208 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

That would, actually, be an awesome way for DA:O to have handled it. Had progressive waves where your forces fight similar to the "left behind team" sequence we already get. Except have certain outcomes result in NPCs or companions dying based on the strenghr of your forces as determined by previous plot points. That could be cool.

That way, you can circumvent some loss by taking your most favored companions with you. That may be a bit of a cop out, though.

[Schreckstoff]

 

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. 

The werewolves don't want Lady Forest to sacrifice herself though.

 

...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.

I destroyed the Anvil in every playthrough and one of my Wardens was a pretty ruthless, nymphomaniac serial killer but Slavery is taking things too far.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

Knowing archers are more helpful would require a lot of meta knowledge, though. There's no reason for a player to value archers over super natural killing machines without that information.

[HuldraDancer]

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. 

Depends on how each player sees the DR though doesn't it? I've had a handful of Wardens who went through with it and a handful that didn't, my first playthrough I didn't because I was sure that was going to come back and bite me if I let her have something that powerful growing inside her (that and felt kind of gross to pimp out Alistair to her since he doesn't have much say in the matter), or do you mean purely from a what we see in game stand point that it brings rainbows and sunshine?

 

The werewolves don't want Lady Forest to sacrifice herself though.

They didn't seem too upset when she died guess they figured they couldn't keep their cake and eat it too. I still consider the slaughtering of the elves the third option though since you have to kind of dig for it while the Lady asks you to help remove the curse (provided you don't refuse to listen to her)

[Fast Jimmy]

I destroyed the Anvil in every playthrough and one of my Wardens was a pretty ruthless, nymphomaniac serial killer but Slavery is taking things too far.

I view it completely differently. Slavery is a violation of basic rights, but you need to be alive to value rights.

Plus, I view it on a bigger scale than even the Fifth Blight. With the golems, the dwarves can keep the. Darkspawn in check and rebuild their empire. Without golems, they are doomed to gradual, slow, crushing extinction. Maybe not today, maybe not even in this Age, but some day. Orzammar will fall - it's the sheer ornery nature of the dwarves that it didn't happen centuries ago.

[HuldraDancer]

Knowing archers are more helpful would require a lot of meta knowledge, though. There's no reason for a player to value archers over super natural killing machines without that information.

Not really after all you know your going to be fighting the archdemon and its in the form of a dragon so its not metaknowledge to assume that if its a dragon chances are its either going to fly in the air during the battle at some point or fly to an area you can't reach. The most endgame spoiler I had for my first playthrough was the DR but I still thought it would be best to take the archers since I could most likely use them while fighting the archdemon.

[Schreckstoff]

I view it completely differently. Slavery is a violation of basic rights, but you need to be alive to value rights.

Plus, I view it on a bigger scale than even the Fifth Blight. With the golems, the dwarves can keep the. Darkspawn in check and rebuild their empire. Without golems, they are doomed to gradual, slow, crushing extinction. Maybe not today, maybe not even in this Age, but some day. Orzammar will fall - it's the sheer ornery nature of the dwarves that it didn't happen centuries ago.

I see that differently you have to have a few principles you simply won't relinquish under any circumstances. Slavery is one of them to all my characters, the other is the sanctity of children.

[Fast Jimmy]

Not really after all you know your going to be fighting the archdemon and its in the form of a dragon so its not metaknowledge to assume that if its a dragon chances are its either going to fly in the air during the battle at some point or fly to an area you can't reach. The most endgame spoiler I had for my first playthrough was the DR but I still thought it would be best to take the archers since I could most likely use them while fighting the archdemon.

True, but you also know the Archdemon is hiding behind a horde of ravaging monsters. Killing the Archdemon is definitely the goal, but the player knows they will have to cut a path THROUGH to the Archdemon before they can even have an arrow reach it. So why not have some ravaging monsters of your own?

[Fast Jimmy]

I see that differently you have to have a few principles you simply won't relinquish under any circumstances. Slavery is one of them to all my characters, the other is the sanctity of children.

That's fair.

Although how many children could have died from The Blight to avoid giving into the slavery of The Anvil? There comes a point where even the highest principals have to be prioritized.

[HuldraDancer]

True, but you also know the Archdemon is hiding behind a horde of ravaging monsters. Killing the Archdemon is definitely the goal, but the player knows they will have to cut a path THROUGH to the Archdemon before they can even have an arrow reach it. So why not have some ravaging monsters of your own?

That's what all the other armies I've been gathering are for, the knights, the drwaves or golems, and the templars or mages (okay maybe not mages too squishy) and really none of them aside from maybe the mages can help me much with something thats flying around unlike archers. At least thats how I saw it during my playthrough since during my first one the dalish camp was the last place I recruited so I already had people to help me cut through the horde.

[Fast Jimmy]

That's what all the other armies I've been gathering are for, the knights, the drwaves or golems, and the templars or mages (okay maybe not mages too squishy) and really none of them aside from maybe the mages can help me much with something thats flying around unlike archers. At least thats how I saw it during my playthrough since during my first one the dalish camp was the last place I recruited so I already had people to help me cut through the horde.

That makes sense. And I had a similar mindset, as well, in terms of general army balance. Still, werewolves are nothing to sneeze at.

[HuldraDancer]

That makes sense. And I had a similar mindset, as well, in terms of general army balance. Still, werewolves are nothing to sneeze at.

No they are not but I already had Golems with me during that playthrough so I though I could make it with them instead, you know have both your killing machines and your archers

[Schreckstoff]

That's fair.

Although how many children could have died from The Blight to avoid giving into the slavery of The Anvil? There comes a point where even the highest principals have to be prioritized.

That isn't of the essence these principles are supposed to be the lowest my characters go and at what time saving lives become less important than your principles.

 

Most of my characters are ruthless and able to sacrifice the few for the good of the many but it is important for those characters to have at least 1 or 2 principles they won't relent under any circumstances.

[Fast Jimmy]

That isn't of the essence these principles are supposed to be the lowest my characters go and at what time saving lives become less important than your principles.

Most of my characters are ruthless and able to sacrifice the few for the good of the many but it is important for those characters to have at least 1 or 2 principles they won't relent under any circumstances.

That's an answer I'm not sure satisfies me.

You have to admit - that can easily be interpreted as "the sanctity of children is a principle which I will never violate... as long as I see the children involved. If I don't see them, then any choice I make that could affect some faceless children I never encounter doesn't count."

Children will die - brutally - if the Blight were to take over. And many Dwarven children may die - again, brutally, with some of the young girls possibly be transformed into Broodmothers - without the Anvil to help them push the Darkspawk from overtaking Orzammar in the next year, or decade, or century.



Again - there comes a point where principles must be prioritized. If DA:O was written a much different way, you might have been forced to chose between the slavery of the Anvil or the sanctity of a child's life.

[In Exile]

That would, actually, be an awesome way for DA:O to have handled it. Had progressive waves where your forces fight similar to the "left behind team" sequence we already get. Except have certain outcomes result in NPCs or companions dying based on the strenghr of your forces as determined by previous plot points. That could be cool.

That way, you can circumvent some loss by taking your most favored companions with you. That may be a bit of a cop out, though.

 

I don't think it's a cop out, because there's no way to predict it when you first play through. Someone who thinks "I'm protecting [X] by leaving them behind" would get a nice reward for their paternalism. And it's not like ME2 doesn't basically do just that with the "hold the line" segment: tougher characters like Sten are more durable than others like, say, Leliana. 

 

Plus, some people might like more than 3 companions. 

 

I view it completely differently. Slavery is a violation of basic rights, but you need to be alive to value rights.

Plus, I view it on a bigger scale than even the Fifth Blight. With the golems, the dwarves can keep the. Darkspawn in check and rebuild their empire. Without golems, they are doomed to gradual, slow, crushing extinction. Maybe not today, maybe not even in this Age, but some day. Orzammar will fall - it's the sheer ornery nature of the dwarves that it didn't happen centuries ago.

 

Yeah, for a dwarf PC it should be a no-brainer to save their society from extinction, and for non-dwarves it just means a different race is the cannon-fodder for the darkspawn. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

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 agree that choices shouldn't be easy. But that's why I like the Redcliffe third option. It is extremely difficult to justify choosing it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I see that differently you have to have a few principles you simply won't relinquish under any circumstances. Slavery is one of them to all my characters, the other is the sanctity of children.

Involuntary slavery, sure, but when the option to save the Anvil is presented, they're talking about using volunteers. I'm all about individual freedom; if someone wants to choose that life, it's not my place to tell him he's wrong.

[Schreckstoff]

Involuntary slavery, sure, but when the option to save the Anvil is presented, they're talking about using volunteers. I'm all about individual freedom; if someone wants to choose that life, it's not my place to tell him he's wrong.

The problem is once relinquished they have no will left to stop. They won't know whether they'd like that existence and even if they couldn't end it themselves.

 

Also once the demand is higher than the supply they'll most likely start executing people with the Anvil and if demand rises even further...

[In Exile]

The problem is once relinquished they have no will left to stop. They won't know whether they'd like that existence and even if they couldn't end it themselves.

 

Also once the demand is higher than the supply they'll most likely start executing people with the Anvil and if demand rises even further...

Maybe, but all of this sounds like a "we'll cross that bridge if we get there" situation, because the darkspawn winning was on the table at the time. 

[AlanC9]

I agree that choices shouldn't be easy. But that's why I like the Redcliffe third option. It is extremely difficult to justify choosing it.

I don't think I'd like this to be common. The risky, borderline irrational choice turning out to be the optimal choice should be fairly rare.

[In Exile]

I don't think I'd like this to be common. The risky, borderline irrational choice turning out to be the optimal choice should be fairly rare.

 

It really should just always backfire. While real life is random, I'm all for games being predictable (otherwise they look contrived). 

[Trikormadenadon]

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.

But many people in that situation would probably leave some there to protect the injured and send the rest to the keep or the town. There is no option for that. I think there should be more in between options like this also.

[Trikormadenadon]

That's what all the other armies I've been gathering are for, the knights, the drwaves or golems, and the templars or mages (okay maybe not mages too squishy) and really none of them aside from maybe the mages can help me much with something thats flying around unlike archers. At least thats how I saw it during my playthrough since during my first one the dalish camp was the last place I recruited so I already had people to help me cut through the horde.

The Templars use bows very effectively in the fight with the Archdeman and they are monsters in melee. overall I think they are the most effective team you can add to the final fight...too bad to get them you have to destroy the circle...

[AlanC9]

It really should just always backfire. While real life is random, I'm all for games being predictable (otherwise they look contrived).

I can see that. The PC typically uses up his lifetime supply of luck just getting to the point where he can start making important decisions.

[In Exile]

I can see that. The PC typically uses up his lifetime supply of luck just getting to the point where he can start making important decisions.

 

And generally not getting murdered by the legion of mooks that threaten you at every turn.