231 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Maybe you should try arguing against what I said and not delusional hallucinations? I never imposed any preference on anyone. If someone wants to kill a character at a certain point and the story allows it, that's their business. But the idea that a character is automatically worthless because they aren't going to appear in the future and it thus makes no difference to anyone whether they live or not is incredibly foolish.

 

"The significance of a character's death is not dependant on how often they appear in the future. By that stupid logic, it's okay to kill off everyone at the conclusion of every story because the story is over and we won't see them again anyway".

 

Explain why this is the case.

[Bob from Accounting]

If you're making ridiculous arguments that it doesn't matter to players if a character lives or dies because he's not appearing in the future, that's clearly exactly what you're doing. Denoting the character as 'worthless.'

[Wulfram]

They could have had Varric or somebody give an extra hint about how handy a grey warden would be, I think.

 

Particularly since a lot of people will have a party make up that may make it awkward to fit him in.  Especially rogue Hawke, who if they're planning to take Bethany has to go Warriorless

[AkiKishi]

If you're making ridiculous arguments that it doesn't matter to players if a character lives or dies because he's not appearing in the future, that's clearly exactly what you're doing. Denoting the character as 'worthless.'

 

Worth is subjective. If the character is gone, the character is gone, whether they are alive or dead does not change that fact. 

 

Carver had no worth because he's gone after 5 minutes. Where as you could get very used to having Bethany as your go to mage, making her removal require a re-evalution of tactics.Bethany being dead, a Warden or in the Circle does not change that.

[Bob from Accounting]

Maybe you should. The diction you used was it 'made little change.' It 'made little change' the person is dead or not.

[Mistic]

Hell yeah... A Grey Warden,  a skilled combat mage and a healer. There's not a single evidence he might be useful in Deep Roads, none at all... 

 

Not to talk about Hawke's mother asking not to bring the sibling to the Deep Roads. You know, as if you didn't get the idea that it was very dangerous for him or her.

[KaiserShep]

That just gave you a different story. Not really important since Bethany is gone either way.

 

Except she's not. Of course it makes a bigger difference if you saved both story DLC's for Act 2 or 3, but there's a big difference between the sibling character dying and surviving the end of Act 1 regardless.

 

I think it's main reason why Game of Thrones is so great, people so used to happy, sunshine and rainbows story, we can't hand bad stuff, there was literary one episode there they just show how bad guys win and good become bad.

 

I love (and hate) Game of Thrones and all, but I sincerely hope that BioWare never ever aims to ape the everyone-dies-all-the-time and everything-is-miserable-forever-and-ever dynamic that goes on with it.

[Indoctrination]

I'm here to say that having companions significantly affect the story is a terrible idea, and BioWare would do well the stay well away from such a mechanic.

I'm here to say that I disagree with you, 100%. Decisions should have consequences. Got a bad result from making a bad decision? Play the game again and make a different decision next time.

 

The main engine of replayability in RPGs is doing different things to get different experiences.

[Bob from Accounting]

I'm here to say that I disagree with you, 100%. Decisions should have consequences. Got a bad result from making a bad decision? Play the game again and make a different decision next time.

 

The main engine of replayability in RPGs is doing different things to get different experiences.

 

Did you bother to read the part I wrote about the difference between a meaningful decision and a dice roll?

 

Here's a hint. Calling a flipped coin and getting is wrong is not a 'decision' in any meaningful sense. It's luck.

[KaiserShep]

I have to say, this only makes me even more intrigued in how the story plays out. I'm mostly expecting certain confrontations to end badly on account of certain companions, and maybe being unable to save certain NPC's and such as the result of who you bring or leave behind. Whatever, we'll see when the game is finally here.

[Bob from Accounting]

Let's hope not.

[KaiserShep]

Let's hope not.

That's fine, but they've already done this in the past, so I wouldn't put it passed them to do it again. The fate of one of your companions in DA2, should you choose to bring him/her with you, depended entirely on whether or not you took another companion with you, and you only have one very minor hint that something could go wrong, and that was by having another character (Hawke's mother) plead with you to leave him/her behind.

 

You should play the previous two games to really determine how well (or badly) such a mechanic could work for this franchise.

[Indoctrination]

Did you bother to read the part I wrote about the difference between a meaningful decision and a dice roll?

 

Here's a hint. Calling a flipped coin and getting is wrong is not a 'decision' in any meaningful sense. It's luck.

Yes, dear. We heard you the first 10 times. Everyone who has a different opinion than you MUST be illiterate. This topic must be very frustrating for you.

 

Here's a hint. Talking down to people because they fail to be convinced by your highly non-persuasive argument isn't going to suddenly add substance to your broken argument. Feel free to apologize anytime now.

 

It's no more of a coin toss than having Wynne and Leliana reacting to violating Andraste's ashes in Origins. If you want a game where none of your choices impact anything, start a new game of Mass Effect 3. Thanks.

[9TailsFox]

Did you bother to read the part I wrote about the difference between a meaningful decision and a dice roll?

 

Here's a hint. Calling a flipped coin and getting is wrong is not a 'decision' in any meaningful sense. It's luck.

This your problem you think you flipped coin and get wrong side, when there is no wrong side of coin, both are equal consequences,

[mikeymoonshine]

I disagree. I think good role playing games should have several ways to do something and not something that's the wrong or right way.

 

Well there are several ways. If you don't take your sibling into the deep roads they go to the Gallows, if you do they die unless you take Anders, in that case they become a grey warden. The whole point is that Hawke loses his/her sibling one way or another, whatever you do that happens and so there is no wrong way. 

 

As for Circle/Templar's vs Grey warden, it's debatable which life is better for them. As for the outcome well we have yet to see that, either they will be dead, pulled into some mage v templar conflict or pulled into whatever the hell is happening with the Wardens. 

 

There is no right or wrong way. 

[NRieh]

The first time I played, I didn't bring Anders because I didn't need him - Bethany was my healer. Of course, I didn't take into account his Grey Warden status, which was my fault, but his being a healer doesn't necessarily mean anything.

That's a choice you've made. You were told he's a Warden, it was hard not to know that, right? So, whatever your reasons were, the game provided you with all the information. You've seen what happens to tainted people ( Ser Wesley...I hope I spell it right), you were told that Wardens can possibly do something about it ( Flemmeth' dialogue), yet you move into DR without Anders. 

 

With Landsmeet you can only guess which option is going to win you a vote. ME3 had worst of it, because it literally punished player for not buying ME2 DLCs ( Hanar diplomat mission), and it also has many strange triggers and conditions. 

[Bob from Accounting]

This your problem you think you flipped coin and get wrong side, when there is no wrong side of coin, both are equal consequences,

 

Except that's stupid, because they aren't. Or at least aren't necessarily.

 

If the two sides are a character you like dying, and a character you like not dying, the consequences aren't 'equal' in the slightest.

[KaiserShep]

I'd like to see more variation in these little plot points as well, especially since I am no doubt going to be replaying this game plenty of times like I did with the previous games and the Mass Effect series. Discovering more alternate paths and new outcomes only increases its value for me.

[Maraas]

Imo you're overthinking this. Companions have always had impact on the story in DA, expanding of limiting your options. And even were BioWare to intensify the followers' effect on the storyline in Inquisition, it would simply mean that (sometimes) picking a companion becomes a meaningful choice. And as with any meaningful choice in their games it will at the very least be foreshadowed and hinted at. For all we know, companions may approach you directly and ask to take them with you and explain why you need them there.

 

So in and of itself it's not a bad idea—no more than having significant consequences in general. Your presumption is that BioWare will fail to implement it properly. Which leads to overdramatizing: it's a terrible mistake and they should stay the hell out of it.

[Samahl]

See, the Landsmeet didn't strike me as all that random. We were told from the get-go that it was this big important thing, and that we were going to need noble support, so it made sense that you'd have to do things to get them on your side.

Beyond that, why wouldn't you explore areas thoroughly before you leave them?