27 réponses à ce sujet

[Tremere]

 

*Let me start by saying that I hope this thread is in the proper category. If not, my apologies in advance.*

 

While in the beginning of another Mass Effect playthrough and after seeing the above video, I'm kind of feeling ill-at-ease about Dragon Age Inquisition. At the 8:40 mark, AngryJoe asks about (end) game decisions that could impact the lives of companions. It was said and it is my sincere hope that they don't go the way of Mass Effect in this regard. I personally do not care for the game mechanic that determines whether companions live or die based on contrived player decisions throughout the game. This is also why I have such a problem with paraphrasing in the dialogue wheel. That they leave/abandon you is one thing, but killing someone off for the sake of drama or because you didn't chose "this or that" sort of ruins the gameplay. From where I sit, such a thing actually ruins the choice/role-playing aspect of the game and could very likely lead to meta-gaming. What's more, if I put time and thought into building my companions up to fight at my side, I don't want some game mechanic tossing away all that work for the sake of in-game drama. If such is the case, why burden the player with leveling up companions at all?

 

If I had to choose, I'd much rather see the fall of a companion depend on the real decisions I make in regards to their equipment, spells/abilities, enemies fought, your response or lack thereof (due to circumstances/situations... ie: rescue missions, timed event), etc. In that way, if they fall, then it will be based on that and nothing else and once they're dead... That's it. Of course, this could lead to multiple save reloads, but that is ultimately up to the player. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that if the game is about choice, then let me and my team live and/or die as a result of them. Not as a result of some game mechanic that imposes faux-realism for the sake of drama.

[Samahl]

My guess is you didn't like it when Wynne stood up for the mages in Broken Circle, or when Leliana attacks you for defiling the ashes? Or when Alistair leaves the party if you don't kill Loghain, or if you take Sten with you to Haven, or if you don't get Zevran to like you enough before the encounter with Taliesin...

[Feybrad]

I would go into the exact opposite Direction. I would HATE it so much if a Companion would die in the Story because, for example, I did not equip him/her with this or that. That would lead to meta-gaming just as well.

 

Basically, what annoys you if the Companions can die in the Story because it would impose Difficulties in the Gameplay? Am I understanding that right? And that you would rather see Companions die in the Story only because of Decisions related to Gameplay? Sorry, but I MUST be understanding you wrong.

 

Dragon Age Games and BioWare RPGs in general are storydriven Games. Story takes precedence over the Gameplay. They are crafted so that the game will not be unwinnable even if you screw up in regards of that, so you don't even have to worry. But if you let gameplay take Precedence over the Story, or let gameplay Decisions impact the Story, then this Story would take several Steps down in Quality (in my opinion at least).

[Gervaise]

I'm a bit puzzled why you don't want it to go the way of Mass Effect.   That you had to decide between 2 companions in the first game wasn't pleasant but it was in keeping with the story and the sort of role Shepherd had.    In ME2 whether your companions lived or died depended partly on what you did or didn't do earlier in the game and partly on decisions made on the fly as the situation demanded.   This last part I felt was one of the best bits of the game - again it was in keeping with the role that the Commander had and tested how well you understood the strengths and weaknesses of your companions.  When I came through at the end and everyone had survived, I really felt I had achieved something because I had got it right and I knew (and subsequently read) that if I had chosen differently that would not have been the case.  

 

So if this is what they mean, then bring it on.    If I have to ensure that I have built up my resources sufficiently and equip my followers with the best possible equipment for them to survive, that seems reasonable enough.    If I have to choose certain followers to perform certain tasks, take up certain positions on a battle field, etc, and my success is based on how well I have got to know their abilities, again that adds to the challenge.  

 

 

What I wouldn't want is for it to go into cinematic mode and some character make a move or do something that I haven't asked them to do, getting themselves killed in the process. (A bit like Bethany in the prologue of DA2)   I agree, that would be just for dramatic effect and to try and force an emotional reaction on me, which I don't need since I get very emotionally involved with the characters anyway.

 

Let's not prejudge on the basis of one conversation.    I think the game is going to be awesome and can't wait to play it.

[Tremere]

My guess is you didn't like it when Wynne stood up for the mages in Broken Circle, or when Leliana attacks you for defiling the ashes? Or when Alistair leaves the party if you don't kill Loghain, or if you take Sten with you to Haven, or if you don't get Zevran to like you enough before the encounter with Taliesin...

Methinks thou doth assume too much.

[Tremere]

I would go into the exact opposite Direction. I would HATE it so much if a Companion would die in the Story because, for example, I did not equip him/her with this or that. That would lead to meta-gaming just as well.

 

Basically, what annoys you if the Companions can die in the Story because it would impose Difficulties in the Gameplay? Am I understanding that right? And that you would rather see Companions die in the Story only because of Decisions related to Gameplay? Sorry, but I MUST be understanding you wrong.

 

Dragon Age Games and BioWare RPGs in general are storydriven Games. Story takes precedence over the Gameplay. They are crafted so that the game will not be unwinnable even if you screw up in regards of that, so you don't even have to worry. But if you let gameplay take Precedence over the Story, or let gameplay Decisions impact the Story, then this Story would take several Steps down in Quality (in my opinion at least).

In regards to your first point, I think just the opposite. In a sense I think it impresses upon the player how important it is to equip and enable your companions properly and in the context of the rest of the group. At the very least, it would allow you the space to not include certain companions in your travels if you don't like them/don't care about them, etc. In that sense it would add realism, because who wastes time on people they don't like or care to be bothered with? Of course, if that person happens to be a necessary evil, you'll be "compelled" to see  them properly equipped in spite of your feelings about them.

 

[Point 2] Game difficulty didn't figure into my reasoning at all. It's all about being invested (or not) in my companions and the fact that neglecting them "could be" costly in a very real sense... So to speak.

 

[Point 3] In my mind it's not an either/or proposition at all. Story and gameplay should go hand in hand. What I'm talking about here is imposing artificial or pre-determined constructs on the player for the sake of storytelling. For example... In Mass Effect 1,

Spoiler

why did it have to be an either/or proposition in regards to Ashley and Kaidan? Why couldn't the player figure out a way to save both... or neither

and then let that decision affect game progression/group dynamic/end game?

[Mr.House]

I disagree. If I do something one of my companions is totally against, as in no compromise. I want them to leave or attack me. If I play a mage who supports mages to the core, I want Viv to be confrontational to the point where she will attack me because I am running her agenda. I want conflict, I don't want companions kissing up to me at all. This also creates more options to roleplay and makes the companions feel more organic. Fenris staying with someone who supported mages/Adners with pro templars was just jarring and stupid.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I like the ME2 way of handling it. If you make sure they are prepared(and I mean mentally and emotionally, not wearing the right armor) and make logical choices, they should all survive. 

[Tremere]

I'm a bit puzzled why you don't want it to go the way of Mass Effect.   That you had to decide between 2 companions in the first game wasn't pleasant but it was in keeping with the story and the sort of role Shepherd had.    In ME2 whether your companions lived or died depended partly on what you did or didn't do earlier in the game and partly on decisions made on the fly as the situation demanded.   This last part I felt was one of the best bits of the game - again it was in keeping with the role that the Commander had and tested how well you understood the strengths and weaknesses of your companions.  When I came through at the end and everyone had survived, I really felt I had achieved something because I had got it right and I knew (and subsequently read) that if I had chosen differently that would not have been the case.  

 

So if this is what they mean, then bring it on.    If I have to ensure that I have built up my resources sufficiently and equip my followers with the best possible equipment for them to survive, that seems reasonable enough.    If I have to choose certain followers to perform certain tasks, take up certain positions on a battle field, etc, and my success is based on how well I have got to know their abilities, again that adds to the challenge.  

 

 

What I wouldn't want is for it to go into cinematic mode and some character make a move or do something that I haven't asked them to do, getting themselves killed in the process. (A bit like Bethany in the prologue of DA2)   I agree, that would be just for dramatic effect and to try and force an emotional reaction on me, which I don't need since I get very emotionally involved with the characters anyway.

 

Let's not prejudge on the basis of one conversation.    I think the game is going to be awesome and can't wait to play it.

While I respectfully disagree with some of your first paragraph, you're actually hitting my points right on the head. Admittedly, I'm not always good at expressing myself, but a lot of what you say here is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

The Bethany reference was "spot on".

[Mr.House]

I like the ME2 way of handling it. If you make sure they are prepared(and I mean mentally and emotionally, not wearing the right armor) and make logical choices, they should all survive. 

The only way I would approve of that is if said choices where not so dam easy, the suicide mission was a joke. It was clear who to send to what. I was left going, huh that's it? after the suicide mission.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The only way I would approve of that is if said choices where not so dam easy, the suicide mission was a joke. It was clear who to send to what. I was left going, huh that's it? after the suicide mission.

Apparently not as clear as we think. A surprisingly high percentage of players didn't get the "everyone lives" achievement their first time. 

[Tremere]

I like the ME2 way of handling it. If you make sure they are prepared(and I mean mentally and emotionally, not wearing the right armor) and make logical choices, they should all survive. 

*nods* This.

[Tremere]

The only way I would approve of that is if said choices where not so dam easy, the suicide mission was a joke. It was clear who to send to what. I was left going, huh that's it? after the suicide mission.

This is true, but still, it required thinking on your part. Also, you have to allow for the fact that what's clear to you, may not be to someone else. Of course, it's also easy to say this in retrospect. *chuckles*

[themikefest]

I like to have it where I can have all companions dead, even though only one will remain, all factions destroyed and still able to get the best ending. Basically the worst playthrough that can be done. I like to experience it all. It adds replay value. Or a playthrough similiar to what I did in Mass Effect like this

[Feybrad]

In regards to your first point, I think just the opposite. In a sense I think it impresses upon the player how important it is to equip and enable your companions properly and in the context of the rest of the group. At the very least, it would allow you the space to not include certain companions in your travels if you don't like them/don't care about them, etc. In that sense it would add realism, because who wastes time on people they don't like or care to be bothered with? Of course, if that person happens to be a necessary evil, you'll be "compelled" to see  them properly equipped in spite of your feelings about them.

 

[Point 2] Game difficulty didn't figure into my reasoning at all. It's all about being invested (or not) in my companions and the fact that neglecting them "could be" costly in a very real sense... So to speak.

 

[Point 3] In my mind it's not an either/or proposition at all. Story and gameplay should go hand in hand. What I'm talking about here is imposing pre-determined constructs on the player for the sake of storytelling. For example... In Mass Effect 1,

Spoiler

why did it have to be an either/or proposition in regards to Ashley and Kaidan? Why couldn't the player figure out a way to save both... or neither

and then let that decision affect game progression/group dynamic/end game?

 

Now I understand you a little better. That is useful for Discussion You are arguing against a certain Seprataion of Story and Gameplay. Let me argue for it.

 

When I play Games like Dragon Age, I play them mostly for the Story and I know others thinking the same Way. I don't want to spend too much Time thinking about how to play the Game, I want to play it and I want it to go relatively smoothly. Especially on modes like "normal" and "easy" - these are the ones I play, I couldn't care less for Hard or Nightmare or such stuff.

Your Model however would make me think about the gameplay, even if or (more accurately) BECAUSE it is connected to the Way the Story progresses (who lives, who dies...). You rightly said, your idea would add an odd sense of "realism", but, as surrealistic as it sounds, I am certain it would throw me out of my Immersion in the Story if I had to think like:

"Okay, I have to take Dorian to his Mentor, but I don't use Dorian that much. Vivienne has all the good Stuff, but I can't leave her since she's my healer. So maybe, if he gets that Hat and that Shoes and she could have that Amulet..." You get the Idea. I'm using the Equipment-Proposition as an Example, but it would be the same Principle with other Aspects of Gameplay, that might factor into the Story.

The more interwoven Story and Gameplay are, the more Effort has to go into Gameplay to reach a "satisfying" End to the Story. But Players with a similar mindset as I have (let's call them "Casual Players" for the sake of brevity) don't want to put much effort into Gameplay Decisions. I want to be able to use my full Warrior Party at the orlesian Ball and have all of them living in the Story afterwards and I want to assault the Fortress with three Mages and have all of them living in the Story afterwards. If it is possible to save everyone in the Story, I want to be able to accomplish this without having to endure immersion-breaking Difficulty (how insignificant it might be!).

That is why I am okay with the Virmire Situation as well as the Suicide Situation. On Virmire it was simply impossible to save both of them - and that was much better than being able to save only one of them because I'm not that good a Gamer. That would have made me feel more bad than thee other Situation (and probably force me to replay until I managed to save both. Which would obviously be tedious). The Suicide Mission on the other Hand had always two or three Options for every required Role. It was acceptable but still, as I took Garrus and Grunt to meet the Endboss, Tali died. I had to play again and break my usual group Structure because I had to leave one of them behind so everyone would live. I wasn't thrilled, but it was a Borderline Example.

[Tremere]

Now I understand you a little better. That is useful for Discussion You are arguing against a certain Seprataion of Story and Gameplay. Let me argue for it.

 

When I play Games like Dragon Age, I play them mostly for the Story and I know others thinking the same Way. I don't want to spend too much Time thinking about how to play the Game, I want to play it and I want it to go relatively smoothly. Especially on modes like "normal" and "easy" - these are the ones I play, I couldn't care less for Hard or Nightmare or such stuff.

Your Model however would make me think about the gameplay, even if or (more accurately) BECAUSE it is connected to the Way the Story progresses (who lives, who dies...). You rightly said, your idea would add an odd sense of "realism", but, as surrealistic as it sounds, I am certain it would throw me out of my Immersion in the Story if I had to think like:

"Okay, I have to take Dorian to his Mentor, but I don't use Dorian that much. Vivienne has all the good Stuff, but I can't leave her since she's my healer. So maybe, if he gets that Hat and that Shoes and she could have that Amulet..." You get the Idea. I'm using the Equipment-Proposition as an Example, but it would be the same Principle with other Aspects of Gameplay, that might factor into the Story.

The more interwoven Story and Gameplay are, the more Effort has to go into Gameplay to reach a "satisfying" End to the Story. But Players with a similar mindset as I have (let's call them "Casual Players" for the sake of brevity) don't want to put much effort into Gameplay Decisions. I want to be able to use my full Warrior Party at the orlesian Ball and have all of them living in the Story afterwards and I want to assault the Fortress with three Mages and have all of them living in the Story afterwards. If it is possible to save everyone in the Story, I want to be able to accomplish this without having to endure immersion-breaking Difficulty (how insignificant it might be!).

That is why I am okay with the Virmire Situation as well as the Suicide Situation. On Virmire it was simply impossible to save both of them - and that was much better than being able to save only one of them because I'm not that good a Gamer. That would have made me feel more bad than thee other Situation (and probably force me to replay until I managed to save both. Which would obviously be tedious). The Suicide Mission on the other Hand had always two or three Options for every required Role. It was acceptable but still, as I took Garrus and Grunt to meet the Endboss, Tali died. I had to play again and break my usual group Structure because I had to leave one of them behind so everyone would live. I wasn't thrilled, but it was a Borderline Example.

Yes... I think we're starting to understand each other. With that said, let me say that I agree. Why shouldn't you be able to take 3 mages into a battle and come out ahead because you prepared them to be "all kinds of awesome"? It would be the same thing if you decided to go solo because you're just that "badass" or that selfish, or that... You get my meaning. The point is, the choice (and thus the outcome) should be yours to determine.

 

Of course, you could also fail, but that's another story.

[Tremere]

I like to have it where I can have all companions dead, even though only one will remain, all factions destroyed and still able to get the best ending. Basically the worst playthrough that can be done. I like to experience it all. It adds replay value. Or a playthrough similiar to what I did in Mass Effect like this

*smh & laughs*

[Han Shot First]

So long as it fits the story and is well-written, I'm cool with the player being put into situations where they can't save every character. 

[PsychoBlonde]

 I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that if the game is about choice, then let me and my team live and/or die as a result of them. Not as a result of some game mechanic that imposes faux-realism for the sake of drama.

 

So you want actual choices instead of arbitrary mechanical choices?  Sounds good to me.  A lot of the problem I've had with recent Bioware games comes down to how "choice" is interpreted to mean "pick between these dialog options that we have force-fed you" instead of actual world interactions like "I selected this gear" or "I spent my points this way" or "I went down this corridor first" or "I talked to this person first".  It makes the world feel really detached and irrelevant when they do this.  Granted, SOME of the things I've heard make it sound like they've been trying to give more interaction of this kind, so I'm hopeful about that.  We shall see.

[Wolfen09]

if they are going to kill off a person, i would like it to be like me1 where it was cut and dry who you save and who dies, but only limiting it to two characters is bull, cause it could turn out to be two of my favorite characters, i would like to be able to choose who i have the choice of saving or killing

[Tremere]

So you want actual choices instead of arbitrary mechanical choices?  Sounds good to me.  A lot of the problem I've had with recent Bioware games comes down to how "choice" is interpreted to mean "pick between these dialog options that we have force-fed you" instead of actual world interactions like "I selected this gear" or "I spent my points this way" or "I went down this corridor first" or "I talked to this person first".  It makes the world feel really detached and irrelevant when they do this.  Granted, SOME of the things I've heard make it sound like they've been trying to give more interaction of this kind, so I'm hopeful about that.  We shall see.

Exactly, this. Yet, in spite of all I've said, I can imagine this being a monumental task for game designers. Having a game go through various iterations of player choice would make for "a lot" of programming variables. Likewise, this would include voice actors having more lines, etc, etc. So unless we as gamers are willing to foot the bill for this, it's probably not going to happen to the degree that we'd like. I'm not a game designer, but I've dabbled enough in programming to know that things are never as simple as gamers would like them to be. Still, having my choices be choices is what I will always look for in a game that promotes them.

[PsychoBlonde]

Exactly, this. Yet, in spite of all I've said, I can imagine this being a monumental task for game designers. Having a game go through various iterations of player choice would make for "a lot" of programming variables. Likewise, this would include voice actors having more lines, etc, etc. So unless we as gamers are willing to foot the bill for this, it's probably not going to happen to the degree that we'd like. I'm not a game designer, but I've dabbled enough in programming to know that things are never as simple as gamers would like them to be. Still, having my choices be choices is what I will always look for in a game that promotes them.

 

Yes and no.  I've been harping on this for some time (and some of what I've seen indicates that they've been increasingly going this direction, but I'm not sure yet).  They talk a lot about "meaningful" choices in these games--but people keep interpreting that to mean "choices that radically affect the state of the entire world", which you flat out CANNOT HAVE in a video game that's going to have a sequel.  They can't make two completely different versions of DA2 depending on whether or not you did the Dark Ritual.  It's just not doable.  So what they keep ending up with is a situation where they have these choices that SOUND like they're big, meaningful " change the world state" choices . . . but nothing ever comes of them.  And a lot of people get mad, and rightfully so because the game itself talks up these choices as being a Big Deal so the expectation and the reality just don't match.

 

What I would much rather they do is focus on meaningful choices viz the idea that the choices change your GAMEPLAY EXPERIENCE.  This is not *simple* to do, oh no,  but unlike making two completely different versions of a sequel this way is DOABLE.  The way you do this is, you put in a fairly good-sized number of flags (how many, of course, depending on the time and other resources you have available) so that, say, if you come to a town where three factions are antagonizing each other, if you talk to person A of faction A first, when it comes time to talk to Person B of Faction B, you get options like:

 

1.) You tell a good story, but Person A told me X.  

2.) Person B maybe even decides that you're in league with person A and refuses to talk to you any more!  

3.) Person B explains their side of the story.

4.) you can go back to person A after the conversation and confront them about their story.

5.) you can try to get A to ally with B against C or some other combination thereof based on who you talk to in what order and what you tell them about who you've spoken to and what you believe about all the stories going around.

 

Eventually you'll arrive at some sort of end state where these three groups have a final confrontation.  The final confrontation is always pretty much the same (with some minor dialog/event differences) but how you get there is different (often radically different).  Your contribution feels meaningful not because it completely changes the outcome--there's going to be a final confrontation whether you like it or not--but because you have had a different experience.  Your interactions were different.  And they were different in an organic way that wasn't simply "pick faction A, B, or C from the dialog list".

 

You don't even necessarily be able to affect who "wins" the confrontation as long as you can have some ancillary effects like "Persons C, D, and F may or may not survive the confrontation (or may even get killed prior to it) depending on what you do".  Or maybe you can even affect how the confrontation goes down--if you eliminate two of the sides beforehand it's just a final meeting where you tell side 3 "okay, that's all cleared up".  It doesn't change the world-state going forward to the point where the devs have had to write "this is what everything past this point looks like if the player picked Side A" versus "this is what everything past this point looks like if the player picked Side B".  You don't have a situation where "it doesn't matter whether the player picked Side A, B, or C because nothing that happens after this is affected by it".  You have instead "this happens and now you can move on to the next section of the story BUT you can either still come back and talk to some people who wouldn't have been here otherwise (and a few of them might show up later in other scenes) or not, your choice".

It's been my experience that the last way is the only way you can REALLY get "meaningful" choices in a video game.  Designing 2 or 3 separate games is not going to happen.  Defaulting to the middle option sucks.  The last option may be a lot of work but if you care about "meaningful" choices it's worlds away better than "impossible" or "sucks".

 

It can even help with other matters because doing your game this way means the PC doesn't feel like The Only Person In The Universe Who Ever Does Anything.  Yeah, you made a bunch of choices that affect the end result but they don't DETERMINE it fully.  You aren't the only mover and shaker in the world--people do stuff on their own.  But, likewise, you feel like A mover and shaker because you at least affected SOMETHING.

[PsychoBlonde]

For an example of what I'm talking about, look at the end of Act II in DA2.  Then consider that whole series of events with these additions:

 

1.) if you made nice with Seamus between when you rescued him early in the game and when the Qunari representatives vanish, you get a mid-act message from him saying "Hey, I'm going over to the Qunari but this Mother Petrice chick has showed up and wants me to go talk to my father first, should I go?"

2.) You THEN get the "go save the Qunari representatives" quest from the Viscount.

3.) You now have to make a decision . . . do you go find Seamus first or do you try to locate the Qunari representative?

4.) If you go find Seamus you can tell him "Mother Petrice is a Qunari-hating zealot do NOT have anything to do with her" . . . but by the time you catch up with the Qunari representative, it's too late and they all get killed.  But Seamus doesn't leave the Qunari and doesn't get killed in the Chantry.  And neither does Mother Petrice.

 

So now you have a branch.  On the "save Seamus" side, when you show up at the throne room to confront the Arishok, possibly Seamus is there and so is Mother Petrice.  The Qunari reps are possibly dead or still alive.  So, now you can have a TON of different options here:

 

1.) Depending on how you've handled things thus far, the Arishok still kills the Viscount and does the head-throwing bit.  Live Seamus freaks out and the Arishok kills him, too.  Live Mother Petrice uses this as an opportunity to rally her followers against the Arishok and the scene turns into a massacre where you pretty much have to kill all the Qunari.  Mother Petrice also gets killed during the fighting.

2.) Seamus convinces the Arishok NOT to kill the Viscount because of how you've handled things.  Mother Petrice rallies her followers against Seamus the Qunari-lover.  THEY kill the Viscount and Seamus.  YOU kill Mother Petrice and then you have a chance to deal with the Arishok viz Izzy and the Tome of Koslun.

3.) As 2 but instead of killing Mother Petrice you side with her and kill the Arishok et al.  During the battle she gets hacked down.

4.) If you save the Qunari rep instead of Seamus, Seamus' death plays out pretty much as it did in DA2, but you can optionally save Mother Petrice from the Sten that shows up to shoot her.   If you do this, she rallies her followers against the Qunari and instead of the scene with Aveline you have a scene where Petrice's followers assault the Qunari compound and get butchered, leading into the throne room confrontation.  You can minimize duplication of effort here by having the assault take place offscreen and having the Aveline scene go forward, it's just that she's complaining about the death of Petrice and followers instead of miscellaneous unnamed elves of no previous importance.

5.) As 4 but you let Mother Petrice get killed.  Throne room scene plays out as in DA2.  If you duel the Arishok or let him have Izzy, the Qunari reps thank you for saving their lives and give you some kudos for not being a dipshit.

 

That's a LOT of permutations but the result is the same: Qunari out of the city, Viscount removed from power.  But boy wouldn't that have felt like you had a big impact on the result vs. "sure, take Izzy" or "nah, Izzy belongs to me".  They could have even added a further level of permutation where you actually have a chance to get the book from Izzy instead of her running off with it, so if you handle the Qunari situation well and save the Qunari reps, you can hand over the book to the Arishok at the Aveline scene and there's no throne room scene AT ALL.  This isn't necessarily the "best option" because Seamus has to die . . . but it's the option with the smallest degree of "people getting butchered".  Or do a second permutation where if Seamus is alive and you hand the book over during the Aveline scene, Seamus convinces the Arishok to forego getting Izzy and sends YOU to go "take care of" Mother Petrice.  (if you refuse this option you get to duel the Arishok.)  So, in those two options Viscount Dumas survives . . . and promptly retires, either because his son is dead or because his son has gone over to the Qunari.

 

The main result of all those permutations--Qunari out of the city, Viscount removed from power--is EXACTLY THE SAME.  But you had a *significant* effect on the life and death of a BUNCH of people that wasn't "hand over Izzy and she escapes in the epilogue" vs. "don't hand over Izzy and kill the Arishok." 

[KaiserShep]

I disagree. If I do something one of my companions is totally against, as in no compromise. I want them to leave or attack me. If I play a mage who supports mages to the core, I want Viv to be confrontational to the point where she will attack me because I am running her agenda. I want conflict, I don't want companions kissing up to me at all. This also creates more options to roleplay and makes the companions feel more organic. Fenris staying with someone who supported mages/Adners with pro templars was just jarring and stupid.

 

This would be more convincing in Fenris' case if his romance was class-gated so that a mage could not even get his affection. In any case, Anders is the one that I'd find more jarring, because up until that point, his being addled by the spirit parasite should have made him dead set to only one alignment. It's fairly easy to fail to convince Fenris not to turn on you. Even if his friendship is really high, he could potentially leave your party unless you do everything for him.

[PsychoBlonde]

Heck you could even carry all of that forward by saying that if you picked one of the options where you saved Seamus but Mother Petrice got killed, Grand Cleric Elithina is HORRIFIED by your involvement (and all the apostates you either are or hang out with) and sides with Meredith in cracking down on mages, making Anders actions look less like a madman and more like a reasonable reaction to the crackdown, so your choice to either assist him or not, leave him alive or not actually is MEANINGFUL.