and live with the consequenses, but when I go back to it again (new game +, perhaps) I'll reload and hammer at it until I get the "perfect" outcome.

The thing to remember is that both are viable and reasonable ways to play, and that the possibility of saving everyone doesn't mean that you have to do it that way. The best case scenario, I think, is for BioWare to design the game with the broadest possible range of choices and outcomes, then let people decide for themselves how they want to play it. Even if you opt for darker, grittier choices in the game, the fact that there could have been a triumph makes your dark darker, and your grit grittier, right?

[Skyrunner_Morgan]

You can defend both the Keep and the Village according to the interview at E3. When the Inquisitor talked to the guards he in fact chose to re-purpose the soldiers to the Keep and left the Village to its fate so the Red Templars poured down on the Village as soon as soldiers left. Presumably the timer would have then switched to the Keep instead of the Village if the Inquisitor chose to send the soldiers to the Village. It could be possible there would have been two timers if the Inquisitor chose to leave the soldiers with the wounded meaning it was a real time race in that situation.

My theory is that you can bolster the defense of the Keep with extra soldiers while the Inquisitor personally goes to save the Village. You destroy the Red Templar groups that lay siege to the Village. After that its a race to the Keep to wrap things up.

Presumably the Inquisitor will always be pinned in situations like this where he has to pick either the benefit of the Inquisition or the people. In some cases you can't save everyone but since Hawke was somewhat unkillable and was even able to solo some areas if geared correctly this could mean the Inquisitor could do much more if you play right and take careful decisions.