230 réponses à ce sujet

[Chrys]

I'm really confused as to what makes you say that "at no point is the choice "kill Leliana" offered." when in DAO there is absolutely a point where, if you defile the Ashes with her present, she attacks you and you have to kill her. That is a choice that the game provides. Saying that it isn't there when it is doesn't make sense to me.

That's not the actual choice you make, just one possible consequence of the choice of defiling the ashes. Without meta gaming, there's no way to choose to kill Leliana. Compare that to Bethany, who you can choose to kill or spare at the end.

[Wulfram]

The outlook for the actual choice at the ashes mattering doesn't look so good at the moment, what with the Sacred Ashes temple being the host for the peace talks.

[schall_und_rauch]

Perhaps, but I suspect it then lies with a difference between why the player's making the choice and the choice we're actually providing them. At no point is the choice "kill Isabela" offered, just as at no point is the choice "kill Leliana" offered. If someone thought the Qunari would kill Isabela, that's fine, but the fact they didn't doesn't change the fact that the choice was to turn over the person they wanted in order to get a peaceful resolution with the Qunari... which you actually got.

 

 

I actually think that the choice to turn over Isabella is one of the most meaningful choices you can make in the game. It affects a couple of things:

1. There is no battle at the end of Act II (immediate impact, since the battle is non-trivial)

2. The Qunari leave in peace and the Arishok survives (could have ramifications for both Kirkwall and the Arishok in the future)

3. Isabella does not participate in Act III.

4. Not to mention the emotional impact of feeling either "oh, I betrayed a companion" or "that b*tch finally gets what she deserves" -- which is all subjective, but perhaps the most important aspect.

 

That's a great choice. That's the amount of choice that I want to have. I don't see choice as "I want it, therefore I get it", but "I chose and it affects the outcome of the situation".

 

*offtopic warning, not about Isabella*

The problem with false choices is

a. choices which have no impact outside of the conversation they are used (and perhaps a few approval points here and there)

b. choices which fail to give me the alternative that seems most reasonable and in character for me to take

 

My "worst choice example of DA" is the whole quest of Sheperding Wolves: I don't get the choice of watching Petrice get slaughtered in an alley; I don't get the choice of not taking her mission; No matter how hard I negotiate and try to appease the Qunari and fulfill all of their demands, they will attack me.

 

Finally, I catch the person who is responsible for this setup, wanted to have the city in flames, wanted to have me killed. I catch her at a place she should not be, with only one bodyguard. So I have reason, will, force and means to kill her. After wading through a sea of blood that others forced upon me, I finally want to make the decision to attack. But I only get to say to her "bad girl!" That just makes my helplessness and lack of agency so obvious.

[Dabrikishaw]

I'd say act 1 had that whole problem of forcing you to do all the main quests when you didn't need the money for them anymore.

[KaiserShep]

Finally, I catch the person who is responsible for this setup, wanted to have the city in flames, wanted to have me killed. I catch her at a place she should not be, with only one bodyguard. So I have reason, will, force and means to kill her. After wading through a sea of blood that others forced upon me, I finally want to make the decision to attack. But I only get to say to her "bad girl!" That just makes my helplessness and lack of agency so obvious.

 

I think a better way they could have gone about this is to have Hawke and company return to the safe house to find it empty. This way, Petrice looks slippery, and Hawke can express whatever he/she wants while Petrice can reasonably survive for later plot developments.

[pallascedar]

What does that have to do with anything? The OP says that thousands of people's blood is on her hands and he's right. The fact that Hawke knows or doesn't know doesn't change anything. I like Isabela (she was my Hawke's love interest), but that doesn't change the fact that she's a selfish ****** that would and did leave a city to burn to save her own hide. And frankly I dislike that she's a Karma-Houdini.

 

Not really, all of that blood is on the Arishok's hands. When Isabela left, Kirkwall is more or less peaceful. She makes very little difference by actually coming back or not. Had she known that the Arishok would rampage without the book she might have made a different decision, furthermore, had she returned the book, there is nothing saying the Arishok wouldn't have decided that he needed to clean up Kirkwall anyways.

[KaiserShep]

If we're going to somehow pass blame to something other than the Arishok's own fanatical adherence to his whacky ant colony philosophy, it would probably have to be Kirkwall's rather troubled society. After all, the Arishok wasn't holding nobles hostage in the Viscount's Keep trying to demand the return of the tome; he was there to convert them and execute those who would not submit. The fact that they were stuck there may have been on account of the tome, but the attack on the city itself was because this daffy demand of the Qun dictated that they try to make the "bas" see whatever the hell it is he sees.

[schall_und_rauch]

I think a better way they could have gone about this is to have Hawke and company return to the safe house to find it empty. This way, Petrice looks slippery, and Hawke can express whatever he/she wants while Petrice can reasonably survive for later plot developments.

 

I agree. However, a dialogue and confrontation is more dramatic and explains more.

However, in that case, it practically screams plot armor in the purest sense of the word (I need this character for an important event later, so I do simply not allow you to kill her).

And because I really have such a high respect for all of the DA writers, I still wonder what they were thinking with such a quest, and how it went through their reviewing process.

[Lethys1]

Perhaps, but I suspect it then lies with a difference between why the player's making the choice and the choice we're actually providing them. At no point is the choice "kill Isabela" offered, just as at no point is the choice "kill Leliana" offered. If someone thought the Qunari would kill Isabela, that's fine, but the fact they didn't doesn't change the fact that the choice was to turn over the person they wanted in order to get a peaceful resolution with the Qunari... which you actually got.

 

Thus saying "my choices don't matter" is like a shorthand for "what I wanted to happen didn't happen"... which is fine, as folks will want what they want, but I'm afraid you're not going to get much more than a shrug from the writers.

 

I appreciate the distinction, but technicalities and semantics shouldn't be the defense you need or want to hang your hat on.  Sure, you're correct, but that doesn't mean your answer is satisfying to me as a person experiencing something, nor would such an answer be creatively satisfying to me if I were to write the game.  It reminds me of an old radio bit that some NY DJ's used to do about giving away a free "Green Toy Yoda," to a caller.  People would think they were getting a Toyota but in reality they were getting a Star Wars toy.  Yep, they're getting exactly what they called in for, but not really.

 

If we are given reason to think a character's fate is sealed, there should be a very good reason (and plausible or realistic within the confines of the world) as to why that wasn't the case.  Narrative flexibility seems to be the strength of this medium, and frankly BioWare doesn't often utilize that strength even though they proclaim that they do.  Whether it's the effect of the collector base decision in ME3, or the retconning of the more inconvenient (read: difficult to accommodate for future games) plot portions of DA:O, BioWare has a tendency to give you something and then take it away because it doesn't fit with their vision later on.  I definitely feel that EA might also be a factor but I know you would not confirm that even if it were true.  

 

I thought that the whole point of these games was that this was my story, even if it's within the context of your more comprehensive vision.  You bake a cake and I take a slice fit for me.  People say MY warden or MY Shepard, not "one of BioWare's potential wardens."  People want you to write a story which gives them control.  Not everything has to be in your control, but if you specifically give us an option to do or not do something and then it gets thrown in our face anyway, it feels like weak writing and feels like a result of budget constraints or something I shouldn't be thinking about as I'm playing.  If you don't see this as relevant to creating games than so be it, but that has been my main source of frustration with the company both in this franchise as well as in Mass Effect.  The illusion of choice can be very frustrating, and the idea that you'll remove the consequence you heavily imply because it's "your" story is a bit at odds with how the games are marketed and perceived, at least from my standpoint.

 

The most egregious example of this is the collector base result from ME2 to ME3.  In this franchise would be the Anders event in DA2 where you specifically don't do something and say not to do something and yet it still happens regardless.  Just don't give me the option then.  I don't need to be given a pseudo-choice if something will happen whether or not I want it to.  It's not that I need to even approve or disprove every action anyone takes, but rather that the whole event basically calls into question the entire nature of any of these games.  The whole thing sets a precedent which basically says that no matter what you do, it may not turn out how you wanted or how we implied it would.  That is a very, very odd stance to take in games such as these where choice is advertised as a key feature.  Imagine if this lack of certainty was applied to every single choice you made in any game.  It would basically ruin the experience and negate the reason choice is in games in the first place.

 

And yes, I'm not suggesting you should make anything but the games you want to make.  If you offer the choice to kill someone in DA:O and then want to bring them back for DA:2 then that's your prerogative.  That said, I find the product loses a ton of depth and quality when decisions are made to be that way.  It feels like BioWare prioritizes characters returning over confirming and maintaining the effects of the player choices, and that is sad to me.  I hope that with Inquisition comes the start of a franchise which strives to maintain more narrative continuity, because the past many games have not done so.

[Shadow Fox]

I'll just point out that "plot armor" isn't the only thing that keeps us from letting you slaughter anyone you feel like-- as in "the only possible reason we don't let you kill this person is because the plot needs them for something really important, maybe in the future." If you really feel that must be the case, then okay, but I think you overestimate our willingness to indulge a player's homicidal fantasies.

I love this guy.

[Milan92]

That's literally the holiest object related to the Qun. If the Qunari stole the Urn of Sacred Ashes you can bet your ass all of Thedas would band together for another Exalted March.

 

Qunari:

 

 

Thedas: 

 

[TheEternalStudent]

Qunari:

 

 

Thedas: 

 

To be fair all of Thedas already thinks the Qunari are filthy BIG heathens.
 

[TheTurtle]

Qunari:

 

 

Thedas: 

 

 

I wonder if there are drums of war in Thedas
 

[Fredward]

I don't really think it counts as plot armor in Isabela's case. We know she's extremely resourceful, it's very much in character for her to make a daring escape against staggering odds. I'd be more inclined to say PLOT ARMOR in Leliana's case though. If plot armor includes retcons. We don't know how she survived the Warden's attack but they have said there's a reason. If the reason is something along the lines of Improbable Character Y wandered over at the exact right moment then you'll have a tough time convincing me her death wasn't a retcon. I mean those comic book companies often come up with these really ridiculous stories if they want a reset but it makes 'sense' in the game. Everyone still calls it a retcon though since that's what it is. But hey, maybe saying "we made an oopsie" is like admitting you eat puppies in devspeak or something.

[TheEternalStudent]

I wonder if there are drums of war in Thedas
 

Well they tend to be quite useful for keeping oarsmen going at the right tempo, so I'd wager the Qunari have them at least

[CronoDragoon]

That is a very, very odd stance to take in games such as these where choice is advertised as a key feature.  Imagine if this lack of certainty was applied to every single choice you made in any game.  It would basically ruin the experience and negate the reason choice is in games in the first place.

 

Then we are lucky we are talking about one decision amongst literally hundreds that some players for some reason can't get over.

 

There's also nothing semantic about David's distinction. The point of the choice is not to kill Leliana, and so her survival does not negate your choice.

 

As for expected consequences, what you are asking for is a perfect 1:1 ratio of expected to actual consequences, which would be boring and lame. If the occasional choice turns out differently then I expected, that enhances my story; it does not diminish it.

[TheEternalStudent]

There's also nothing semantic about David's distinction. The point of the choice is not to kill Leliana, and so her survival does not negate your choice.

I would largely agree, but it does mean your Warden 'left her for dead' which is both unmerciful and foolhardy.
They're not dead until each cubic millimeter has been seperated, incinerated, and blasted into deep space. But at least stake them through the heart please.

[Beerfish]

I actually think developers have to be more cautious about who they let get killed in games in a game series.  I'd much rather they not let me kill or have a reasonable reason whey so and so character escapes death in the 1st game than having to get around it in subsequent games.

 

In a number of cases developers do not really know who are going to be super popular in a game series amongst the fans so they need to take more care imo in letting characters get killed, it makes for problems down the road.  Very popular characters, justifiably so  (fan service?  yes for sure) make returns in games or get bigger roles.

 

Err on the side of caution and make more characters non killable but work hard to have a viable in game reason.

[Wulfram]

I think the developers should stop bothering with imports so that they don't have to worry about that sort of thing

[Killdren88]

I would largely agree, but it does mean your Warden 'left her for dead' which is both unmerciful and foolhardy.
They're not dead until each cubic millimeter has been seperated, incinerated, and blasted into deep space. But at least stake them through the heart please.

Since when is the Warden a elite assassin that can tell if someone is faking their death? They are greenhorns in the time of Origins. "But what if Zevran is there!?" And? Do your refuse to believe that a Bard can outsmart a Assassin?

[MACharlie1]

Aveline also has the same plot armor: IMPOSSIBLE to kill her. Even if you side against the Templars and don't have her at enough Rival/Friendship. She walks away from the fight. Just so you know. 

[KaiserShep]

I think the developers should stop bothering with imports so that they don't have to worry about that sort of thing

 

I guess this depends on the story they want to tell in the next game, like if they decided to have a story set far away in a part of Thedas we have yet to explore with a totally new cast of characters and zero cameos. To Dragon Age's credit, the conclusion to the main conflict is exactly the same in each game no matter what, so all they have to really bother with are smaller details, though this was not handled so smoothly, like with Anders.

 

But honestly, for all the flaws, I really enjoy the imports. It's one of those things that admittedly has spoiled me on both Mass Effect and Dragon Age.

[Treacherous J Slither]

So many great posts in this thread. I had a time reading through it.

 

Now for my 2 cents:

 

Isabella is a rogue. Rogue means scoundrel does it not? A person of low moral character right? So why all the surprise over her actions? What did people expect her to do? Be a hero? She's a known raider ffs. She literally murders and steals for a living. Her running off with the Tome was an action I expected of her. Her returning with the Tome and putting herself at the mercy of those that she just pissed off was not. My Hawke if put in a similar situation would have behaved in a similar manner because my Hawke was no better and in fact, would have ran off with her if given the option to do so.

 

Her escaping bondage if handed over to the Qunari is not my idea of plot armor. All we know is that they took her. Aside from that her fate is unknown and open to speculation. Personally I hope she pulled a Riddick and escaped in some cool and interesting way with liberal use of sharp objects and one-liners and one-liners about the liberal use of sharp objects being ideal.

 

Isabella is one of my favorite characters because she's hot, loose, funny, and good in a fight. I'm easy to please lol. 

 

I know that this is off topic but I noticed some **** shaming going on earlier and as a result I would like to ask a question:

 

Why do people seem to have such a problem with female promiscuity? What's not to like? 

[kinderschlager]

Perhaps, but I suspect it then lies with a difference between why the player's making the choice and the choice we're actually providing them. At no point is the choice "kill Isabela" offered, just as at no point is the choice "kill Leliana" offered. If someone thought the Qunari would kill Isabela, that's fine, but the fact they didn't doesn't change the fact that the choice was to turn over the person they wanted in order to get a peaceful resolution with the Qunari... which you actually got.

 

Thus saying "my choices don't matter" is like a shorthand for "what I wanted to happen didn't happen"... which is fine, as folks will want what they want, but I'm afraid you're not going to get much more than a shrug from the writers.

orly? i remember quit clearly a certain point in a certain best selling game by a certain not so great since they became sell outs company where a certain red heads said head got sent flying inside a certain holy temple.........