170 réponses à ce sujet

[Zu Long]

Genshie wrote...
 Once again another point is that not all games need to hand hold as well. I mean after all we are playing a mature game so I kind of expect there to be somethings not to be easily done.

See, this boggles my mind. Why do you care that easy mode exists, or that some people enjoy playing it? You have hard and nightmare mode for your challenge. Your prefered mode of bleeding for every last scrap of earth is totally viable. Why in the world would it bother you that some entirely different person could enjoy the same game in a different way?

Modifié par Zu Long, 13 janvier 2014 - 07:29 .

[AresKeith]

Zu Long wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Let me turn this around- before you KNEW it was a possiblity to do both, what were you thinking you would do?

I would've sacrificed the village

And why can't your character still do that now? Why wouldn't they, for that matter? Theoretically, your character is approaching the situation with the same information you had. You can metagame and know theres the possiblity of victory out there, and you might even be able to go look up how to do it, but that's your choice.

All Bioware did was add the option for people like myself, who instinctively, without knowing it was possible, would have tried to do both. And what I don't understand is why this is a bad move on Bioware's part, especially if they looked at the situation and said, "you know, even with how we've set things up, you could do both if you were smart enough to realize X or fast enough at accomplishing Z."

And just to be clear, I'm not some kind of clairvoyent on this stuff. My first character sacrificed the wife at Redcliff because I didn't think going to the tower was a good option.

1. What makes you think I wouldn't still sacrifice the village. Now I'm not gonna deny if there is a way to save both I wouldn't go for it because I would. But if I'm unable to save one of them because I was too late then oh well

2. I never metagame or look things up on my first playthrough because I feel that's cheap

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

AresKeith wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Let me turn this around- before you KNEW it was a possiblity to do both, what were you thinking you would do?

I would've sacrificed the village

The Village, obviously.

The lower orders exist to serve, if their deaths will give me more time to prepare then so be it.

[Chrom72]

I don't get the argument here. As far as saving the village goes, if you aren't good at the game but still want to save both the village and keep just play on easy. If you want a challenge but still want to try and save both, play on a higher difficulty.

I like to generally have a good outcome available for most situations. But once in awhile having to make a hard choice with consequences is best for the narrative. I didn't mind that Redcliffe had the mage option, but there should have been more required than just taking a trip to the mage tower and finishing an already mandatory quest to clear the tower. Due to time constraints with the demon it should have been required to have already finished at the tower and having to send a companion or something to get the mages while the Warden stayed to guard Connor. Then if you didn't do both of those things the demon would have killed off Isolde or Teagan, or something damaging like that. Still a possible perfect outcome available, but it takes more work to get than just doing a quest that you already have to do.

Modifié par Chrom72, 13 janvier 2014 - 07:39 .

[Zu Long]

AresKeith wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Let me turn this around- before you KNEW it was a possiblity to do both, what were you thinking you would do?

I would've sacrificed the village

And why can't your character still do that now? Why wouldn't they, for that matter? Theoretically, your character is approaching the situation with the same information you had. You can metagame and know theres the possiblity of victory out there, and you might even be able to go look up how to do it, but that's your choice.

All Bioware did was add the option for people like myself, who instinctively, without knowing it was possible, would have tried to do both. And what I don't understand is why this is a bad move on Bioware's part, especially if they looked at the situation and said, "you know, even with how we've set things up, you could do both if you were smart enough to realize X or fast enough at accomplishing Z."

And just to be clear, I'm not some kind of clairvoyent on this stuff. My first character sacrificed the wife at Redcliff because I didn't think going to the tower was a good option.

1. What makes you think I wouldn't still sacrifice the village. Now I'm not gonna deny if there is a way to save both I wouldn't go for it because I would. But if I'm unable to save one of them because I was too late then oh well

2. I never metagame or look things up on my first playthrough because I feel that's cheap

I'm glad to hear 2, since that's how I play as well. But my point then is why isn't the way Bioware currently has it the best way to do it? You freely admit that your first inclination was not to pick the third option and confirm that your character would react that way based on the information available.

What purpose does removing the third option my character would choose serve, then?

[Zu Long]

Chrom72 wrote...

I don't get the argument here. As far as saving the village goes, if you aren't good at the game but still want to save both the village and keep just play on easy. If you want a challenge but still want to try and save both, play on a higher difficulty.

I like to generally have a good outcome available for most situations. But once in awhile having to make a hard choice with consequences is best for the narrative. I didn't mind that Redcliffe had the mage option, but there should have been more required than just taking a trip to the mage tower and finishing an already mandatory quest to clear the tower. Due to time constraints with the demon it should have been required to have already finished at the tower and having to send a companion or something to get the mages while the Warden stayed to guard Connor. Then if you didn't do both of those things the demon would have killed off Isolde or Teagan, or something damaging like that. Still a possible perfect outcome available, but it takes more work to get than just doing a quest that you already have to do.

...I wouldn't really have a problem with this, actually.

[Lotion Soronarr]

JShepard1992 wrote...
But it would be nice if we can save both the village and the keep. Making character looking like a military tyrant or dictator don't want that to happen.

What?
Since when does not being able to save everyone and having to prioritize equal being a tyrant or a dictator?

Son, are you high?

[Chrom72]

Zu Long wrote...

...I wouldn't really have a problem with this, actually.

That's just one solution I've thought of for it. It just seemed to me that it didn't make much sense to leave a demon-possessed child in a populated castle with nothing but a handful of knights and Bann Teagan to guard it. It was made pretty clear that the Desire Demon was strong, so it seemed strange that if the Warden left for at least a couple days it would just chill out and not try anything. Just to help make it clear for players on their first run (since it wasn't clear you would need the circle ahead of time before taking the castle) maybe someone could have made a comment about getting someone from the circle to help look into the obviously magical issues going on? Hypothetically speaking it would have been unfair to expect a player to have already completed the tower without any hint at all that they may need to have it finished before hand.

I actually thought the Mass Effect suicide mission was done just about perfectly for this sort of situation. It was made very clear that the loyalty missions and ship upgrades would all be extremely important to have done ahead of time, and the rest was just making logical decisions. A perfect solution was available, but it just took some effort and strategy to get. 

[Hadeedak]

Ziegrif wrote...

One way and one way only.

LEEEEEEEEEEEEROY!!!

JEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNKIIINNSSSS!!!!!

I was going to make a semi-serious comment about upgrades and whatnot...

But based on that, the timer, and how stacking tanks and healers has never failed me in demolishing a Dragon Age game, that's my new assumption.

Just run to the point as quickly as possible, then pick the arrows out of you and deal with the raging hordes charging after your face.

[Lotion Soronarr]

David7204 wrote...

This is a game. Not an exam, and not work. Players shouldn't be denied a good story because they aren't the best at video games.

What?
"Good story"? Pray tell, how does being able to save everyone and having a magicla thrid/fourth/xth choice automaticly make the story good?

Obviously, you and I have a vastly different definition of "good story".

To you it appears to be nothing more than wish-fulfillment and getting "the story and resolutions I want", instead of judging them on their own merits.

[Zu Long]

Chrom72 wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

...I wouldn't really have a problem with this, actually.

That's just one solution I've thought of for it. It just seemed to me that it didn't make much sense to leave a demon-possessed child in a populated castle with nothing but a handful of knights and Bann Teagan to guard it. It was made pretty clear that the Desire Demon was strong, so it seemed strange that if the Warden left for at least a couple days it would just chill out and not try anything. Just to help make it clear for players on their first run (since it wasn't clear you would need the circle ahead of time before taking the castle) maybe someone could have made a comment about getting someone from the circle to help look into the obviously magical issues going on? Hypothetically speaking it would have been unfair to expect a player to have already completed the tower without any hint at all that they may need to have it finished before hand.

I actually thought the Mass Effect suicide mission was done just about perfectly for this sort of situation. It was made very clear that the loyalty missions and ship upgrades would all be extremely important to have done ahead of time, and the rest was just making logical decisions. A perfect solution was available, but it just took some effort and strategy to get. 

My own solution was leaving someone solid and magic resistant like Alistair and Shale to ride heard on everyone while I went to the tower. It's one of my pet peaves that RPGs provide you with large parties, force you to choose some of them for your team, and don't make allowances for what the other characters are doing.

As you said the Suicide mission did it really well, and for that matter at the end of DA:O and DA2 they at least have the rest of your party around. I just wish they would do more with that before the end of the game. It would be kind of cool if you could make dispositions for your other characters not in the party based on their strengths and weaknesses. Then they could make those choices impact how well the mission went. I realize that's really complicated, but as long as we're making wishes...

[Lotion Soronarr]

David7204 wrote...

The 'ability of choice'? I welcome the 'ability of choice.' What I don't welcome is a protagonist who isn't strong enough to rise above the issues of the world. That's pretty contrary to what a hero is.

Not being omnipresent, omniscent and omnipotent is hardly an issue.

Not beign at two places at the same time and having finite strength and knowledge is not a problem of "not rising above the issues of the world".

You're talking smack.

[Chrom72]

Zu Long wrote...

My own solution was leaving someone solid and magic resistant like Alistair and Shale to ride heard on everyone while I went to the tower. It's one of my pet peaves that RPGs provide you with large parties, force you to choose some of them for your team, and don't make allowances for what the other characters are doing.

As you said the Suicide mission did it really well, and for that matter at the end of DA:O and DA2 they at least have the rest of your party around. I just wish they would do more with that before the end of the game. It would be kind of cool if you could make dispositions for your other characters not in the party based on their strengths and weaknesses. Then they could make those choices impact how well the mission went. I realize that's really complicated, but as long as we're making wishes...

That would have been a great option too. Having to leave behind Allistair during the Mage Tower quest would have been a good requirement to make the perfect ending a little more difficult. Anything really would have been fine with me so long as there was at least some kind of other requirement/consequence besides doing an already mandatory quest to get the best option. 

I love your idea of having companions outside the party have more options to be involved. It seems to be a bit of a flaw that you could have 6 other characters in Origins not in your party at the moment but 99% of the time they aren't doing anything. You'd think there would at least be a quest or two they could have been used for. If you end up with all of these keeps in Inquistion and they happen to get attacked from time to time (still not sure if those attacks are just from main quests or a random activity too) wouldn't it make sense to be able to send like Varric and or Cassandra to help out or something? I don't know, I guess we shouldn't hold our breath on that.

Modifié par Chrom72, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:43 .

[Dave of Canada]

The suicide mission was terrible. Rubble collapsing on people was fatal or not depending on whether or not you solved their daddy issues, in addition it was harder to fail than to "win"--something that's very anti-climatic considering the whole premise of the game is prepping for this super-dangerous suicide mission and that "everyone can die!".

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:42 .

[superdeathdealer14]

People you don't have to save both, if you want to save the village or the keep and let the other be destroyed then do it, but if you want to save both then do that, you are not obligated to take the third route just because you can. Some of us will save both or the other group doesn't have to, there was a good example in DA:O, you could kill Connor, sacrifice Isolde to save Connor or go to the Circle for help and save everyone, just because you could go and have the Circle help didn't mean you had to just because you knew you could. (albeit choosing the circle does make it easier I suppose)

Modifié par superdeathdealer14, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:49 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

David7204 wrote...
You know, for someone who aspired to be a writer, you've missed an incredibly important and obvious point. I'll ignore your ridiculous and baseless delusions for the time being.

I don't expect DA:I to be heroic because I expect all stories to be heroic. I expect (and more important, am justified to expect) DA:I to be heroic because the of various implicit and explicit promises pushing heroic themes very strongly. Wanting all stories to be heroic has nothing to do with it, is is just a very ridiculous and completely untrue strawman.

Is this the best you can do?

Dragon age is a DARK, Heroic Fantasy.

So no, you are not justified in expecting the rainbow unicorn happy fantasy.

Even moreso that being a hero, and failign to save everyone are not mutually exclusive.
So yes, "power fantasy" fits to a T, because you want complete, total and 100% victory with NOTHING outside of your control.

[Dave of Canada]

superdeathdealer14 wrote...

People you don't have to save both, if you want to save the village or the keep and let the other be destroyed then do it, but if you want to save both then do that, you are not obligated to take the third route just because you because you can. Some of us will save both or the other group doesn't have to, there was a good example in DA:O, you could kill Connor, sacrifice Isolde to save Connor or go to the Circle for help and save everyone, just because you could go and have the Circle help didn't mean you had to just because you knew you could. (albeit choosing the circle does make it easier I suppose)

But the game treats you like an idiot unless you do the third route, there's no actual in-depth consequences because it can't do anything while there's a cake-and-eat-it-too scenario which avoids all the bad things of the decision in the first place. I still side with the werewolves, I still slice Connor's throat and what say you but it has no emotional impact when the game yells at you that you're doing it wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Crestwood / Keep scenario will do the same, having NPCs showing up and saying "COULDN'T THERE HAVE BEEN SOMETHING YOU COULD'VE DONE TO SAVE BOTH? *NUDGE NUDGE*". Mass Effect was atrocious for this.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 janvier 2014 - 08:48 .

[superdeathdealer14]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

David7204 wrote...
You know, for someone who aspired to be a writer, you've missed an incredibly important and obvious point. I'll ignore your ridiculous and baseless delusions for the time being.

I don't expect DA:I to be heroic because I expect all stories to be heroic. I expect (and more important, am justified to expect) DA:I to be heroic because the of various implicit and explicit promises pushing heroic themes very strongly. Wanting all stories to be heroic has nothing to do with it, is is just a very ridiculous and completely untrue strawman.

Is this the best you can do?

Dragon age is a DARK, Heroic Fantasy.

So no, you are not justified in expecting the rainbow unicorn happy fantasy.

Even moreso that being a hero, and failign to save everyone are not mutually exclusive.
So yes, "power fantasy" fits to a T, because you want complete, total and 100% victory with NOTHING outside of your control.

I always wondered why no unicorns popped up at the end of DA:O 

[Chrom72]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The suicide mission was terrible. Rubble collapsing on people was fatal or not depending on whether or not you solved their daddy issues, in addition it was harder to fail than to "win"--something that's very anti-climatic considering the whole premise of the game is prepping for this super-dangerous suicide mission and that "everyone can die!".

Everyone could die.It wasn't easy to have everyone die, but it could still happen. It wasn't meant to be a difficult skill-based test in order to have everyone live. It was meant as a way for someone to put in the extra time to do all the missions and get the upgrades in order to get a good ending. In other words, if you wanted a good ending you had to put in the boring time scanning all those damn planets and work through the extra missions to get it. Did they exaggerate a little? Yeah probably. But if you wanted a "perfect ending" you still had to work for it.

[Dave of Canada]

Chrom72 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The suicide mission was terrible. Rubble collapsing on people was fatal or not depending on whether or not you solved their daddy issues, in addition it was harder to fail than to "win"--something that's very anti-climatic considering the whole premise of the game is prepping for this super-dangerous suicide mission and that "everyone can die!".

Everyone could die.It wasn't easy to have everyone die, but it could still happen. It wasn't meant to be a difficult skill-based test in order to have everyone live. It was meant as a way for someone to put in the extra time to do all the missions and get the upgrades in order to get a good ending. In other words, if you wanted a good ending you had to put in the boring time scanning all those damn planets and work through the extra missions to get it. Did they exaggerate a little? Yeah probably. But if you wanted a "perfect ending" you still had to work for it.

ME2's suicide mission, imo, shouldve been about minimizing deaths. The prepared player wouldve had the least deaths but the suicide mission wouldn't have been anti-climatic and players wouldve had to wage the worth of their companions.

I had also suggested prior that perhaps companions should've died on the Collector Ship and Derelict Reaper until I until I relented, having companions die throughout the game would've hurt import into me3 a lot more.

[Chrom72]

Dave of Canada wrote...

ME2's suicide mission, imo, shouldve been about minimizing deaths. The prepared player wouldve had the least deaths but the suicide mission wouldn't have been anti-climatic and players wouldve had to wage the worth of their companions.

I had also suggested prior that perhaps companions should've died on the Collector Ship and Derelict Reaper until I until I relented, having companions die throughout the game would've hurt import into me3 a lot more.

I'd have been ok with that too. I don't feel the first Mass Effect was hurt by having to choose between Kaidan and Ashley, so I doubt it would have hurt ME2 much if you had to at least lose at one person. I don't really care what ends up constituting the "best ending" (whether it's no one dies or only one dies, etc...) as long as an equivalent amount of work and/or inconvenience goes into achieving it.

[nightcobra]

*peers into thread, sees same old arguments from years past being tossed around*

*prepares to voice his opinion that defends the presence of a third choice through careful managing of resources and preparation...instead he realizes the posters in this topic from both sides of the argument already made up their minds long ago*

*and then he decides to leave the thread, knowing he was spared the madness of its futile bickering*

[Lotion Soronarr]

David7204 wrote...

Now, that being said, I don't expect every story in existence to portray that truth.

What truth?
Your idea of "heroism" isn't the truth.

Zu Long wrote...

See, but my happiness lies in a choice
being presented, where as you prefer choices being limited. Pick a
choice that sucks, regardless of the previous choices you've made, and
how that affects your present situation. The castle or the town. No room
for prior preparations or clever tactics on the player's part, this
story needs ANGST, so force the choice. It's limiting and takes away the
gravity of the choices you make when it's a forgone conclusion that you
can't win.

No, you are the one who wants to limit choices. You want sucess and sucess. No sacrifices necessary. No loss of control.. EVER.

Preparations, clever tactics.. You sometiems have time for preparations. You sometimes have room for clever tactics. But sometimes you don't.
So don't talk about about choices like Vimire and peopel who want them "taking away options". It is you who are castrating the narrative and robbing it of all gravitas, just so you don't have to make a uncomfortable choice.

The idea that there is ALWAYS A perfect solution is cheap, shallow and downright bad writing.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Zu Long wrote...
What purpose does removing the third option my character would choose serve, then?

To have a character that always tries to save everyone (thus he would try option 3) but still fails sometimes?

To get that I'd either have to pretend choice 3 doesn't exist, or deliberately try to sabotage myself OR headcanon that there was a negative consequence.

And I'd rather not do that. Why don't you just pretend everything went well insted?

[CroGamer002]

In proper way, some choices from earlier in game( assuming Demo is set somewhere in middle of game) will make saving both keep and village possible.