231 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

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. 

 

This reminds me of the dialogue option necessary to get the support of Ser Wulf at the Landsmeet. I had no real idea that choosing the option that emphasizes the importance of fighting the blight over concerns of Orlais would be the thing that wins him over; I got it out of pure luck and found out about it later. Then I realized that the game gave me a subtle hint in the conversation I had with him in the Gnawed Noble Tavern. It was a nice touch, I thought, and one of the main reasons why one must be thorough as hell in these games.

[Bob from Accounting]

Which leads to overdramatizing: it's a terrible mistake and they should stay the hell out of it.

 

I did say significant consequences.

[KaiserShep]

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

 

Especially since the game could throw so many little quests at you that give some sort of reward, like the Asunder quest in DA:O. I was like "The frak am I supposed to do with a bloody sack of limbs?", and the Honorable Topsider quest, which yielded a sword, or the Trickster Whim that's released from the Summoning Sciences quest.

[Gnoster]

It seems the sibling episode from DA2 is main focus of the discussion. Based on these pages of discussion I actually see two seperate questions in relation to companions influencing story:

1) If companions influence the story should a hint be given beforehand to the player, so he or she knows a certain companion will have an effect?

2) How big a hint should be given? (this is basically the debate of DA2 going on right now)

 

How about a made up example in DAI regarding the first question:

At the Keep the Inquisitor plans out his next venture out into the world, as he prepares to leave, Dorian comes up and ask to join since he knows some of the people involved in the area. The player now decides to take Dorians advice and brings along him, Vivienne, and Sera.

Completing the quest three consequences happen:

a) Because Dorian accompanied you extra dialogue was available and you were able to resolve a bad situation peacefully and now both factions involved in the quest are open to further exploration, quests etc. If you hadn't brought him along combat was bound to happen, though the quest would still be resolved but with only one faction surviving

b ) Because Vivienne was there 2 side quests are now locked out for the rest of the game even though you had no forwarning of this effect. Had you brought any other companion everything would have been fine and the 2 quests available.

c) Sera dies no matter what choice you pick during the quest. She is scripted to die simply by you bringing her along even though no forwarning was given. Had you brought along any other companion, this would not have happened.

 

So the question is which of these three are acceptable, all three or none? As I read the OP the first is fine, while b and c are not ok, which is my personal opinion as well. Naturally we as humans have different opinions on this, which is ok.

 

The second question is way tougher to answer as that is a lot more subjective whether the hint was clear enough. Here we just have to believe Bioware hits the best fit for all.

[Maraas]

I did say significant consequences.

And I said foreshadowed and hinted at.

[bEVEsthda]

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.

 

Yes, but it's even beyond that. A "bad decision" is simply part of what the character would do, in that situation, with that knowledge available. The character is not an all-knowing God. And a "bad result" is part of the story. This, you live with, and go on.

 

This is why the first playthrough is always the golden and the holy for me. In later, I feel I have too much prior knowledge. The adventure is not pure. And I never reload and tries a different option. The character has to live with the consequences and go on.

[Shadow Storm]

I think the idea is to step away from the normal linear cliche formula games have used for generations. (So they don't upset the casuals) Too many people play games the way they think the company wants them to play rather then the way they themselves want to play. I am guilty of this myself. Often i find myself stopping to check on Youtube to find out the potential outcomes of missions and quests rather then just making my choices based off my own personality decisions.

 

Usually the case is people choose one of two paths being good or bad. People deliberately pick choices they normally wouldn't make themselves purely because they think it makes them good or bad. Not knowing the outcome of a mission and making choices while suffering the consequences is part of an enjoying experience. The fact your choice of companion affects the outcome of a mission adds to the realism and immersion of the game. You need to make your choice based off what you see as the best possible outcome for a mission.

 

For example if you are working with Qunari it would stand to reason you may have a better experience with another Qunari with you. If they are a Tal Vashoth or a mage it would stand to reason to leave them behind as they may have a negative affect. These choices are what enriches the game play experience.

[NRieh]

 

we were going to need noble support, so it made sense that you'd have to do things to get them on your side.

Talking and listening at the tavrn makes sense, no doubt. Ser Wulf is, probably, one of few voices that make sense, but from what I remember he is 'neutralized' by some other vote. Accepting Crows quest? It triggers looong before you even hear the word 'Landsmeet' (very likely before you even get to the ashes and wake Eamon).  It's also hard to suppose, that exploring the cellar and helping blind templars has something to do with 'gaining noble support'.

 

 

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

And why should I? Not everyone plays picking all possible locks and opening all the map, you know. It's not a crime. It's possible to miss good share of those 'exploration' votes. And once you miss them, you can't go back.

 

the game could throw so many little quests at you that give some sort of reward, like the Asunder quest in DA:O. I was like "The frak am I supposed to do with a bloody sack of limbs?", and the Honorable Topsider quest, which yielded a sword,

Items are items, they are optional. exploring  and making sidequests to get more loot makes sense. Exploring to get a vital plot-related variable is different. Especially since nothing hints you that this variable is even there.

[Samahl]

Talking and listening at the tavrn makes sense, no doubt. Ser Wulf is, probably, one of few voices that make sense, but from what I remember he is 'neutralized' by some other vote. Accepting Crows quest? It triggers looong before you even hear the word 'Landsmeet' (very likely before you even get to the ashes and wake Eamon).  It's also hard to suppose, that exploring the cellar and helping blind templars has something to do with 'gaining noble support'.

I'm actually pretty hazy about the specifics of the pre-Landsmeet quests, so I'm not going to bother responding here.
 

And why should I? Not everyone plays picking all possible locks and opening all the map, you know. It's not a crime. It's possible to miss good share of those 'exploration' votes. And once you miss them, you can't go back.

Because you know you'd miss out on possible quests if you neglected to explore?

I mean, what's the point of even putting stuff in an area if the developers don't think the players will go through the area?

[Bob from Accounting]

I think the idea is to step away from the normal linear cliche formula games have used for generations. (So they don't upset the casuals) Too many people play games the way they think the company wants them to play rather then the way they themselves want to play. I am guilty of this myself. Often i find myself stopping to check on Youtube to find out the potential outcomes of missions and quests rather then just making my choices based off my own personality decisions.

 

Usually the case is people choose one of two paths being good or bad. People deliberately pick choices they normally wouldn't make themselves purely because they think it makes them good or bad. Not knowing the outcome of a mission and making choices while suffering the consequences is part of an enjoying experience. The fact your choice of companion affects the outcome of a mission adds to the realism and immersion of the game. You need to make your choice based off what you see as the best possible outcome for a mission.

 

This is simply not true at all.

[Gnoster]

I think the idea is to step away from the normal linear cliche formula games have used for generations. (So they don't upset the casuals) Too many people play games the way they think the company wants them to play rather then the way they themselves want to play. I am guilty of this myself. Often i find myself stopping to check on Youtube to find out the potential outcomes of missions and quests rather then just making my choices based off my own personality decisions.

 

I think you're very right in that generalized speaking a lot of games have become more linear and "this is the way you complete them", like min/max'ing in MMOs sort of. And I can only agree on trying to get away from that, however I do think it is possible to do so without (for lack of a better word) damaging the overall gaming experience for the player.

 

Take the upcoming Divinity Original Sin for example. It focuses heavily on that every single quest in the game can be completed in at least 2 different ways and that no matter what you do, you do not break the game so the quest becomes impossible to complete. A great example is a blood-feud between two people, where one hires you to kill the other. It is a small side quest, but it can be completed in 4 different ways:

- You can do as the questgiver wants you to and kill the target taking the evidence of the kill he wants

- You can talk the target into giving you the evidence thus convicing him the target is dead even though she is not

- You can get the questgiver arrested for conspiring to commit murder

- You can kill the questgiver thus ending the blood-feud

And this is just a single small side-quest in that game. But no matter how you do it, what companions you have along, nothing in the game breaks or is unlocked or locked because of it, thus still giving you the player the full content experience. To me this is the perfect blend of no specific way of playing the game and allowing the full content to be experienced.

[Knight of Dane]

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. 

Yeah that's what you would think, but that's not how psychology works unfortunately. While we might always *loose* them, they will not always die. For most people death is a "worst scenario" so obviously the path that leads to the siblings death will always be the worst option.

 

Add to that, that a dead sibling doesn't add anything later in the game as opposed to the sibling appearing later in all other scenarios, the death is also by content amount the worst option.

 

If Bethany and Carvers deaths added anything to Hawke's character or the story progression then you might call it meaningful, but as it doesn't do that it will always be the inferior choice, seen from most people anyway.

 

Obviously there is a level of opinion on the matter.

[NRieh]

 

I'm actually pretty hazy about the specifics of the pre-Landsmeet quests, so I'm not going to bother responding here.

Well, I'd suggest you looking at the wiki page. It has the full list of possible supporting votes. Very few of them are obvious and most are related to the optional side-quests.

 

 

Because you know you'd miss out on possible quests if you neglected to explore?

Let me try to explain. If I'm sent somewhere to save the Queen, I don't expect to find out that same location is the most significant (not to say 'only')source of 'nobles support'.

 

It's like if you you need pants and some food for dinner, you don't usually look for pants in the grocery, right? I bet you'd be very surprised to realize that it was actually the only source of getting any pants at all. 

[Little Princess Peach]

Panicking now is pretty silly wait until we get the game first ^^

you can't  just take what these internet who ah's have to say at face value

[Samahl]

Let me try to explain. If I'm sent somewhere to save the Queen, I don't expect to find out that same location is the most significant (not to say 'only')source of 'nobles support'.

 

It's like if you you need pants and some food for dinner, you don't usually look for pants in the grocery, right? I bet you'd be very surprised to realize that it was actually the only source of getting any pants at all. 

Fine, but even if you weren't going into those areas with those specific quests in mind, it makes no sense to just plow through without stopping to check your surroundings. You're willfully depriving yourself at that point.

[BloodyTalon]

Sounds like a good thing to me, given people react differently to different things, have skills or contacts that may have something to do with an even or an given matter so the story may unfold differently.

To late for them to change that stuff now anyhow, but hope its true that they are doing this I want side effects of who I roll with for good or for ill, and falls inline with what they said about class and race choices for the inquestior.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

I wouldn't assume this ripple effect forces player to become seer and choose the best possible way, a lot might happen in the actuall game. Anyway, I think if done properly, this has great potential to bring more replayability.

 

Lets say, we have classic princess, tower and a warlock quest

option 1: we bring Cass - she will kill warlock on sight with her templar skills

option 2: we bring Varric - he will pose as a trader and lure the warlock out in the open, while you can sneak your way in and save the princess.

option3: Dorian - hey, it turns out he's our villain's friend and is able to talk him out of silly princess-holding

The outcome is the same - princess is saved.

 

EDITed part:

But if they decide to make this warlock a trader in 3rd option - that would indeed force the player to metagame. Let's all agree - metagaming sucks in RPGs.

if they added more... ripples to this - option 1, if some dialogue checks are passed, lowers the prices in the whole kingdom (because princesses are usually important), option 2 - the warlock gives you info about a treasure guarded by dragon (and it's not present in 3 because loves Dorian and fears for his safety), it would make pretty outcome-balanced (whatever that means) quest, wouldn't it?

 

Then again, I'm an optimist.

[Knight of Dane]

I think metagaming only sucks if you think it sucks but do it anyway. Some players are completely fine doing it and those that don't like it and don't do it aren't really effected then.

[Enigmatick]

Oh boy more people hating divergent content. This community, I swear to god.

[Sekou]

I find party-influencing-story to be fantastic.

My personal example:

I killed Wynne.

Yep, probably the nicest character in DAO and I killed her. I had Morrigan along when I did the Circle stuff. Morrigan started talking, "apostate" was thrown around and next thing I know I'm knifing Wynne. Yikes.

Now, I suppose this may not even had been possible if I'd left Morrigan back at camp. (I've never bothered to consult the wiki on this) In the end, it just encourages replayability, IMO.

[Knight of Dane]

Oh boy more people hating divergent content. This community, I swear to god.

It would help the community more if you could bring some actual points to the debate instead of just commenting on the community itself.

[mikeymoonshine]

Yeah that's what you would think, but that's not how psychology works unfortunately. While we might always *loose* them, they will not always die. For most people death is a "worst scenario" so obviously the path that leads to the siblings death will always be the worst option.

 

Add to that, that a dead sibling doesn't add anything later in the game as opposed to the sibling appearing later in all other scenarios, the death is also by content amount the worst option.

 

If Bethany and Carvers deaths added anything to Hawke's character or the story progression then you might call it meaningful, but as it doesn't do that it will always be the inferior choice, seen from most people anyway.

 

Obviously there is a level of opinion on the matter.

 

I didn't make any comment about how psychology works but I know for a fact there have been players who deliberately took Bethany or Carver into the deep roads to die or just didn't see it as a bad thing when they did. Not everyone is going to view it the same way you do. 

 

Yes you are right, for most people death is the worst scenario but so what?

 

The living sibling doesn't add much to the game afterwards but ok I agree that in an ideal world no choice should lose you content. Ideally, content lost in one way should gain you content in some other way. This isn't an ideal world though so It can't always play out that way but I would be perfectly happy for the negative outcome like a companion death to result in other outcomes and potentially more content. 

 

Well DA2 was rushed which may or may not be an excuse I guess. There probably should have been more significance to the sibling dying and maybe it even leading to something. 

 

Remember that I was primarily responding to your comment that claimed there should be several ways to do something and not a right way and a wrong way. There are in fact three different outcomes as I said. One will be considered as the most wrong by most people but the other two are debatable and lead to the same amount of content later on. 

[Arvaarad]

When I play RPGs, part of the appeal is playing a character separate from me. Their failures are not my failures - in fact, their failures enrich their story.

My very favorite Warden was a complete screwup. Through various decisions and mistakes (including leaving Lothering too early to get Sten and Leliana), he ended the game with only 5 companions, including Dog.

But you know what? That unlucky idiot still managed to kill the Archdemon. He squashed the Harvester and silenced the Mother. That chump, despite all his blunders, saved the city of Amaranthine, and when the citizens applauded him, I was truly proud of his achievements.

So, personally, I prefer having negative consequences to seemingly innocent decisions. That way, when the PC finally stumbles into doing something right, I can cheer even louder.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

silly buttons, ignore please

[xAmilli0n]

Having a character, even a minor character, die because I did or didn't bring a certain character? No.

Having a desireable outcome locked off or even a quest automatically failed entirely because of my companions? Hell no.

 

You know, I really don't see what is so bad about this.  My experience lately is that the threat of an actual, irreversible "bad" outcome actually adds to the game, whether it was clearly foreshadowed or not.  It makes you think about your actions a little harder rather than going through to motion.

 

But I get that everyone experiences and enjoys different parts of games differently.  Niche games can be a little more adventurous than something like DA:I