170 réponses à ce sujet

[Bail_Darilar]

Something I'm wondering is whether the characters will change their views on you according to outcomes or decisions made. One thing in the 30 minute video was Varric getting annoyed at you sending the troops to the keep rather than helping the village or what have you. I wonder if at the end of the quest he will still judge you badly if you did as such but still went on to save both t he village and keep.

I'm thinking you'll be able to save the village and keep only if you send the soldiers to one or the other. If you leave them to tend their wounded, you will only be able to save one. Especially since the boss encounter in the video was nerfed in order to allow for a shorter presentation.

[azarhal]

Bail_Darilar wrote...

Something I'm wondering is whether the characters will change their views on you according to outcomes or decisions made. One thing in the 30 minute video was Varric getting annoyed at you sending the troops to the keep rather than helping the village or what have you. I wonder if at the end of the quest he will still judge you badly if you did as such but still went on to save both t he village and keep.

Dev already said that "affection/friendship" gain/loss happens only after events are concluded. It's based on the result not the dialog decisions.

[Bail_Darilar]

azarhal wrote...

Bail_Darilar wrote...

Something I'm wondering is whether the characters will change their views on you according to outcomes or decisions made. One thing in the 30 minute video was Varric getting annoyed at you sending the troops to the keep rather than helping the village or what have you. I wonder if at the end of the quest he will still judge you badly if you did as such but still went on to save both t he village and keep.

Dev already said that "affection/friendship" gain/loss happens only after events are concluded. It's based on the result not the dialog decisions.

That's good but it will be interesting whether they will still reference the decisions you make and whether that will affect your dialogue.

[Spectre slayer]

azarhal wrote...

Bail_Darilar wrote...

Something I'm wondering is whether the characters will change their views on you according to outcomes or decisions made. One thing in the 30 minute video was Varric getting annoyed at you sending the troops to the keep rather than helping the village or what have you. I wonder if at the end of the quest he will still judge you badly if you did as such but still went on to save both t he village and keep.

Dev already said that "affection/friendship" gain/loss happens only after events are concluded. It's based on the result not the dialog decisions.

That's only a portion of it, dialogue will have and effect but it won't be oh you get plus or minus this( Laidlaw said they're trying to get away from that) and is more natural. They will react to the thing's you've said, the things you've did during them game and your action's and the consequences of them, also it will have a lasting effect on your relationships and you might reach a point where they will hate you enough to leave for good or do other things, they did say effect your relationship with him so it will come up again.


Anyway sending your troops to the keep gives them time to reinforce and prepare it, saving the town, then go back the route they took and destroy the boats which cuts of their retreat and head back to the keep is what i'm planning on doing.

[Yggdrasil]

In answer to the OP..."Paging Dr. Prima!"

(Hopefully I won't be tried for gameplay heresy.)

[Lotion Soronarr]

Fetunche wrote...

If a group of trained soldiers can't protect a well fortified keep because four people aren't there to hold their hands they aren't worth saving. I don't like forced failure when it makes no sense, like Virmire the squad mates not in my party could've gone for Ashley ( I never save her).

IIRC, the squadmates not in your party were at the Normandy, and it couldn't land.
There was also the question of time.
Resources/manpower only matter if they are in the right place at the right time.

[AmRMa]

To save both the Keep and Crestwood- I think that sending the soldiers to the Keep to give them more time to hold off the Red Templars and then take out the Templars at Crestwood before heading back to the Keep to take out the Templars there. Unfortunately, I think the wounded will have to fend for themselves to save both the Keep and the town.

Modifié par AmRMa, 15 janvier 2014 - 05:12 .

[LinksOcarina]

Hrungr wrote...

Since the enemies don't scale with your level, I imagine you could just tell the soldiers to wait with the wounded then run 'n gun them down if you were high enough level. First at the village (which was closer), then then the keep.

But I also wonder if you would be able to capture the trebuchet up on the hill and turn them on the attackers. That would be nice touch!

That brings up an interesting point. How do resources manage our experience level? Such as, can we upgrade our soldiers equipment to survive longer if necessary? 

[stonemyst]

I would have hoped they make it so you can save your Keep and save the village. It sucked in DAOA that my keep I worked hard on building up my army and walls fell when I should have been able to save the city rally its defenders and take off to save my keep. It looks like devs felt the same way for the new game. I cant wait to play wish they had a PS4 demo

[DarthLaxian]

JShepard1992 wrote...

I watched a youtube interview with Mark Darrah. Mark Darrah says, "It might be possible if you play just the right way to save both. Both your keep and the village." 

We all know from the demo gameplay that sometime in the game before we return to the area. That the Inquisitor hears that the keep is gonna be attack ahead of time but we don't by who until we get there. Then a certain point we are left with a choice and can change our decision while playing theres a consequence though either way. 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.  Like that tough decision moment in Awakening picking the city or the keep.

What do you guys think we have to do in order to save both the village and the keep?

leave some of your team-mates to go there (makes for harder fights on your end, but would be logical, if you splitt of say two members of your team to do two things at once so to speak)....

but it's probably some kind of timer issue (hopefully not - i hate being rushed, it disrupts planing for combat etc.)

greetings LAX

[Fast Jimmy]

I think it might be interesting if the only way to save both the village and the keep is of you to there as soon as you receive word about the attack, meaning you have to leave something else behind, maybe another Keep or leave a companion's loyalty quest uncompleted permanently, etc.

Being able to do everything if you simply complete every side quest and choose the obviously good option is too predictable and, quite frankly, the province of games for so long that it's just unconscious behavior for me. What made me snap to attention in some of Bioware's games is being told "hey, you can't have everything - so what do you really choose when the chips are down?" This isn't a matter of giving grimdark for grimdark's sake, but rather presenting (logical) choices with different benefits and positives that can have different meanings to different characters.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Well said Jimmy.

For example, I want to RP a smart character that will always try to save as many as possible, but still sometimes fails.

According to some posters here, that should be made impossible.

Because, if I play smart I will ALLWAYS succeed. There is no way to loose other than to do so on purpose - and doing so means that I'm either making my character stupid (by deliberately choosing an option that is less likely to work) or incompetent/not really good (by him not giving his all).
Yeah, I could deliberately wait and stall for time so the keep timers expires - but that just make my character a d****.

In other words, playing a benevolent and sensible character and expecting a realistic outcome should be impossible according to you.

[esper]

I don't know about it coming at the expense of other quests. If it does there need to be a reason forr why you couldn't just post pone the side quests untill the end of the attack. Though I am in favour of that the golden path isn't all - just do everything, you have time for that, the demon will wait.

That being said, I am sure the dev said that the timer started as soon as we talked to the soldier, so...

[9TailsFox]

DarthLaxian wrote...

JShepard1992 wrote...

I watched a youtube interview with Mark Darrah. Mark Darrah says, "It might be possible if you play just the right way to save both. Both your keep and the village." 

We all know from the demo gameplay that sometime in the game before we return to the area. That the Inquisitor hears that the keep is gonna be attack ahead of time but we don't by who until we get there. Then a certain point we are left with a choice and can change our decision while playing theres a consequence though either way. 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.  Like that tough decision moment in Awakening picking the city or the keep.

What do you guys think we have to do in order to save both the village and the keep?

leave some of your team-mates to go there (makes for harder fights on your end, but would be logical, if you splitt of say two members of your team to do two things at once so to speak)....

but it's probably some kind of timer issue (hopefully not - i hate being rushed, it disrupts planing for combat etc.)

greetings LAX

This reminds me.
http://global3.memec..._c_2539115.webp

[Fast Jimmy]

In other words, playing a benevolent and sensible character and expecting a realistic outcome should be impossible according to you.

Well, I wouldn't say it is impossible... but playing benevolent and sensible can also mean different things for different people.

For instance, I have many characters from DA:O who view saving the Anvil as the most benevolent action, since it helps ensure both a stronger force against the Blight, as well as the best chance at Orzammar not being overrun and destroyed. Sacrificing souls to do this is quite dark, but to my characters, it was part of the greater good. Because of the way the choice was presented, the idea of there being a clear benevolent choice is a little muddled, which makes it (to me) a much stronger choice to deal with.

I don't know about it coming at the expense of other quests. If it does there need to be a reason forr why you couldn't just post pone the side quests untill the end of the attack. Though I am in favour of that the golden path isn't all - just do everything, you have time for that, the demon will wait.

That being said, I am sure the dev said that the timer started as soon as we talked to the soldier, so...

Well, I'm not a fan of timers in games unless there is something going on that can directly explain it. What I was thinking of was something like ME2, where you are told after your crew was kidnapped that you should go as soon as possible to save them. If you dawdle and do other side quests, including companion loyalty missions, then your crew will be killed. Something somewhat similar to this, where a reason is given for leaving as soon as possible or there could be serious consequences, would be an interesting twist.

Or, conversely, there could be factors about how you pursued things in the area before the invasion happened. We know that we have previously been in and interacted with both the keep and village prior to this attack. What if, for instance, the village is more likely to survive without the PC's help if, say, a group of bandits that had harassed the area earlier was not killed/stopped by the player? Perhaps a villager or their family was killed or threatened by this group, but your Inquisitor is told that the bandit's help may be needed later, so you spare them which, in turn, makes it possible to save the keep with your hero and have the village also be saved... although the PC would has to have gotten their hands "dirty" in an ethical sense by putting the village safety over being heroic and protecting or avenging individual townspeople/families.

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In other words, playing a benevolent and sensible character and expecting a realistic outcome should be impossible according to you.

Well, I wouldn't say it is impossible... but playing benevolent and sensible can also mean different things for different people.

For instance, I have many characters from DA:O who view saving the Anvil as the most benevolent action, since it helps ensure both a stronger force against the Blight, as well as the best chance at Orzammar not being overrun and destroyed. Sacrificing souls to do this is quite dark, but to my characters, it was part of the greater good. Because of the way the choice was presented, the idea of there being a clear benevolent choice is a little muddled, which makes it (to me) a much stronger choice to deal with.

I don't know about it coming at the expense of other quests. If it does there need to be a reason forr why you couldn't just post pone the side quests untill the end of the attack. Though I am in favour of that the golden path isn't all - just do everything, you have time for that, the demon will wait.

That being said, I am sure the dev said that the timer started as soon as we talked to the soldier, so...

Well, I'm not a fan of timers in games unless there is something going on that can directly explain it. What I was thinking of was something like ME2, where you are told after your crew was kidnapped that you should go as soon as possible to save them. If you dawdle and do other side quests, including companion loyalty missions, then your crew will be killed. Something somewhat similar to this, where a reason is given for leaving as soon as possible or there could be serious consequences, would be an interesting twist.

Or, conversely, there could be factors about how you pursued things in the area before the invasion happened. We know that we have previously been in and interacted with both the keep and village prior to this attack. What if, for instance, the village is more likely to survive without the PC's help if, say, a group of bandits that had harassed the area earlier was not killed/stopped by the player? Perhaps a villager or their family was killed or threatened by this group, but your Inquisitor is told that the bandit's help may be needed later, so you spare them which, in turn, makes it possible to save the keep with your hero and have the village also be saved... although the PC would has to have gotten their hands "dirty" in an ethical sense by putting the village safety over being heroic and protecting or avenging individual townspeople/families.

I am split about ME2's suicide mission. The theory behind it is good, but it needs to be made clear that the 'you need to hurry' actually mean  'hurry' since games normally work on another logic than reality and most gamers is conditioned to 'you need to be hurry' meaning. 'you can take as long as you want'.

I think I am for it as long as every quest/side quest that has the 'hurry' condition means you have to hurry and it not just happens once. Basically if time is an important factor I want it to be so more than once, so it not feels like some random condition thrown on this one mission. Basically I want to know what rules the game play by.

As for you other thing. Again I like the theory and I am all for it as long as when the consequence happens you can look back and say 'well in hindsight that made sense' instead of 'well that was a completely random consequence'.

As for the timer, I do think that 'X area can hold up for x amount of time' makes sense in this situation, but I do hope that what we did in the area before helps to hasten/slow down the timer.

[philippe willaume]

for that particular question
it seems that it is related to save both before the keep life expires..

It might be possible to get both done in time, but i think that it might be something along the lines of attacking the trebuchets to slow down the rate at which the keep is damaged and or may be burnig the ship to reduce the number of opponents attacking the village.

Basically increasing the time it takes to destroy the keep and or reducing the time it takes to destroy/defeats the opposition at one or both location.

Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 16 janvier 2014 - 05:52 .

[HunterX6]

I would really like it if you can save both but with timer said to make it harder and more like you really need to hurry or you will fail.

[Medhia Nox]

@Fast Jimmy: I am absolutely pro-sacrificing companion loyalty for world quest concepts (like the village/keep).

Companions are one of the few things in games players genuinely care about... it should be used to greater effect.

[Ryzaki]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

That right there is my issue.

I have no problems with golden endings. Just I HATE when NPCs suddenly get omnicence and start chewing me out for picking a perfectgly logical solution that they were all for.

Wat.

Also the elves if you saved the werewolves should've had weaker assets due to Zath being dead. But honestly to me that wasn't a big deal because the soldiers are pretty worthless anyway (especially the mages god they spent more time killing me than killing the darkspawn).

[philippe willaume]

HunterX6 wrote...

I would really like it if you can save both but with timer said to make it harder and more like you really need to hurry or you will fail.

they told us that it  would be possible to save both if we play just right. 
So it seems logical to assume that this will come to pass unless we do something before or during the quest.

phil