64 réponses à ce sujet

[wcholcombe]

Rare and few are the games that I have played where doing the right thing with the best of intentions ends up working out horribly.  I really really hope DAI does this.  It is frustrating when it occurs at times, but it makes the game more realistic and gives it depth and consequences.

 

Example:  You stumble upon a mage being attacked by templars. The templars warn you that the mage is dangerous, but you being pro mage attack and help kill or drive off the templars.  After being thanked and rewarded by the mage for saving him from those thugs you go your seperate ways. Later you learn the templars were pursuing an abomination, here depending on how the game is setup, you pursue the creature, or you spend the rest of the game getting updates of its rampages until the templars finally stop it.

 

You can do this with demons or templars or dalish or whatever, I just hope the game incorporates situations that aren't so simple as good and bad and always able to do the right thing.

 

Like if you choose to let the demon in the deep roads go free for the reward he gives you, then you later hear about all the destruction he caused and such.

 

anyway, one can hope.

[SmilesJA]

Depending on what the "right" thing is. I'd hope there are no easy choices in DAI.

[Drasanil]

You mean like Bhelen and Harrowmont? I wonder how many people who picked the 'nice guy' the first time around regretted it after reading the epilogue slides

 

Mind you, I picked Bhelen right from the start since he seemed like the sort of guy that knew how to rule.

[Hellion Rex]

I honestly imagine that it will, at least several times.

[wcholcombe]

You mean like Bhelen and Harrowmont? I wonder how many people who picked the 'nice guy' the first time around regretted it after reading the epilogue slides

 

Mind you, I picked Bhelen right from the start since he seemed like the sort of guy that knew how to rule.

No.  That choice was obvious. I choose Harrowmont because I approve of tradition. I knew Bhelen would probably be better for dwarven society then Harrowmont, but I couldn't stand him and how he did things.

 

No, what I mean is you truly think this is the perfect happy decision and then out of nowhere you learn that oh......maybe those dead templars were telling the truth and that wasn't some poor helpless mage they were persecuting.

[Zjarcal]

Couldn't we include Gascard in DA2 as sorta something like this? Letting him go believing you're helping in catching the murderer only to realize he's an accomplice. Of course you can rectify that choice midway, so that nullifies it a bit I guess.

Regardless, I certainly hope there's no such thing as an easy choice in DA:I, although I don't particularly care either for outright good and bad outcomes, I like for those to be grey too.

[Jaison1986]

No.  That choice was obvious. I choose Harrowmont because I approve of tradition. I knew Bhelen would probably be better for dwarven society then Harrowmont, but I couldn't stand him and how he did things.

 

No, what I mean is you truly think this is the perfect happy decision and then out of nowhere you learn that oh......maybe those dead templars were telling the truth and that wasn't some poor helpless mage they were persecuting.

 

Ok, this is getting annoying. You're using all these undertones just to say how pro templar you are. Could you please not? How about something a little more neutral like politics, or an village feud?

[wcholcombe]

Ok, this is getting annoying. You're using all these undertones just to say how pro templar you are. Could you please not? How about something a little more neutral like politics, or an village feud?

Pro what now?  Read my posts or ask anyone who has been on this board the last 6 years and you will find I am far from pro templar.

 

I use the mage example just because it is the one I think the majority of players would most likely fall for.  I could as easily possibly come up with a city elf or dalish in that situation.

 

Putting a templar in the same sympathetic situation would be a bit more difficult and hard to convey over a message board topic.

 

Would you prefer I made it saving a Chevalier from Ferelden soldiers?  Sorry, I would assume most players-especially on here would gut the chevalier without thinking twice.

 

You could accuse me of being pro chantry, and would be correct, but I have little to no love for the templars.

[Joseph Warrick]

I think it's only a good idea if when you look at it in retrospective you think "well, I had it coming tbh".

 

A bad example of this is Bhelen and Harrowmont. I don't think the game made it clear enough that Harrowmont is very traditionalist and that tradition is what is making the dwarves decline (ok that and the dawkspawn). It puts too much emphasis on how he's nice and kind. Similarly the idea I get from Bhelen is "d-bag", not "aggressive risk taker with dangerous but innovative ideas for dwarven society". So in the end, I feel like the game is trolling you when picking the nice guy gives the bad outcome.

 

A good example could be destroying Maelon's data resulting in not being able to cure the genophage later (or you cure it but somebody dies maybe? Can't remember). It's a very plain and clear one.

 

In general, give me a compelling reason to pick an option and let me know this option has risks attached and may end badly.

[TheKomandorShepard]

You mean like Bhelen and Harrowmont? I wonder how many people who picked the 'nice guy' the first time around regretted it after reading the epilogue slides

 

Mind you, I picked Bhelen right from the start since he seemed like the sort of guy that knew how to rule.

Wait harrowmont was nice guy you know that guy was supporting abusive and suicadal system?

I don't see how that is nicer than behlen.

 

I always take decisions that will benefit me not because it is right thing so well killing mage is win situation as im sure they won't become abomnations. 

[wcholcombe]

I think it's only a good idea if when you look at it in retrospective you think "well, I had it coming tbh".

 

A bad example of this is Bhelen and Harrowmont. I don't think the game made it clear enough that Harrowmont is very traditionalist and that tradition is what is making the dwarves decline (ok that and the dawkspawn). It puts too much emphasis on how he's nice and kind. Similarly the idea I get from Bhelen is "d-bag", not "impulsive risk taker with risky but innovative ideas for dwarven society". So in the end, I feel like the game is trolling you when picking the nice guy gives the bad outcome.

 

A good example could be destroying Maelon's data resulting in not being able to cure the genophage later (or you cure it but somebody dies maybe? Can't remember). It's a very plain and clear one.

 

In general, give me a compelling reason to pick an option and let me know this option has risks attached and may end badly.

See we have that a lot though.  We get clear situations where it is fairly obvious what the result will be.

 

I actually thought it was fairly obvious with Harrowmount and Bhelen, but that may be because I had read all the lore on the issues that were hurting the dwarves.

 

I actually want it to be blindsiding and you to be shocked that when you stuck your nose into a situation without knowing what was really going on and then you end up helping the "bad guy".

 

Most of the time RPGs just have you blindly play the role of helping the supposed oppressed against the evil "man".

[X Equestris]

Ok, this is getting annoying. You're using all these undertones just to say how pro templar you are. Could you please not? How about something a little more neutral like politics, or an village feud?

And you don't think that every now and then a mage doesn't get possessed and go on a rampage?

I agree that a lot of people could fall for something like that. I wouldn't mind a few "good" choices backfiring once in a while, just like it would be nice to see pragmatic choices to fall through on occasion.

[Drasanil]

No, what I mean is you truly think this is the perfect happy decision and then out of nowhere you learn that oh......maybe those dead templars were telling the truth and that wasn't some poor helpless mage they were persecuting.

 

I don't know, I'd be rather more inclined to trust the templars in that situation in the first place. But then again that's because I'm always paranoid about people who appear too good or too innocent.

 

I certainly wouldn't mind situations like what I imagine you're imagining. But, Bioware would have to walk a fine line between dropping too many hints thereby making it obvious and giving so little context that it coming back to blow up in your face comes across as an arbitrary 'gotcha'. 

 

Wait harrowmont was nice guy you know that guy was supporting abusive and suicadal system?

I don't see how that is nicer than behlen.

 

I always take decisions that will benefit me not because it is right thing so well killing mage is win situation as im sure they won't become abomnations. 

 

That why I said 'nice guy'. Harrowmont supports a lot of bad stuff but most people speak well of him in game and he comes across as polite and agreeable. Where as Bhelen is largely characterised as being a douche. I seem to remember back in the early DAO days quite a few people complained Harrowmont turned out to be the bad option.

[darkiddd]

Bhelen was a complete douche but he knew he had to change the dwarven society and traditions or they would become exctinct. Harrowmont was a nice guy, and let's be honest he was the rightful king because he had been chosen by the previous king in his dying hours to lead the dwarves, but Harrowmont was blind to the state of Orzammar and the world. Orzammar is the first line of defense against the darkspawn and they only send the legion of the dead to stop them while the rest do nothing. 

 

If Harrowmont wasn't so stuck in the old ways I would have supported him, it's not that he was naive, naive and idealistic rulers are not necesarily bad if they know how to rule, they can be a great force of change to inspire others. It's the fact that he was part of the problem Orzammar has had for centuries, too stuck with the caste system. So even if I don't like Bhelen I know he will at least change that. 

 

Dammit Harrowmont, if only you wanted to change things...

[KaiserShep]

A bad example of this is Bhelen and Harrowmont. I don't think the game made it clear enough that Harrowmont is very traditionalist and that tradition is what is making the dwarves decline (ok that and the dawkspawn). It puts too much emphasis on how he's nice and kind. Similarly the idea I get from Bhelen is "d-bag", not "aggressive risk taker with dangerous but innovative ideas for dwarven society". So in the end, I feel like the game is trolling you when picking the nice guy gives the bad outcome.

 

I liked that the game was subtle about this. The one hint that the game dropped that stood out to me in my first playthrough was that Bhelen was likely more sympathetic to the casteless, which, after exploring Orzammar a bit and finding out more about this caste system, became pretty important. Of course, there's also the fact that the quest lines could be sped through, possibly skipping some damning stuff. Like, when Vartag Gavorn gives you the documents that "prove" that Harrowmont is swindling nobles to gain favor and their votes, you could take it upon yourself to find out that they're fake from the Shaperate. And if you play it just right, you can get a quest that provides you with proof that Bhelen was also responsible for his brother's murder. If you're diligent, the game does make it hard to justify Bhelen, since it's clear that he's being a dirty underhanded politician through all of this.

 

But in the end, it didn't matter to me. I was totally sick of dwarven culture at that point and didn't really care who was cheating who anymore. That place was a rotten hole and I wanted to just get someone on the throne and get the army I need and get the heck out of there...

Of course, not before getting a few drinks at Tapster's, the bright spot in Orzammar's dank, nug sh*t-lined tunnels.

[Drasanil]

Ok. The hardest choice for me in the series thus far has been whether or not to let the Architect live. I shouldn't have to wait two games to experience the consequence of my decision. Yes, I do want conundrums. But I don't want to wait 'till 2018 for them to matter (or not matter as is the case with most of these).

 

 

Yeah, that was really my only hard choice too. In the end I let him live because both Velenna and Oghren agreed it was a good idea... what could go wrong with that kind of endorsement

[Icy Magebane]

Ok. The hardest choice for me in the series thus far has been whether or not to let the Architect live. I shouldn't have to wait two games to experience the consequence of my decision. Yes, I do want conundrums. But I don't want to wait 'till 2018 for them to matter (or not matter as is the case with most of these).

This is actually a good point... although situations like this effect us as players, they have little emotional impact on protagonists that were not responsible for making them.  The Inquisitor or maybe even another PC entirely will have to face the full backlash of the Architect decision, whatever it may be, but it really doesn't add much to their storylines... it's just another problem to solve by the time it becomes relevant to the main plot of DA again.  So basically I'd prefer it the consequences of difficult decisions played out within the same game from now on... or I suppose Bioware could abandon the decision to switch protagonists for each game...

 

I mean, yeah I want to know what happened to Connor Eamon after my Warden worked out a deal with the desire demon that had possessed him.  Yeah, I want to know if the Fade Beast is every actually going to return to toy with the mortal realm.  Will any of that mean much to the Inquisitor beyond maybe a side quest here or a boss battle there?  Probably not...

[Drasanil]

From a meta-perspective I know that he's the only person/thing known to have been able to cure or negate the Taint. At the time of making the choice it didn't occur to me, but 'my gut' told me to spare him. I also had Velana, Oghren, and Nathaniel all telling me it was a good idea.

 

The fact Velenna's sister and that dwarven lady who didn't talk both seemed relatively sane and not particularily brood-mothery despite being tainted for a while [a long while in the case of the dwarf IIRC] helped. 

[Dabrikishaw]

I wouldn't mind this happening, it will be interesting to see all the possible outcomes.

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

As long as it doesn't happen every single time. The 'right' thing and the 'bad' thing should be equally liable to backfire depending on the circumstance, I'd say. 

[Jaison1986]

The Architect, Morrigan ritual, Anders fate. Those are the choices that gut me, and interestingly enough, they are all end game choices. But I do like the concept. It's come to an point were the players are not even being moraly good, but rather just preachy. I think these kind of choices are nice, and work as an rather nice "wake up call" to the players. Some times, we need to think with our brains, not our hearts.

 

That happened to me when I first played Origins. I sided with Harrowmont. thinking "wow, what an douch that Bhelen, no way I'm helping him" only for the ending slide to punch in the face showing the outcome of that choice was very umpleseant. After that I contemplated a lot, and came to the realization that my personal feelings on a person or an situation should not rule my decisions.

[themikefest]

I don't mnd good decisions turn out badly. It would mean more reply value. Next time do the opposite and see what happens.

[myahele]

I kinda hope so! Right or wrong doesn't matter. But I would love for a decision I made early in the game to have sever consequences.

For example in ME 3 if you choose to sabotage the genophage cure (hard decision throughout) you'll think you got away scot free, but no. The krogans find out, lose an ally and lose the support of the Krogans.