124 réponses à ce sujet

[hotdogbsg]

Try to save both, if that's not possible it would probably be the Keep.

[wiccame]

KainD wrote...

wiccame wrote...
Why?  Save the village, have hundred or so allies more, to provide resourses, extra men and more support to gain support from other places.  Like I said before, if we can take the keep once, we can do it again....and if my men are trained well enough, losses will be minimal.
You're in a powerful position, protecting those under you is th moral choice, lives over material. I wouldn't want to think of all the children I will be leaving to die. No matter how 'practical' it would be or not be.

The bold is rational thinking, the Italic is self-distructive thinking. Interesting how you defend your point with two unrelated paragraphs. 

Not really that unrelated....My wanting to defend the village over the keep, whether intentional or not, would stregthen my standing...might lose the keep in the short term but with the support from the village. I've not only gained extra hands to retake and rebuild, but I would have their backing when trying to gain support from other places. 
As opposed to maybe retreating to the keep, defending that at all cost...losing the village. I could still lose the keep or be crippled severely, and without the help from the now dead village, it will take me longer to rebuild. Not to mention I have lost valuable support, that my new and mistrusted order so desperately needs. 

So I dont think me wanting to save the village is really that self destructive.
 

[ames4u]

From a strategical standpoint, my immediate thought was to divide the able bodied soldiers.
Leave half to evacuate the injured or get them somewhere safe and send the other half ahead
to run interference with the Red's assaulting the keep. This would leave me free to burn their boats
down to cut off retreat and then backtrack in order to nuke their @sses for attacking a little village.

The option to leave a follower with the soldiers would be handy to bolster their defence, or send one
with the group I sent ahead.

But this, simple, logicial approach would never see the light of day in a Bioware game.

Ultimately, I would try to help the defenceless before seeing to other matters. If the
soldiers I have stationed in the Keep are unable to hold out that long, then they clearly were not
the kind of soldiers I want in my organisation. I gave them the training, tools and resources to
fend this kind of attack off. If I can do it, then so can they.

Modifié par ames4u, 04 janvier 2014 - 03:21 .

[Zkyire]

andy69156915 wrote...

In the DAI demo I'm sure we've all seen at this point, you're given a choice to save a village by sending your soldiers to defend it, or try to save a keep by doing the same thing. So I'm curious, which will people on this board choose? And seeing as it mirrors the choice at the end of Awakening too, I'm curious about which one you chose to save in that game too.

Personally, I always save the village in Awakening and plan to do the same thing in DAI. A keep is supposed to be a secure fortress, strong to bring down and filled with lots of strong soldiers. A keep's entire purpose is to be very difficult to defeat. But a village is pretty much just a tiny little area with a crappy town watch and filled with people who can't fight and barely has a wall (that will crumble very easily if the enemy decides to breach it). The keep is supposed to be able to protect itself, I shouldn't need to babysit it. But the village doesn't even have an expectation to be able to handle a siege, it's obviously going to be wiped out. So if I lose a keep because I protected the village, than I've lost nothing of value... Because if the keep was worth having, it would have protected itself like it was supposed to. If it can't without my help, than the keep was weak and useless anyway. Keeps are supposed to protect, they sholdn't need extra help to do that. But losing the village, something that isn't supposed to protect anything, that is a loss no matter what.

So what will you choose in DAI, and what do you typically choose in DAA?

Practical playthrough? Save what I can with the fewest casualties.

Hero-Paragon playthrough? Try to save everyone cause it'll probably work out for the best anyway.

[Star fury]

It looks a lot like paragon/renegade choices from ME and I'm not sure I like it.

[hotdogbsg]

Star fury wrote...

It looks a lot like paragon/renegade choices from ME and I'm not sure I like it.

I'd disagree with that comparison in this instance, choosing to save the keep over the village is a strategic/practical choice, not a renegade choice.

[TheKomandorShepard]

hotdogbsg wrote...

Star fury wrote...

It looks a lot like paragon/renegade choices from ME and I'm not sure I like it.

I'd disagree with that comparison in this instance, choosing to save the keep over the village is a strategic/practical choice, not a renegade choice.

Well wasn't that point taking renegade options? (well at least half of the time when option wasn't just being ****)

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 04 janvier 2014 - 04:48 .

[Star fury]

hotdogbsg wrote...

Star fury wrote...

It looks a lot like paragon/renegade choices from ME and I'm not sure I like it.

I'd disagree with that comparison in this instance, choosing to save the keep over the village is a strategic/practical choice, not a renegade choice.

Saving the keep instead of the village looks exactly like a renegade choice. I.e. Saving/sacrificing the council in ME1. 

[JoltDealer]

Star fury wrote...

hotdogbsg wrote...

Star fury wrote...

It looks a lot like paragon/renegade choices from ME and I'm not sure I like it.

I'd disagree with that comparison in this instance, choosing to save the keep over the village is a strategic/practical choice, not a renegade choice.

Saving the keep instead of the village looks exactly like a renegade choice. I.e. Saving/sacrificing the council in ME1. 

Paragon and Renegade are just labels.  Of course there's going to be similarities.  There are only so many ways to be heroic or pragmatic, which is what paragon and renegade really are.  Be a hero and save everyone?  Paragon.  Do your job and nothing more?  Renegade.  

Saying that Dragon Age Inquisition is copying Mass Effect is a stupid comparison to make.  Did you have soldiers with which you could order around in Mass Effect?  Not usually.  Were you capable of making a decision to save one, but still be able to go and save the other in Mass Effect?  No.  People that are making these sorts of comparisons are basically only looking for reasons not to play Dragon Age Inquisition.  Just with the little bits and pieces we've seen so far, I can confidently say that Inquisition looks to be a huge improvement over Dragon Age 2 and not at all like Mass Effect.

That being said, I would try to save both.  My only question is, where does the rest of my party fit in?  If I send my soldiers to defend the keep, but I take my four person party to save the village, do my other followers fight alongside my soldiers?  I feel like that might be a little lazy if my followers just sit there while our homebase is assaulted.

[Star fury]

Crimson Sound wrote...
Saying that Dragon Age Inquisition is copying Mass Effect is a stupid comparison to make. 

Who said that, with a quote please?

[JoltDealer]

Star fury wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...
Saying that Dragon Age Inquisition is copying Mass Effect is a stupid comparison to make. 

Who said that, with a quote please?

Nobody said those exact words, but here are the posts I was referring to:

Star fury wrote...

It looks a lot like paragon/renegade choices from ME and I'm not sure I like it.

Star fury wrote...

Saving the keep instead of the village looks exactly like a renegade choice. I.e. Saving/sacrificing the council in ME1. 

I took issue with both posts, but more specifically the second post where you said it, "looks exactly like a renegade choice."  And I stand by my statement that it's a stupid comparison to make.  There are only so many actions one can take in a given situation.  If there's a village in danger of being razed to the ground and your keep is also in danger, but you only have enough forces to effectively defend one.  What are your options?  You can only save one or the other, or try to save both, which then presents the risk of saving neither.  

There's the heroic choice, which is save the village full of innocent bystanders.  Then there's the pragmatic choice, which is save the target with the larger strategic value (i.e. the keep).  Paragon and Renegade were only labels that Mass Effect used, similar to how KOTOR used the names "Light Side" and "Dark Side" to label decisions when they really meant "good" and "evil."  

On the one hand, of course things are going to look similar because there are only so many ways one can approach the same situation.  On the other hand, even if they are similar, you're completely overlooking the way players can have their decision play out.  In Dragon Age Inquisition, you have your own soldiers, which is something Mass Effect never gave you.  Then add in the fact that their effectiveness at any given moment is entirely dependent on the resources you have spent on your army.  The strength of their weapons, armor, and overall skill is up to you.  Then you add the fact that your party is a separate part of the equation.  So even though the decision is Save the Keep, Save the Village, or Save Both, you already have several factors going into whether or not you succeed in whichever path you take.

Now if you would kindly explain to me how that is exactly like a decision from Mass Effect, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Fredward]

Crimson Sound wrote...
Now if you would kindly explain to me how that is exactly like a decision from Mass Effect, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Would "they are a lot like the paragon/Light/Open Palm (moral) and renegade/Dark/Closed Fist (pragmatic) decisions" have sounded better to you?

[JoltDealer]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...
Now if you would kindly explain to me how that is exactly like a decision from Mass Effect, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Would "they are a lot like the paragon/Light/Open Palm (moral) and renegade/Dark/Closed Fist (pragmatic) decisions" have sounded better to you?

Not really.  There are only so many paths one can take in a certain situation.  Even when you write the circumstances yourself, there are a fixed number of outcomes to choose from.  Doesn't matter which game you play -  Fallout, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Alpha Protocol, or some other game -  decisions are always going to sound the same because there are only so many possible ways to handle a situation.  So I look at the games themselves and how the decisions play out for any sort of distinction.  The differences between how a decision unfolds in the Mass Effect games and in Dragon Age Inquisition are already substantial.

[DarthLaxian]

Medhia Nox wrote...

It depends on a LOT of factors in that scenario.

- I will likely send my soldiers to defend the keep - that is what they are supposed to be for.

- I will send my special forces team to save the town, because that's what a small group should be able to achieve.

- I will meet up with my troops at the Keep after the town (and my supply lines) are secured.

A keep is stupid if you're just going to sit in a siege - and I don't do things just to be dark and edgy and sacrifice the peasants for my hardass playthrough.

So largely, I will be doing what you will OP.

well, it depends really on what i need more:

good will of the people or soldiers that are actually of use when the crap hits the fan - also i will always try for "both" (random sacrifices just because they are possible are not my style at all)...

sorry, but for an organisation like the inquisition at crucial stages in a fight, peasants are not really that important and i will probably be able to help more peasants later anyway, if i get my strength up to the right levels (note: i am counting on not being able to get tax-income from peasants, because then, protecting them makes more sense (!))

so for me it is a question of it being possible to save both, the need to save my troops if i need them for something important (greater good and all that - the ends do justify the means IMHO...at least, if you fight for something bigger then one village or town) and if i have been there before and how the villagers treated me (a hostile village that hates me will not be saved, sorry, but i don't fight for people who hate me!) etc.

so it's not something i can just decide ATM (because it depends on the game itself - like what does make more sense

greetings LAX

[Fredward]

Crimson Sound wrote...
Not really.  There are only so many paths one can take in a certain situation.  Even when you write the circumstances yourself, there are a fixed number of outcomes to choose from.  Doesn't matter which game you play -  Fallout, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Alpha Protocol, or some other game -  decisions are always going to sound the same because there are only so many possible ways to handle a situation.  So I look at the games themselves and how the decisions play out for any sort of distinction.  The differences between how a decision unfolds in the Mass Effect games and in Dragon Age Inquisition are already substantial.

Nah, it's just easy/lazy writing. Dichotomous decisions like that are always the first thing that comes to mind and they're easy to implement and identify with. Bioware also has a tendency to invalidate the decision by giving you the opportunity to do both, in that case it makes absolutely no sense to not take that decision. They also tend to punish "bad" decisions, though less in DA. Almost every single renegade decision in ME3 wound up with you causing more harm than good.

Instead of the prototypic village vs keep decision they could have done something along the lines of allowing the village to be destroyed so you could draw out your enemy, or follow them to their base, or maybe they're attacking the village for something specific and you swapped it out for something that was sabotaged. It's no longer you in a situation where you HAVE to make a choice (not that it is a choice since you can actually do both) it's you in a situation where a significant tactical advantage may outweigh the cost of a village.

There are lots of ways you could take decisions like this that aren't A (good but not smart) or B (smart but not good) or C (you'd be stupid not to take this one since it's both and totally invalidates A and B anyway).

[smoke and mirrors]

I will try to save both by sending the soldiers back to the keep while i take my party to the town .

[JoltDealer]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...
Not really.  There are only so many paths one can take in a certain situation.  Even when you write the circumstances yourself, there are a fixed number of outcomes to choose from.  Doesn't matter which game you play -  Fallout, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Alpha Protocol, or some other game -  decisions are always going to sound the same because there are only so many possible ways to handle a situation.  So I look at the games themselves and how the decisions play out for any sort of distinction.  The differences between how a decision unfolds in the Mass Effect games and in Dragon Age Inquisition are already substantial.

Nah, it's just easy/lazy writing. Dichotomous decisions like that are always the first thing that comes to mind and they're easy to implement and identify with. Bioware also has a tendency to invalidate the decision by giving you the opportunity to do both, in that case it makes absolutely no sense to not take that decision. They also tend to punish "bad" decisions, though less in DA. Almost every single renegade decision in ME3 wound up with you causing more harm than good.

Instead of the prototypic village vs keep decision they could have done something along the lines of allowing the village to be destroyed so you could draw out your enemy, or follow them to their base, or maybe they're attacking the village for something specific and you swapped it out for something that was sabotaged. It's no longer you in a situation where you HAVE to make a choice (not that it is a choice since you can actually do both) it's you in a situation where a significant tactical advantage may outweigh the cost of a village.

There are lots of ways you could take decisions like this that aren't A (good but not smart) or B (smart but not good) or C (you'd be stupid not to take this one since it's both and totally invalidates A and B anyway).

I'll admit, you raised a great point.  Wasn't expecting that to be honest.  Still who's to say we won't have more complex decisions to make later in the game?  If I recall, the save the village or save the keep decision was shown off because it didn't spoil much and was simple to show the consequences.  Either way, I'm looking forward to what Inquisition has to offer in terms of more complex decisions.  I still stand by the statement that there are far more factors that go into whether or not you're successful in saving the keep or the village than in previous Bioware games.  

[Fetunche]

Save both, I hate being forced to fail.

[Bfler]

Both. If not possible then the village, because the protection of civilians comes first.

[9TailsFox]

Fetunche wrote...

Save both, I hate being forced to fail.

[Hilarystamp]

From what I gathered from the demo, it would depend on what the needs are at the time. I for one will always try to save both if it is in my power to do so, but in a time of war sometimes hard decisions must be made. If I understood correctly when we take a keep we have a choice of what kind we want to make it right? Well if you can build various types of keeps instead of having the same thing all over it may be a need to defend it over the village.
Do we know if we will need to have control of a keep to move on with certain story points? That may change the minds of many.

[Fredward]

Crimson Sound wrote...
I'll admit, you raised a great point.  Wasn't expecting that to be honest.  Still who's to say we won't have more complex decisions to make later in the game?  If I recall, the save the village or save the keep decision was shown off because it didn't spoil much and was simple to show the consequences.  Either way, I'm looking forward to what Inquisition has to offer in terms of more complex decisions.  I still stand by the statement that there are far more factors that go into whether or not you're successful in saving the keep or the village than in previous Bioware games.

Username gets them every time. But yeah I agree. The DA series has been better with decision making than most Bioware games and it's very possible that they used the village vs keep decision simply because it was one of the simpler/less shocking or complicated ones. We'll see how DAI goes.

[cartcurt]

I will also go for village first as they are people depend on me and also maybe offer to join me or give me quests that I need to increase my influence. However, by looking at the rate of keep's strength falling rate where the cave below the keep cleared, it was already at half even we told men to go to keep. It will be very hard to save them both also requires some HP sacrifice.

I assume the other way around ( first keep then village ) is not possible since village strentgh definetely fails shortly.

What I am curious is that, what about the injured men we leave... Who attacks them, the guys who retreat? What if we let them retreat with their boats?

[Angrywolves]

cartcurt wrote...

I will also go for village first as they are people depend on me and also maybe offer to join me or give me quests that I need to increase my influence. However, by looking at the rate of keep's strength falling rate where the cave below the keep cleared, it was already at half even we told men to go to keep. It will be very hard to save them both also requires some HP sacrifice.

I assume the other way around ( first keep then village ) is not possible since village strentgh definetely fails shortly.

What I am curious is that, what about the injured men we leave... Who attacks them, the guys who retreat? What if we let them retreat with their boats?

this.

Hard decisions like these when any of them can hurt will make it hard to know which one is the "right" choice.