208 réponses à ce sujet

[9TailsFox]

You have option not to save both.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Oh I was still wondering though how you felt about the third option between the werewolves and the dalish elves.

Neither of the other two options is at all appealing. If the third option didn't exist there, I probably wouldn't like the whole Dalish quest much.

I'd never really thought of that as a third option. Perhaps because the other two were bad. Of they'd been better, perhaps I wouldn't have liked it.

[In Exile]

In fact, yes, killing Connor is actually his idea. So when he later complains about it, it just drives home what a bad King he would make.

And as In Exile knows, I rarely feel that my character needs to say a specific thing. I do often thing my character needs to avoid saying a specific thing, though.

 

It drives hope that he's a hypocrate, but he has that in common with Anora, so it doesn't really disqualify him. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Neither of the other two options is at all appealing. If the third option didn't exist there, I probably wouldn't like the whole Dalish quest much.
I'd never really thought of that as a third option. Perhaps because the other two were bad. Of they'd been better, perhaps I wouldn't have liked it.

Well, if you look at the immediate threat, The Blight, having a team of werewolves could be a huge bonus. Archers are archers... but no one else would be bringing super strong semi-abominations to the fight.

But in terms of just killing the werewolves, getting the Dalish as an ally but not lifting the curse - yeah, that's a bad option. In addition, the only way to get this option is if you refuse to even listen to The Lady the first time you meet, before you even seek out Zathrian again as The Lady requests to come to a peaceful resolution. Arguably more of an "evil" option than siding with the werewolves.

[Fast Jimmy]

Oh god, I hate the third option. Choices shouldn't be easy to make. This is what I loved about the imperial Agent class story, there were no third options. Every option was distinct and often in direct conflict with the others.
 
Hopefully these third options are few and far between.

I think there should be benefits to every option. For instance, in the above discussion about the Dalish/Werewolf decision, you have the option of curing the werewolves (presented as a Third Option), but at the cost of Zathrian dying. Ultimately. Zathrian being dead has no cost to the player, as who your Ally is in the end game has zero effect on the actual game, outside of a summon-esque set of reinforcements.

If, instead, plot items were tied to these decisions, it could be more interesting. For instance, Zathrian is an experienced and powerful Keeper. To have Lanayla replace him in battle may have led to a cutscene where Zathrian was able to succeed, while she wound up failing, costing an NPC or companion their life, like the wrong choice in the Suicide Mission of ME2 did. That way, you can cure the werewolves and get the rainbow and sunshine outcome... but ultimately at the cost of weaker assets (in the actual plot) for the Final Battle which actually had a consequence outside of "mooks are only marginally harder to kill."

[Realmzmaster]

Third options can be either good or bad. A particularly thorny one (because it has lead to a lot of angst) is the DR option in DAO. IMHO, it would have been far better to have only the option of sacrifice  either the warden or Alistair/Loghain. Instead the DR option is offered to give the sunshine and rainbow ending tinged with a side of grey.

 

I would like to see more hard choices. Giving the third option to save both defeats somewhat the purpose of a hard choice. IMHO.

[AlanC9]

But in terms of just killing the werewolves, getting the Dalish as an ally but not lifting the curse - yeah, that's a bad option. In addition, the only way to get this option is if you refuse to even listen to The Lady the first time you meet, before you even seek out Zathrian again as The Lady requests to come to a peaceful resolution. Arguably more of an "evil" option than siding with the werewolves.

So it's not just evil, it's stupid evil.

[In Exile]

I think there should be benefits to every option. For instance, in the above discussion about the Dalish/Werewolf decision, you have the option of curing the werewolves (presented as a Third Option), but at the cost of Zathrian dying. Ultimately. Zathrian being dead has no cost to the player, as who your Ally is in the end game has zero effect on the actual game, outside of a summon-esque set of reinforcements.

If, instead, plot items were tied to these decisions, it could be more interesting. For instance, Zathrian is an experienced and powerful Keeper. To have Lanayla replace him in battle may have led to a cutscene where Zathrian was able to succeed, while she wound up failing, costing an NPC or companion their life, like the wrong choice in the Suicide Mission of ME2 did. That way, you can cure the werewolves and get the rainbow and sunshine outcome... but ultimately at the cost of weaker assets (in the actual plot) for the Final Battle which actually had a consequence outside of "mooks are only marginally harder to kill."

I think anytime a choice has some convoluted path to "and a companion dies!" the choice basically failed to be compelling on its own merits. Aside from being a gotcha that usually revolves around cutscene magic - the suicide mission of the fire team leader randomly dying from bullets NPCs normally survive - there's no real way to actually predict it as a consequence.

Putting aside the third option, I thought the Redcliffe Connor choic or the Harrowmont vs Bhelen (and even the anvil of the void) choices were all good because they asked you about your values.

The Zathrian choice falls flat because theres literally nothing reedeming about what Zathrian is doing. If the werewolves were the original group who raped his kids, I think you'd find a lot less sympathy for them. As it is they're just victims.

[Maraas]

There is three options from the get-go, though. You can order your troops to leave their wounded and protect Crestwood, you can order them to defend the keep (leaving the wounded behind, naturally), or you can let them rest and take care of the wounded. Then you set out to save Crestwood or the keep or both, if you're able. Or neither, if you're not—I seem to remember Laidlaw (or was that Darrah?) said something along these lines.

 

The nice thing is, you don't decide everything just by choosing the dialogue option. You decide how to dispose your available reinforcements, the rest is up to you in the game proper, not in dialogue. It's also great that things are actually happening, and not just switching states depending on the response you've picked up in a conversation.

[Googleness]

oh yes....

burn the peasants or burn the soldiers for heresy.

 

can we burn both?

[AlanC9]

Third options can be either good or bad. A particularly thorny one (because it has lead to a lot of angst) is the DR option in DAO. IMHO, it would have been far better to have only the option of sacrifice  either the warden or Alistair/Loghain. Instead the DR option is offered to give the sunshine and rainbow ending tinged with a side of grey.
 
I would like to see more hard choices. Giving the third option to save both defeats somewhat the purpose of a hard choice. IMHO.

I don't quite follow your point about the DR. What's wrong with angst? And imagine the howling from players with Wardens romancing Alistair if there wasn't any DR.

One of the things I noticed during the endless ME arguments is that there's a division among fans about hard choices. (Some examples are on the previous page of the thread.) For some of us, the whole point of an RPG is to escape from a world where you have to make hard choices. Meanwhile, I want to escape into making hard choices, since in my RL I've set things up so I don't ever need to make any.

[AlanC9]

The Zathrian choice falls flat because theres literally nothing reedeming about what Zathrian is doing. If the werewolves were the original group who raped his kids, I think you'd find a lot less sympathy for them. As it is they're just victims.

Though I suppose the choice of werewolves over the elves can still work, for a Warden who values having a powerful army over everything else. Never actually went that route myself, though.

[Realmzmaster]

I don't quite follow your point about the DR. What's wrong with angst? And imagine the howling from players with Wardens romancing Alistair if there wasn't any DR.

One of the things I noticed during the endless ME arguments is that there's a division among fans about hard choices. (Some examples are on the previous page of the thread.) For some of us, the whole point of an RPG is to escape from a world where you have to make hard choices. Meanwhile, I want to escape into making hard choices, since in my RL I've set things up so I don't ever need to make any.

 

I talking about the angst that followed about OGB making or not making a significant appearance in future games based on the choices made. The only way for it to happen is that Bioware makes the DR the default canon which invalidates the other choices. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I think anytime a choice has some convoluted path to "and a companion dies!" the choice basically failed to be compelling on its own merits. Aside from being a gotcha that usually revolves around cutscene magic - the suicide mission of the fire team leader randomly dying from bullets NPCs normally survive - there's no real way to actually predict it as a consequence.
Putting aside the third option, I thought the Redcliffe Connor choic or the Harrowmont vs Bhelen (and even the anvil of the void) choices were all good because they asked you about your values.
The Zathrian choice falls flat because theres literally nothing reedeming about what Zathrian is doing. If the werewolves were the original group who raped his kids, I think you'd find a lot less sympathy for them. As it is they're just victims.

I don't disagree, but I think one area where DA:O didn't challenge the player was asking "is this best not just for the immediate parties involved, but for the world in terms of stopping the Blight?" If Zathrian had pleaded for his life, making the appeal that you would need his power to take down the Darkspawn, I feel like that would have circumvented a little bit of the "gotcha."

And I use "and a companion dies!" because it is the easiest consequence to refer to when making an example, particularly in a Bioware game, where attachment to the companions is a common assumption. If the game was structured properly, this could be a loss of gold, reputation, abilities or equipment and be just as devastating but Bioware games are designed for "tha feelz" towards the companion as a focal point, so that is why I mention it.

[Fast Jimmy]

I talking about the angst that followed about OGB making or not making a significant appearance in future games based on the choices made. The only way for it to happen is that Bioware makes the DR the default canon which invalidates the other choices.

Or makes it so that the OGB is a totally harmless, inconsequential character.

Which is the problem with Save Imports - it limits what choices you can make, which in turn risks making your choices uninteresting.



But I won't hijack another thread to talk about Save Imports again... I promise.

[AlanC9]

I talking about the angst that followed about OGB making or not making a significant appearance in future games based on the choices made. The only way for it to happen is that Bioware makes the DR the default canon which invalidates the other choices.

Oh, now I get it. I agree, except that I wouldn't describe a non-canon choice as "invalidated" myself.

[In Exile]

I don't disagree, but I think one area where DA:O didn't challenge the player was asking "is this best not just for the immediate parties involved, but for the world in terms of stopping the Blight?" If Zathrian had pleaded for his life, making the appeal that you would need his power to take down the Darkspawn, I feel like that would have circumvented a little bit of the "gotcha."

And I use "and a companion dies!" because it is the easiest consequence to refer to when making an example, particularly in a Bioware game, where attachment to the companions is a common assumption. If the game was structured properly, this could be a loss of gold, reputation, abilities or equipment and be just as devastating but Bioware games are designed for "tha feelz" towards the companion as a focal point, so that is why I mention it.

 

I agree with you completely that Bioware has failed - in DA:O specifically, but also generally in its other properties - to actually have a player ask themselves the pragmatic question of whether a particular choice is actually going to help to achieve their mission. The invincibility of the protagonist plays into that a great deal, I think. Something like the Anvil of the Void - while clearly horrible in how it creates golems - is clearly the lesser evil in light of the Blight. 

 

Going to the companions, I absolutely understand the idea behind mentioning companions - basically hitting players where it hurts - and I'm not against asking players to sacrifice their companions. I just think it has to make sense, at least superficially (like the Virmire choice). 

[In Exile]

Though I suppose the choice of werewolves over the elves can still work, for a Warden who values having a powerful army over everything else. Never actually went that route myself, though.

 

Or hates the elves. Part of the problem with "powerful army" though is that werewolves are really easy for you to kill. If it was an absolutely brutal, exhausting fight to take down even one werewolf, so actually having gameplay really drive home the point about strength (e.g. like if they were deathclaws from NV), then I think that logic would resonate with players more. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree with you completely that Bioware has failed - in DA:O specifically, but also generally in its other properties - to actually have a player ask themselves the pragmatic question of whether a particular choice is actually going to help to achieve their mission. The invincibility of the protagonist plays into that a great deal, I think. Something like the Anvil of the Void - while clearly horrible in how it creates golems - is clearly the lesser evil in light of the Blight. 
 
Going to the companions, I absolutely understand the idea behind mentioning companions - basically hitting players where it hurts - and I'm not against asking players to sacrifice their companions. I just think it has to make sense, at least superficially (like the Virmire choice).

Hopefully this will be something changed in Inquisition. There has been dev talk that the Inquisitor will be deciding on how the Inquisition will be run and implying hard decisions will exist, so we shall see. I've deliberately kept myself away from as much story content as possible, but what I have heard rings echoes of ME3 and its pre-release talk about how Shephard would control the war effort against the Reapers, but that resulted in a much different final experience than what I, personally, was expecting.

So we shall see.

[AlanC9]

I don't disagree, but I think one area where DA:O didn't challenge the player was asking "is this best not just for the immediate parties involved, but for the world in terms of stopping the Blight?" If Zathrian had pleaded for his life, making the appeal that you would need his power to take down the Darkspawn, I feel like that would have circumvented a little bit of the "gotcha."

I suppose Bio doesn't want players to find out that something they did twenty hours ago has spoiled their endgame, so they're not willing to really put such choices in. I did once have an ME3 run where Shepard only survived Destroy because I had him sabotage the genophage cure, but that outcome requires a particular ME2 import and no DLC.

[Schreckstoff]

There is three options from the get-go, though. You can order your troops to leave their wounded and protect Crestwood, you can order them to defend the keep (leaving the wounded behind, naturally), or you can let them rest and take care of the wounded. Then you set out to save Crestwood or the keep or both, if you're able. Or neither, if you're not—I seem to remember Laidlaw (or was that Darrah?) said something along these lines.

 

The nice thing is, you don't decide everything just by choosing the dialogue option. You decide how to dispose your available reinforcements, the rest is up to you in the game proper, not in dialogue. It's also great that things are actually happening, and not just switching states depending on the response you've picked up in a conversation.

After watching that demo I've been debating that choice. I've come to the conclusion  of sending the soldiers to Crestwood and defend the Keep alone leavong the wounded behind. Now it'd be interesting of Crestwood intact next to the Keep could outweigh the men I've lost.

[Fast Jimmy]

I suppose Bio doesn't want players to find out that something they did twenty hours ago has spoiled their endgame, so they're not willing to really put such choices in. I did once have an ME3 run where Shepard only survived Destroy because I had him sabotage the genophage cure, but that outcome requires a particular ME2 import and no DLC.

...or MP.

And, again, if the game waved some flags around, saying "hey, you may not like this choice, but it's best for your chances long-term," then I think this is fine. Branka did this pretty well in DA:O, even if it was a red herring in terms of impact.

[In Exile]

...or MP.

And, again, if the game waved some flags around, saying "hey, you may not like this choice, but it's best for your chances long-term," then I think this is fine. Branka did this pretty well in DA:O, even if it was a red herring in terms of impact.

 

There has to be a logical link, though. If it was something like, some of the companions you left behind croak, I don't think that would be too harsh, but it would be unpredictable. 

[HuldraDancer]

Neither of the other two options is at all appealing. If the third option didn't exist there, I probably wouldn't like the whole Dalish quest much.

I'd never really thought of that as a third option. Perhaps because the other two were bad. Of they'd been better, perhaps I wouldn't have liked it.

I suppose it might not be the third option since it is what the lady of the forest asks you to do so the actual third option might be killing the elves since you need to pass a speech check to get it and convince her to go through with it. Which is an option I don't really get how it makes sense since none of the werewolves want to stay werewolves so it wouldn't be helping them at all that and archers are more useful when fighting the archdemon.