129 réponses à ce sujet

[Sanunes]

leaguer of one wrote...

The base is not destroyed byt he collectors if you controlit. The only ones that are destoryed are the collectors themselves. The base is still intact in control.

Right, what I am referring to is what I would like to see, not what happened.

Modifié par Sanunes, 24 février 2014 - 02:54 .

[esper]

Ieldra2 wrote...

esper wrote...

Elfman wrote...
I think potentially extreme choices are good, so long as they are grey. By this point, most have their opinions on Templars and Mages down so it would be difficult to have a grey choice there. But to me, the DR was an extreme choice and brilliantly grey for most people.

Well the choice don't need to be grey to all players. In fact I would say that two choice which have the fanbase split between which is white and which is black is a a grey choice.

I think such choices don't exist. At least they're extremely rare. If a choice splits the fanbase that way, that usually means there is merit in both sides, and the moderates of each side will recognize that. Everyone will have a preference, but most will recognize the greyness.

Edit:
The general mage vs. templar problem - as opposed to its instance in Kirkwall - is of that kind. Order against freedom. Everyone has a preference but most people recognize the other side has a point as well. However, creating a choice which allows one principle to rule supreme while not giving the other any consideration at all, that's extreme.

Yes and so what? The choice still have the fanbase split into three groups. Pro-mage, pro-templar and undecided (either due to being so moderate that it is situation to situation or due to not caring).

It doesn't really matter if you have a preference and can see the other sides point. If you flat out disagree with that point (which we do have a sizeable amounts on the forum who does) it is still black and white for those people.

And bioware hasn't created a situation in which one side rule supreme. They have created as situation in which you have to choose.

If you don't care about the larger ideoligies it is just about this one circle in Kirkwall and wherever it is fair that it gets annulment because of what Anders did (or any other reason for the annulment). If you do care about the larger idelogies the choice is made for you.

[leaguer of one]

Sanunes wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

The base is not destroyed by the collectors if you controlit. The only ones that are destoryed are the collectors themselves. The base is still intact in control.

Right, what I am referring to is what I would like to see, not what happened.

...But that would make the choice no different from one another. That's not really a choice.

[BallaZs]

In my opinion, DA:O's ending was almost perfect. You were able to shape the story the way you wanted to.

DA2 is another story.You basically had 2 choices. That's it. What's stopping Hawke to leave Kirkwall and let the Templars and Mages solve their problems themselves?

I loved the ending of ME2. I actually enjoyed the whole story with the characters.

ME3 was kind of a disappointment, although what other options can you think of for solving the Reaper's threat? I just wanted a more epic fight in London and a less rushed Citadel scene. The fact that BioWare made an extended cut is wonderful but it feels like they were throwing a bone to the fans just to chew on it and stop barking.

To summarize, I agree with the OP.

Modifié par BallaZs, 24 février 2014 - 03:07 .

[jtav]

I've been playing DAO a good bit recently, and I actually prefer the extreme choices because the compromise choices tend to be the obviously correct choice with little to no downside, to the point that I deliberately locked myself out of the optimal solution to Redcliffe to spice things up.

My objection to DA2's final choice is mostly that at least one of the boss fights makes absolutely no sense in either path. I actually want more lesser of two evils choices.

[esper]

BallaZs wrote...

In my opinion, DA:O's ending was almost perfect. You were able to shape the story the way you wanted to.

DA2 is another story.You basically had 2 choices. That's it. What's stopping Hawke to leave Kirkwall and let the Templars and Mages solve their problems themselves?

The same thing that stopped my dalish warden from saying 'screw Fereldan I am going to Orlais to find some wardens that actually know how to do this thing'.

In da:o it was because you could not leave Fereldan and Alistair said so. In da2 it was because you could not leave Kirkwall and Merdith told you to choose.

[Barquiel]

iakus wrote...

I support Ieldra's request. Being forced to choose the lesser evil has gotten way out of hand lately.

I suppose they want to create tough choices. For example, if there was an option to give the collector base to Council/Alliance it would a nobrainer for most players -> the only option is to hand it to the evil racist megalomaniac (or destroy it).

And people also complain if there are too many 'perfect' solutions (Redcliffe or Rannoch for example)

[BallaZs]

esper wrote...

BallaZs wrote...

In my opinion, DA:O's ending was almost perfect. You were able to shape the story the way you wanted to.

DA2 is another story.You basically had 2 choices. That's it. What's stopping Hawke to leave Kirkwall and let the Templars and Mages solve their problems themselves?

The same thing that stopped my dalish warden from saying 'screw Fereldan I am going to Orlais to find some wardens that actually know how to do this thing'.

In da:o it was because you could not leave Fereldan and Alistair said so. In da2 it was because you could not leave Kirkwall and Merdith told you to choose.

In DA:O, if you left Ferelden before stopping the Archdemon, the Darkspawn would eventually consume Thedas. Unless they got stopped by the Orlesian Grey Wardens of course.

DA2's story was much less significant. Hawke could anytime say F***k this, it's not my fight, I'm leaving. Especially if he never cared about the Chantry and the Circle. The whole "mage rebellion" was local.

Modifié par BallaZs, 24 février 2014 - 03:14 .

[Volus Warlord]

Less Extreme Plot choices:

"Inquisitor: would you like your eggs over easy or scrambled?"

[esper]

BallaZs wrote...

esper wrote...

BallaZs wrote...

In my opinion, DA:O's ending was almost perfect. You were able to shape the story the way you wanted to.

DA2 is another story.You basically had 2 choices. That's it. What's stopping Hawke to leave Kirkwall and let the Templars and Mages solve their problems themselves?

The same thing that stopped my dalish warden from saying 'screw Fereldan I am going to Orlais to find some wardens that actually know how to do this thing'.

In da:o it was because you could not leave Fereldan and Alistair said so. In da2 it was because you could not leave Kirkwall and Merdith told you to choose.

In DA:O, if you left Ferelden before stopping the Archdemon, the Darkspawn would eventually consume Thedas. Unless they got stopped by the Orlesian Grey Wardens of course.

DA2's story was much less significant. Hawke could anytime say F***k this, it's not my fight, I'm leaving. Especially if he never cared about the Chantry and the Circle. The whole "mage rebellion" was local.

No it would not, it would consume Fereldan. If the warden is dalish, a mage or a dwarf they can easily say F*** it this is not my country, not my people or even f*** this are the people who imprisoned me.


Basically da:o forced you to care to some degree about Fereldan which can be more or less logical. You also can not just ignore Loghain and the sucession of the throne because Loghain won't ignore you. This is despite grey wardens being techinically political neutral.

In da2 you are forced to care of some degree what happens to Kirkwall and thus the circle question will be relevant, because Meridith is the de facto ruler of the city and just like Loghain she sees Hawke as a threat and will not ignore the PC's presence.

[BallaZs]

esper wrote...

BallaZs wrote...

esper wrote...

BallaZs wrote...

In my opinion, DA:O's ending was almost perfect. You were able to shape the story the way you wanted to.

DA2 is another story.You basically had 2 choices. That's it. What's stopping Hawke to leave Kirkwall and let the Templars and Mages solve their problems themselves?

The same thing that stopped my dalish warden from saying 'screw Fereldan I am going to Orlais to find some wardens that actually know how to do this thing'.

In da:o it was because you could not leave Fereldan and Alistair said so. In da2 it was because you could not leave Kirkwall and Merdith told you to choose.

In DA:O, if you left Ferelden before stopping the Archdemon, the Darkspawn would eventually consume Thedas. Unless they got stopped by the Orlesian Grey Wardens of course.

DA2's story was much less significant. Hawke could anytime say F***k this, it's not my fight, I'm leaving. Especially if he never cared about the Chantry and the Circle. The whole "mage rebellion" was local.

No it would not, it would consume Fereldan. If the warden is dalish, a mage or a dwarf they can easily say F*** it this is not my country, not my people or even f*** this are the people who imprisoned me.


Basically da:o forced you to care to some degree about Fereldan which can be more or less logical. You also can not just ignore Loghain and the sucession of the throne because Loghain won't ignore you. This is despite grey wardens being techinically political neutral.

In da2 you are forced to care of some degree what happens to Kirkwall and thus the circle question will be relevant, because Meridith is the de facto ruler of the city and just like Loghain she sees Hawke as a threat and will not ignore the PC's presence.

You are making an excellent point there. Although I still believe that the Blight bears more significance than a mad Knight-Commander. 

[Nefla]

I don't mind drama and extremes if they're well executed. I liked the Roche vs Iorveth choice in TW2. DA2 did characters and clothing well but that's about it.

[DrBlingzle]

Agreed. For the mage situation I want to give mages just some more rights but (sadly) not complete freedom.

[Iakus]

jtav wrote...

Some binaries do make sense. The Anvil is one of my favorite choices in a BW game and they hit you over the head with the sheer evil of the thing and Branka's insanity. But they also hit you over the head with how useful golems are and how dire the dwarven situation is. So the entire time I was going, "How can I? How can I not?" Much preferred to the easy compromise of the Dalish quest. But the middle road options do have to be anticipated, with good reasons for why they aren't viable.

Even that isn't as binary as Save the Anvil/Destroy the Anvil.

Bhelen is much more successful in reigning in Branka's madness than Harrowmont.  And in one playthrough I managed to save the Anvil (killing Carridin) fillowed by convincing Branka to kill herself for what she had done.

Thus the Anvil was preserved, but the dwarves never learned of it.

[Iakus]

Barquiel wrote...

I suppose they want to create tough choices. For example, if there was an option to give the collector base to Council/Alliance it would a nobrainer for most players -> the only option is to hand it to the evil racist megalomaniac (or destroy it).

And people also complain if there are too many 'perfect' solutions (Redcliffe or Rannoch for example)

There's tough choices, and then there's impossible choices where every move seems the wrong one.

This is a game.  The ragequit factor applies to the story as well as the gameplay.

Modifié par iakus, 24 février 2014 - 04:27 .

[Ieldra]

Drblingzle wrote...
Agreed. For the mage situation I want to give mages just some more rights but (sadly) not complete freedom.

Well, I do want to, and my more extreme mages also want it, but it is not a defensible option without additional circumstances. Just like completely curing the genophage, btw.. I would like a game choice to occasionally present options that implement a moderate viewpoint.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 With ME2 and 3, I agree. Both decisions would have been better had they been balanced out a bit more.

With DA2, it's not the [mage or Templar] ending decision I take issue with, but all the mage/Templar matters along the way that lead to it. They spent so much time showing us how terrible both sides are and with very few exceptions along the way that in the end it feels like you're just upholding one bad side or another. But I'm glad there was no ideal "compromise" option, for reasons that have been discussed numerous times already as to why they cheapen these big decisions.

I wouldn't have minded a Refuse option where Hawke abandons both sides to leave Kirkwall, so long as the outcome is deservedly sub-par (Templars annul the Circle and Meredith's tyrannical rule continues until the idol wastes her).


I also think DAO's ending has become overrated, with fans comparing their liking for it next to the above endings. With ME3's ending in particular there's so much whining over how Destroy's geth sacrifice is "contrived" and whatnot to make it less attractive, but DAO employed the exact same tactic by requiring the death of a Grey Warden to slay the Archdemon. Without that, the Dark Ritual's only remaining appeal is if the player find's its intended outcome desirable on its own.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 24 février 2014 - 04:50 .

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I also think DAO's ending has become overrated, with fans comparing their liking for it next to the above endings. With ME3's ending in particular there's so much whining over how Destroy's geth sacrifice is "contrived" and whatnot to make it less attractive, but DAO employed the exact same tactic by requiring the death of a Grey Warden to slay the Archdemon. Without that, the Dark Ritual's only remaining appeal is if the player find's its intended outcome desirable on its own.

The difference being the Grey Wardens know that one of them has to die, and are prepared to accept that (well, Alistair and Loghain are prepared, they actually ask to be the one to make the sacrifice.  I find Loghain's quite touching)

Destroy in ME3 feels like a betrayal.  Full stop.

[Barquiel]

iakus wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

I suppose they want to create tough choices. For example, if there was an option to give the collector base to Council/Alliance it would a nobrainer for most players -> the only option is to hand it to the evil racist megalomaniac (or destroy it).

And people also complain if there are too many 'perfect' solutions (Redcliffe or Rannoch for example)

There's tough choices, and then there's impossible choices where every move seems the wrong one.

This is a game.  The ragequit factor applies to the story as well as the gameplay.

I agree. But to be fair, I rarely had this problem in both Dragon Age games (there are a few exceptions, like the "All that remains" quest). It was worse in Mass Effect.

[leaguer of one]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I also think DAO's ending has become overrated, with fans comparing their liking for it next to the above endings. With ME3's ending in particular there's so much whining over how Destroy's geth sacrifice is "contrived" and whatnot to make it less attractive, but DAO employed the exact same tactic by requiring the death of a Grey Warden to slay the Archdemon. Without that, the Dark Ritual's only remaining appeal is if the player find's its intended outcome desirable on its own.

The difference being the Grey Wardens know that one of them has to die, and are prepared to accept that (well, Alistair and Loghain are prepared, they actually ask to be the one to make the sacrifice.  I find Loghain's quite touching)

Destroy in ME3 feels like a betrayal.  Full stop.

So the fact that you were going to use a weapon that could anythingup to destroy most of the galexy does not regester with you that anything could mean anything as long as it stops the reapers, right? And that anything can mean DEATH FOR ALL SYNTHETIC LIFE!!!!!

[Iakus]

Barquiel wrote...

iakus wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

I suppose they want to create tough choices. For example, if there was an option to give the collector base to Council/Alliance it would a nobrainer for most players -> the only option is to hand it to the evil racist megalomaniac (or destroy it).

And people also complain if there are too many 'perfect' solutions (Redcliffe or Rannoch for example)

There's tough choices, and then there's impossible choices where every move seems the wrong one.

This is a game.  The ragequit factor applies to the story as well as the gameplay.

I agree. But to be fair, I rarely had this problem in both Dragon Age games (there are a few exceptions, like the "All that remains" quest). It was worse in Mass Effect.

This is true, Dragon Age, even Dragon Age 2, has been better about these choices.  But DAO was better at it than DA2.  And DA2 for all it's flaws, was better at it than ME3.

There's a pattern forming here...

@leager of one:  Yes

Modifié par iakus, 24 février 2014 - 05:23 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I also think DAO's ending has become overrated, with fans comparing their liking for it next to the above endings. With ME3's ending in particular there's so much whining over how Destroy's geth sacrifice is "contrived" and whatnot to make it less attractive, but DAO employed the exact same tactic by requiring the death of a Grey Warden to slay the Archdemon. Without that, the Dark Ritual's only remaining appeal is if the player find's its intended outcome desirable on its own.

The difference being the Grey Wardens know that one of them has to die, and are prepared to accept that (well, Alistair and Loghain are prepared, they actually ask to be the one to make the sacrifice.  I find Loghain's quite touching)

Destroy in ME3 feels like a betrayal.  Full stop.

Why have that mechanic at all? Why immortalize the main enemy until you give it a 'Warden as sacrifice?

Oh yeah, Dark Ritual...

[leaguer of one]

iakus wrote...



@leager of one:  Yes

Sure, doing anything does not mean killing syntetics.... How wrong for me to think that a weapon made to kill synthetics from darks space kills synthetics?

[durasteel]

leaguer of one wrote...

I disagree. Why does it have to be choices we like? It would be obvious which choice are picked if there was an agreeable flat out choice. It about questioning the player about the choice on hand and to get them to think about it not them just pick what ever they like.

If you have 2 choices and one has an award and one does not, it's not really a choice.

Because choosing to have your turd sandwich with mustard or mayo is a crappy choice to have to make.

You want a better example? Virmire was well done. Kaiden and Ahsley were both in mortal peril, you couldn't save both, but the choice you made was to save one of them--you didn't choose to kill the other one. Plus, the event was early enough in the game that you were able to get some story benefit from your failure to save everyone.

There should be "an award" to each choice you can make in the game. Whenever a big choice comes up, you should get something out of it, whatever you choose. You should be choosing which thing you like best, because you want both; you should never choose which one sucks least, because you hate them all.

Another perfectly valid choice would be a polarising one, where the choice will be totally easy for you but that other people will disagree with you on. This helps set world states that are unique to your play-through. Chocolate vs. vanilla.

[Pasquale1234]

Excellent post (as always), Ieldra.

In addition to all of the crazy mage - crazy templar insanity exposed during the storyline, I also felt manipulated by the fact that Hawke would either:
1) Be a mage, with a potentially templar brother, or
2) Have a sweet sister mage, currently a resident of the Circle (unless you made a very specific set of choices RE the deep roads expedition).

The writers really did all they could to bring the whole mage-templar thing as close to the player as possible.  I suppose I can understand their reasons for doing so - and really, all fiction manipulates the audience to some degree  - but for some reason, I found myself resenting it in DA2.

For me (pro heavily reformed Circle), the big choice at the end did not feel like "the lesser of two evils" but completely wrong versus completely wrong.  I saw no benefit, only harm, from either option.  I also found the fact that Hawke was set up as hostile to the group Thrask was forming to remove Meredith incredibly frustrating.  I think that path should have been developed to provide another optional ending.  They couldn't do that, though, because they needed to kick off another chain of events for "Asunder", etc. - so, ultimately, they chose to force players through that funnel to get the outcome needed for their ongoing story and world development.  An option to just walk away could have given them the conditions they needed, although it would have deprived the player of the ending boss battles - but couldn't that have been up to the player to choose?

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I also think DAO's ending has become overrated, with fans comparing their liking for it next to the above endings. With ME3's ending in particular there's so much whining over how Destroy's geth sacrifice is "contrived" and whatnot to make it less attractive, but DAO employed the exact same tactic by requiring the death of a Grey Warden to slay the Archdemon. Without that, the Dark Ritual's only remaining appeal is if the player find's its intended outcome desirable on its own.

The difference being the Grey Wardens know that one of them has to die, and are prepared to accept that (well, Alistair and Loghain are prepared, they actually ask to be the one to make the sacrifice.  I find Loghain's quite touching)

Destroy in ME3 feels like a betrayal.  Full stop.

DAO did require a Warden's death to slay the archdemon, but the player was still left with the choice of which Warden it would be - and each of them had strong pros and cons, making it a very rich decision.