It was theirs to relinquish. They knew it was a one-way trip.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...
I'd like it to succeed or fail on a RNG.It really should just always backfire. While real life is random, I'm all for games being predictable (otherwise they look contrived).
I'd like it to succeed or fail on a RNG.
There are ways that an RNG works well (see e.g. in a turn-based strategy game where it simulates random chance because we are told, from the onset, that the combat is an abstraction), and ways it works very poorly (e.g. in conversations or when making decisions when we are told that everything we see onscreen exhausts what happens in the game world).
It was theirs to relinquish. They knew it was a one-way trip.
And you would tell them they are not allowed to make that choice, why exactly?
There are ways that an RNG works well (see e.g. in a turn-based strategy game where it simulates random chance because we are told, from the onset, that the combat is an abstraction), and ways it works very poorly (e.g. in conversations or when making decisions when we are told that everything we see onscreen exhausts what happens in the game world).
When are we ever told the latter? I don't think we ever have.
As said there is no chance to revoke that choice and no way for them to know if they'll actually be fine with it. They can't taste it beforehand.
That's how life works. You can't see the future.
Secondly greed will eventually make the worst of the Anvil again.
As long as it exists, it can do both good and ill. But once you destroy it it can do nothing ever again.
Keeping the Anvil is always an undoable choice. Destroying it is not.
Thirdly even the creator saw the wickedness in it.
That one is an expert at creating something does not make one an expert at evaluating its moral value. I judge Caridin's assessment on its merit, granting it no more weight than any other judgement.
But that's why I like the Redcliffe third option. It is extremely difficult to justify choosing it.
It is not difficult if the Warden is genre savvy.
Like I said, dialogue option doesn't determine everything in DAI. There's no need in three more options. And it's reasonable to assume that splitting your (fairly limited, by the looks of it) forces between different tasks only weakens them, resulting in failure on both fronts.There is no option for that. I think there should be more in between options like this also.
That's how life works. You can't see the future.
As long as it exists, it can do both good and ill. But once you destroy it it can do nothing ever again.
Keeping the Anvil is always an undoable choice. Destroying it is not.
That one is an expert at creating something does not make one an expert at evaluating its moral value. I judge Caridin's assessment on its merit, granting it no more weight than any other judgement.
But you can change your mind in the future.
It never can do good.
The Warden relinquishes control of the Anvil and he hands it over to Branka who's outright crazy.
Isn't it implied in the ending slides that they're still trying to resurrect it.
He was the expert on the Anvil and what it will eventually turn into again, Dwarven nature doesn't change.
Like I said, dialogue option doesn't determine everything in DAI. There's no need in three more options. And it's reasonable to assume that splitting your (fairly limited, by the looks of it) forces between different tasks only weakens them, resulting in failure on both fronts.
That may or may not happen. It is just as likely splitting your forces gives you just enough to save everyone. But you should be allowed to decide to do so if you so choose.
Why stop there? Shouldn't you be allowed to split them three-ways, too? Again: your agency doesn't end with the dialogue, so there's no point in splitting forces and hairs. I understand it's a fairly new concept for Dragon Age, but you can influence the story outside dialogue. I'll take that over the meaningless dialogue minutiae any day of the week.But you should be allowed to decide to do so if you so choose.
Genre savvy can't exist in-character.It is not difficult if the Warden is genre savvy.
You can't use hindsight to justify your choice. You can appeal only to information you had at the time of making it.But you can change your mind in the future.
It never can do good.
The Warden relinquishes control of the Anvil and he hands it over to Branka who's outright crazy.
Isn't it implied in the ending slides that they're still trying to resurrect it.
He was the expert on the Anvil and what it will eventually turn into again, Dwarven nature doesn't change.
That's a willfully incorrect statement.It never can do good.
This is true. But she is crazy with a desire to save her people. She sacrificed her entire house - family, friends, servants - to find a means to save the rest of Orzammar in the long term. She acted coldly, but rationally. She isn't using the Anvil to stage a coup against the squabbling kings to take power for herself, she only does what she feels is absolutely necessary to fight the Darkspawn. That's what, arguably, the Warden should be doing the entire game.The Warden relinquishes control of the Anvil and he hands it over to Branka who's outright crazy.
Yes, it was also implied through the Golems of Amgarrak (sp) DLC that this would happen regardless of if the Anvil was destroyed or not. In an attempt to avoid using soul slavery, they wound up releasing a much more terrible threat to the world through the Harvesters. Good intentions and paths paved to somewhere and all that.Isn't it implied in the ending slides that they're still trying to resurrect it.
The dwarves will change if they are extinct. Which is how the choice is framed - destroy the Anvil and risk certain doom for the dwarves or preserve it and risk the chance for it to be abused. Power corrupts, but death is final.He was the expert on the Anvil and what it will eventually turn into again, Dwarven nature doesn't change.
That's a willfully incorrect statement.
Hordes of Darkspawn intent on killing and brutally raping anything in their path is undeniably bad. Using a tool that would reduce the lives lost to such a horde is undeniably good. The methods that this tool employs may also be bad, but it does result in good. Undeniable good. Dead Darkspawn = better lives for everyone.
This is true. But she is crazy with a desire to save her people. She sacrificed her entire house - family, friends, servants - to find a means to save the rest of Orzammar in the long term. She acted coldly, but rationally. She isn't using the Anvil to stage a coup against the squabbling kings to take power for herself, she only does what she feels is absolutely necessary to fight the Darkspawn. That's what, arguably, the Warden should be doing the entire game.
Yes, it was also implied through the Golems of Amgarrak (sp) DLC that this would happen regardless of if the Anvil was destroyed or not. In an attempt to avoid using soul slavery, they wound up releasing a much more terrible threat to the world through the Harvesters. Good intentions and paths paved to somewhere and all that.
The dwarves will change if they are extinct. Which is how the choice is framed - destroy the Anvil and risk certain doom for the dwarves or preserve it and risk the chance for it to be abused. Power corrupts, but death is final.
Let me elaborate on why it does no good. No matter the lives saved it isn't worth it if they relinquish an important moral standpoint to it. A society depending on slavery, voluntarily or not, to sustain itself shouldn't exist. It even shows in the results, the Golems aren't used to defend Orzammar but to expand and reclaim the Dwarven Thaigs. Instead of expanding to the surface and adapting they try to go back to past glory they won't be able to sustain w/o the Golems.
I didn't get that vibe from Branka, it felt more about pride to me. She was also clumsy to a sorry level. With a proper expedition the Anvil could have been reclaimed much easier, she was basically stranded with her House w/o suply nor reinforcement. All the while she could have ended the conflict over the throne instantaneously had she knowledge of it.
Didn't play the Golem DLC
Before becoming extinct they should either go to the surface, or open up their Kingdom to more trade in exchange for aid against the Darkspawn, with the wealth they hold many countries would gladly sacrifice soldiers in exchange. Also establishing the Grey Wardens in Orzammar would help.
We accept that these fictional worlds have physical laws that differ from ours. Why can they not also have moral laws that differ from ours?Let me elaborate on why it does no good. No matter the lives saved it isn't worth it if they relinquish an important moral standpoint to it. A society depending on slavery, voluntarily or not, to sustain itself shouldn't exist. It even shows in the results, the Golems aren't used to defend Orzammar but to expand and reclaim the Dwarven Thaigs. Instead of expanding to the surface and adapting they try to go back to past glory they won't be able to sustain w/o the Golems.
I didn't get that vibe from Branka, it felt more about pride to me. She was also clumsy to a sorry level. With a proper expedition the Anvil could have been reclaimed much easier, she was basically stranded with her House w/o suply nor reinforcement. All the while she could have ended the conflict over the throne instantaneously had she knowledge of it.
Didn't play the Golem DLC
Before becoming extinct they should either go to the surface, or open up their Kingdom to more trade in exchange for aid against the Darkspawn, with the wealth they hold many countries would gladly sacrifice soldiers in exchange. Also establishing the Grey Wardens in Orzammar would help.
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...
Now that's something I probably wouldn't know without metaknowlegde since in the circle at least all I see is templars wielding swords and when one helps just outside of the tavern he doesn't use a bow either, but thanks for letting me know that next time I take that route I'll try them out with the archdemon.
Genre savvy can't exist in-character.
Sure it can, if they have read enough Varric's Hard in Hightown stories.
Why stop there? Shouldn't you be allowed to split them three-ways, too? Again: your agency doesn't end with the dialogue, so there's no point in splitting forces and hairs. I understand it's a fairly new concept for Dragon Age, but you can influence the story outside dialogue. I'll take that over the meaningless dialogue minutiae any day of the week.
There is no reason why there can't be both. It does not have to be an either or situation. Have the choices in dialogue AND out of dialogue. And yes, having them be able to be split 3 ways is even better. I know you meant it as a rebuttal but in truth saying that really just shows support for my opinion.
When are we ever told the latter? I don't think we ever have.
It's in the basic presentation of the game and the mode by which we interact with the game word.
Genre savvy can't exist in-character.
They can. It just requires that the in-game world has a genre that corresponds with the situation, and for the character to be aware of that aspect of media and believe it reflects their current situation. So, for example, a villain that immediately executes the heroes when caught is genre savvy if he is aware of stories were delaying killing them leads to a villain's downfall.
This is true. But she is crazy with a desire to save her people. She sacrificed her entire house - family, friends, servants - to find a means to save the rest of Orzammar in the long term. She acted coldly, but rationally. She isn't using the Anvil to stage a coup against the squabbling kings to take power for herself, she only does what she feels is absolutely necessary to fight the Darkspawn. That's what, arguably, the Warden should be doing the entire game.
You know I'm with you on the fact that saving the Anvil is the right choice, but I wouldn't say that Branka was being very rational in what she did. Her plan to slowing down those traps was to literally throw darkspawn at them until they jammed.
The reason is always the same: what they can and can not create and debug in a given time and with the given tools. And the scenario where you have a single unit and not individual soldiers is reasonable enough as to not make a big deal of it. The assumption that you should have all conceivable options is what's unreasonable.There is no reason why there can't be both.
You know I'm with you on the fact that saving the Anvil is the right choice, but I wouldn't say that Branka was being very rational in what she did. Her plan to slowing down those traps was to literally throw darkspawn at them until they jammed.
The reason is always the same: what they can and can not create and debug in a given time and with the given tools. And the scenario where you have a single unit and not individual soldiers is reasonable enough as to not make a big deal of it. The assumption that you should have all conceivable options is what's unreasonable.
I was under the assumption this conversation had nothing to do with out of game reasons. I am fully aware of the limits and realities of video game design and I assumed you were as well. Thus I was having the conversation on the basis of in game conceptualization rather than out of game limitations. Thus it seems we are arguing the opposite sides of two points that have no common connection point with one another. On that merit, it seems we are both correct. Or we're both wrong.
Edit: I just went back and reread all of our exchanges, and it seems to me like you were really arguing the same thing as me and found you were starting to agree with me so you changed to the out of game limits as a cop out to save face. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it is coming across.
There are ways that an RNG works well (see e.g. in a turn-based strategy game where it simulates random chance because we are told, from the onset, that the combat is an abstraction), and ways it works very poorly (e.g. in conversations or when making decisions when we are told that everything we see onscreen exhausts what happens in the game world).
But that doesn't conclusively support your position. You're welcome to believe it's true all you like, but know that you're choosing to do it.It's in the basic presentation of the game and the mode by which we interact with the game word.
Okay, sure. But we usually see are players making choices based on little or no in-game evidence. In-game, choosing the third option can look remarkably naive. So I'd like it to fail a lot.They can. It just requires that the in-game world has a genre that corresponds with the situation, and for the character to be aware of that aspect of media and believe it reflects their current situation. So, for example, a villain that immediately executes the heroes when caught is genre savvy if he is aware of stories were delaying killing them leads to a villain's downfall.
Retour en haut