182 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Luminous]

I both agree and disagree with you on this matter. The Orsino fight was unfortunate and, as has been pointed out so many times, added so that choosing the mage side doesn't leave you with less boss fights than choosing the Templars. Still, I did not feel it served the story well and the way it was executed was not really engaging to me. It was another example of the third Act being rushed and juryrigged.

 

Having written that, your choice did mean something leading to it. If you chose to side the mages, that was the side your Hawke stood with, it was that courtyard where Hawke gave his/her farewells. When the chaos came, that was where Hawke's principles put them. Thus it did mean something.

 

The thing I've realized, at least I have thought I have realized, when reading on a lot of discussions on choices and their impact is that while everyone keeps mentioning how important they are, I don't think there's a general consensus what is a meaningful consequence. To give an example, a minor scene in DAO was that when the player arrived to Lothering and there was a traumatized survivor blaming them of being tainted. The player could kill the survivor, calm and comfort them or disgrace them in front of everyone. That choice was not reflected or referred to at any further point of the game, so was it a meaningless choice? Was it a wasted choice?

 

The second problem with the argument is that Dragon Age 2 was never a game about what happened, but rather why something happened. It required an end point, the Qunari invasion and the Mage-Templar outburst to lead to the future games, so it instead told what was Hawke's role in the conflict. Was s/he a bloodthirsty tyrant who stoked the flames of war or was s/he someone who fought to the last to hold the chaos together. Is such a choice of role meaningless, even though it changes who they were in the story completely?

 

I think in order for it to be meaningful *to me* something other than the setting has to change. 

 

Whether I give my pep talk on the stairs or in the courtyard, whether there are mages or templars beside me is more a change of scenery than a meaningful outcome. 

 

The lothering survivor was meaningful because (and yes this is meta-knowledge) even though we don't see mention of him ever again, each choice changes the outcome in a specific way. Either he calms down, runs away ranting, or you kill him. That to me is a significant enough change. 

[Lady Luminous]

I would say it depends. Should you be able to control how your character reacts to events? Yes, certainly. Should you be able to control the events themselves? Not neccesarily. That's really what I've been pushing in this thread. There's no player choice as to which sibling dies because Hawke is not in a position to chose. To give the player a chance to chose here would be the complete opposite of role-playing. If you're playing the role of Hawke, you're limited by what Hawke can do. To do otherwise is to move beyond role-playing that character. If Hawke is not in a position to chose, the player shouldn't be able to chose.

 

Role-playing is about shaping your character, not shaping the world.

 

The fact is though that they are giving us a choice when our class determines the death of a sibling.

 

Many of us believe it should be random, and party balance be damned. 

[PhroXenGold]

The fact is though that they are giving us a choice when our class determines the death of a sibling.

 

Many of us believe it should be random, and party balance be damned. 

 

But they are not giving your character a choice. And in an RPG, you are playing your character.

 

To be fair, as I've said earlier, I wouldn't have a problem with it being random. I feel it would be a bit pointless, as players would just restart to get the one they want due to it being so close to the start, thereby removing the entire reason for having a random death. If they did kill off a character at random, it should be later in the game, but with the random seed generated right at the beginning so you can't just save scum around it. That way it would have real meaning.

[Lady Luminous]

But they are not giving your character a choice. And in an RPG, you are playing your character.

 

To be fair, as I've said earlier, I wouldn't have a problem with it being random. I feel it would be a bit pointless, as players would just restart to get the one they want due to it being so close to the start, thereby removing the entire reason for having a random death. If they did kill off a character at random, it should be later in the game, but with the random seed generated right at the beginning so you can't just save scum around it. That way it would have real meaning.

 

I may be playing my character, but as a player who intends on re-playing the game, I want to have choices. Me, not my character. 

[frankf43]

That's the story of DA II: You may try, but kn the end, bad things just happen and you can't do much about it. It's just a different story than "you are the hero and the world bends to your will".

I think DAI will be more classical, even if you can't control everything.

 

That's why I ended up not caring. If you could change things but failed and lost your Brother/Sister and Mother it could have been gut-wrenching. The fact that it was something that we had no impact on took away all of the emotion involved in the scenes.

 

After all was said and done you didn't fail the story failed you.

[TheEternalStudent]

That's why I ended up not caring. If you could change things but failed and lost your Brother/Sister and Mother it could have been gut-wrenching. The fact that it was something that we had no impact on took away all of the emotion involved in the scenes.

 

After all was said and done you didn't fail the story failed you.

I didn't really care when my sibling (Carver) died in DA2, first because it's Carver, and I still don't really care, but also we never got invested in the character. We met them 5 minutes ago, I felt empathy for Hawke, but I didn't care, but I'd argue that the powerlessness can be what's most important. it's the Kobiyasha Maru, having a way out just means that it loses impact. Depowering can be a powerful tool, I just didn't feel invested enough to feel depowered.

[Lady Luminous]

I didn't really care when my sibling (Carver) died in DA2, first because it's Carver, and I still don't really care, but also we never got invested in the character. We met them 5 minutes ago, I felt empathy for Hawke, but I didn't care, but I'd argue that the powerlessness can be what's most important. it's the Kobiyasha Maru, having a way out just means that it loses impact. Depowering can be a powerful tool, I just didn't feel invested enough to feel depowered.

 

Agreed. You know what you're supposed to feel, because they're you're sibling, but I didn't actually feel anything. Unlike when Cousland had to leave their parents behind in DA:O when I actually came close to tears. 

[Fishy]

Carver was a serious minority complex douche. But, in the additional DLC's he was more allright. Once he had found himself in the templars or grey wardens he was simply just a zealot. That's slightly more tolerable.

He's an interesting character, just not likeable, that's all. I felt the same way about fenris.

 

On the meridith/orsino fight though, I really felt gimped. That was really annoying that you had to fight 'm both anyway.

 

Yes he had a severe case of inferiority complex with his brother/sister. I don't agree with the zealot part. I think he just finally snapped out(Inferiority and juvenile complex) of it and realized he can do great without having to be his brother. That something everyone was trying to tell him. Aveline was pointing out at some point that he was a good warrior, but that was not enough for him because he was not like  his brother/sister. In his head he was just the ''brother of my greater brother''

 

What he should have been was proud of having such a great brother/sister and snap out of the shitty toxic jealousy. He was just bitter and toxic because of it.

 

When he joined the templar/grey warden. he realized how much it was stupid to always compare himself to his brother. His brother was just like the templar. Doing stuff bigger than himself. He had to leave his brother to understand that.

 

Rant over.

[Hiemoth]

I think in order for it to be meaningful *to me* something other than the setting has to change. 

 

Whether I give my pep talk on the stairs or in the courtyard, whether there are mages or templars beside me is more a change of scenery than a meaningful outcome. 

 

The lothering survivor was meaningful because (and yes this is meta-knowledge) even though we don't see mention of him ever again, each choice changes the outcome in a specific way. Either he calms down, runs away ranting, or you kill him. That to me is a significant enough change. 

 

But something else than the setting does change? Your side in the battle changes, who stands with you changes based on previous choices and how you interacted with your party members. Also their relationships and reasons to stand there change. DA2 is a game very much about who Hawke is, who was this person in the middle of all this chaos, and that reflected on many narrative designs in the game. Granted, though, the rushed effect hurt a lot of the probably planned reflections, for example the initial promise that the way Kirkwall grows and looks would reflect player choices. Personally, I suspect that be due to the third Act, as I assume that how the city was rebuilt after being burned down by the Qunari would have been influenced by prior choices by the player, but that is just speculation on my part.

 

DAO always leads to the duel with Loghain, no matter how much work you put in finding evidence against him. Is that somehow suddenly a wasted choice? As for meta-knowledge of the choice, that applies to many situation in DA2. How you treated the Fereldan refugees working at the mines, what you did at the end of Merrill's last quest, did Isabella take the ship. There are multitude of events in DA2 where choices have consequences, even the last ones as it cements how history views Hawke.

 

None if this is by the way in any way to argue that you should magically somehow like DA2 more, just to argue why I liked the game. For example my feelings on most decisions done in DAO is kind of meh, as while they had more observable in-game consequences, the way the game was built made me feel the Warden was a bit of a plot device in almost all the situation. There is a problem, the Warden arrives, the problem is solved. That made me feel very detached from the choices and the character him/herself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Now you see, I completely disagree with this. I'm not saying the player should never have to chose or such, indeed the choice on Virmire was a great scene, but giving the player the power to chose at all times trivialises it. It puts you into a position a god, not a character. In reality, people just die most of the time. You don't get to chose, it just happens. To always give choice is simply unbelievable. And to be honest, Virmire wasn't about the character dying, it was about the choice. It was about having to make a painful decision, not about having to face up to death.

Same with romances. People have their own tastes and preferences. Not everyone in the world is bisexual, not everyone automatically finds everyone else attractive. A world where everyone will sleep with the lead character regardless is laughably unrealistic. Frankly, I feel that DA:I is too "free love". Most people I know have sexual tastes far more restrictive than any of the characters, even down to things like not wanting to date people with certain hair colours.

But then, maybe I'm in a minority. I want a deep, immersive, believable world, not a power fantasy where everything I want to happen does. I want to roleplay a character not a god. I want the game to kick me in the balls. I want it to make me upset because a character I like died without me being able to influence it. Because that is realistic. It's immersive. And it's moments like that that stay with you. Take, for example, FFVII. Yes, the game is pretty crap (6 and 9 are vastly superior), but that one scene - and if you've played it you'll know exactly what one I mean - is still one of the greatest in gaming. Why? Because there's nothing you can do about it. It displays the helplessness of your character. And in doing so it immerses you in the world. It makes you feel.

I think the player fills both roles; he is bot a character and a god. But the character is not the god - the character and the god are entirely separate.

It is because of this separation that it's not necessary to subject the player to hardship in order to subject the character to hardship.

For example, choosing between Kaidan and Ashley might be difficult for the character, but I see no reason why it would ever be difficult for the player.

That said, since we're looking for a believable world, we should have been able to try to save both, even if that meant they both would die.

With Carver/Bethany, the player chooses only indirectly, and in an undocumented way. Unless the player has done a bunch of background reading, he doesn't know that he gets to choose which sibling dies at all. He just sees one die, unable to intervene. Now, I hate cutscenes, so I would prefer that it had been gameplay that killed either Carver or Bethany, and then we likely would have been able to choose (evem though the PC might have wanted to save both, the player will.quickly discover that this is impossible).

[9TailsFox]

depending on your class. You made decision picking your class and you get consequences.

[9TailsFox]

But they are not giving your character a choice. And in an RPG, you are playing your character.

 

To be fair, as I've said earlier, I wouldn't have a problem with it being random. I feel it would be a bit pointless, as players would just restart to get the one they want due to it being so close to the start, thereby removing the entire reason for having a random death. If they did kill off a character at random, it should be later in the game, but with the random seed generated right at the beginning so you can't just save scum around it. That way it would have real meaning.

I wouldn't restart. If you do it's your problem.

[Lady Luminous]

But something else than the setting does change? Your side in the battle changes, who stands with you changes based on previous choices and how you interacted with your party members. Also their relationships and reasons to stand there change. DA2 is a game very much about who Hawke is, who was this person in the middle of all this chaos, and that reflected on many narrative designs in the game. Granted, though, the rushed effect hurt a lot of the probably planned reflections, for example the initial promise that the way Kirkwall grows and looks would reflect player choices. Personally, I suspect that be due to the third Act, as I assume that how the city was rebuilt after being burned down by the Qunari would have been influenced by prior choices by the player, but that is just speculation on my part.

 

DAO always leads to the duel with Loghain, no matter how much work you put in finding evidence against him. Is that somehow suddenly a wasted choice? As for meta-knowledge of the choice, that applies to many situation in DA2. How you treated the Fereldan refugees working at the mines, what you did at the end of Merrill's last quest, did Isabella take the ship. There are multitude of events in DA2 where choices have consequences, even the last ones as it cements how history views Hawke.

 

None if this is by the way in any way to argue that you should magically somehow like DA2 more, just to argue why I liked the game. For example my feelings on most decisions done in DAO is kind of meh, as while they had more observable in-game consequences, the way the game was built made me feel the Warden was a bit of a plot device in almost all the situation. There is a problem, the Warden arrives, the problem is solved. That made me feel very detached from the choices and the character him/herself.

I was only able to force myself to playthrough DA2 once, whereas this is my 6th playthrough of DA:O so I think that makes our preferential differences very obvious.  

 

I felt like the Warden's station and the treaties gave him autonomy to find a solution to many of these problems. However there are so many choices that the Warden can make that ruins the situation instead of solving the issue. I love that I can choose to be a self-serving son of a ****** that peevishly solves the problems, or a golden-boy(/girl) hero, or an evil overlord ruling Ferelden from the ashes (although that does require getting an arch-demon out of the way). 

[PhroXenGold]

I was only able to force myself to playthrough DA2 once, whereas this is my 6th playthrough of DA:O so I think that makes our preferential differences very obvious.

 

I felt like the Warden's station and the treaties gave him autonomy to find a solution to many of these problems. However there are so many choices that the Warden can make that ruins the situation instead of solving the issue. I love that I can choose to be a self-serving son of a ****** that peevishly solves the problems, or a golden-boy(/girl) hero, or an evil overlord ruling Ferelden from the ashes (although that does require getting an arch-demon out of the way). 

 

My problem with the choices in Origins is that the "good" option is always the best one. Only the choice of which of the dwarves to make king is possibly different, as there isn't a clear cut good option - Bhelen is the better option in the long term, but at the same time, he will cause great harm in the short term. For pretty much all the other times, you have to make a choice, there's no advantage for being ruthless. There's no advantage to doing what gives you the best chances of defeating the blight. There's no advantage to making sacrifices. Choosing the "good" option always works out. It feels like some kind of fairytale, not a gritty and realistic fantasy world.

 

Obviously, roleplaying characters that take the non-good choices is great - indeed my "canon" warden is a full on ruthless ****** who did whatever it took to stop the blight. And it worked. And that was the most fun I've had playing DA:O.

 

But when I do go with the good options, I'm always so disappointed that there are no consequences. Things like, say, saving Redcliff village - you are needlessly putting the lives of you and your companions at risk. And yet what happens when you do? Oh yeah. Nothing. I would *love* it if, should you side with the mages in the tower, it turns out that the survivors were indeed possessed, that Cullen was right. That would've been amazing. Instead, well, save them and everything turns out OK. Throw countless lives into the Anvil, what do you get? A few golems in the final battle. Kill Branka and destroy the Anvil...well, it doesn't harm you ability to stop the blight in any way shape or form. And then there's the worst: Connor. Somehow you've got the time to travel all the way to the tower and back again to get the mages and nothing bad has happened. If you chose that option, you should get back to Redcliff to find that Connor 's possession has gotten even worse and he is not savable.

[Lady Luminous]

My problem with the choices in Origins is that the "good" option is always the best one. Only the choice of which of the dwarves to make king is possibly different, as there isn't a clear cut good option - Bhelen is the better option in the long term, but at the same time, he will cause great harm in the short term. For pretty much all the other times, you have to make a choice, there's no advantage for being ruthless. There's no advantage to doing what gives you the best chances of defeating the blight. There's no advantage to making sacrifices. Choosing the "good" option always works out. It feels like some kind of fairytale, not a gritty and realistic fantasy world.

 

Obviously, roleplaying characters that take the non-good choices is great - indeed my "canon" warden is a full on ruthless ****** who did whatever it took to stop the blight. And it worked. And that was the most fun I've had playing DA:O.

 

But when I do go with the good options, I'm always so disappointed that there are no consequences. Things like, say, saving Redcliff village - you are needlessly putting the lives of you and your companions at risk. And yet what happens when you do? Oh yeah. Nothing. I would *love* it if, should you side with the mages in the tower, it turns out that the survivors were indeed possessed, that Cullen was right. That would've been amazing. Instead, well, save them and everything turns out OK. Throw countless lives into the Anvil, what do you get? A few golems in the final battle. Kill Branka and destroy the Anvil...well, it doesn't harm you ability to stop the blight in any way shape or form. And then there's the worst: Connor. Somehow you've got the time to travel all the way to the tower and back again to get the mages and nothing bad has happened. If you chose that option, you should get back to Redcliff to find that Connor 's possession has gotten even worse and he is not savable.

I love all those ideas. 

 

I will say that slaughtering a village of elves in return for getting an army of werewolves is both fun and a battle advantage. (not to mention making the survivor elves accept that they brought it upon themselves is gold!)

 

I also think that getting Golems and dwarves in your army is a good advantage. 

 

But yes, the good choices all end in happy sappy endings. 

[TheEternalStudent]

And then there's the worst: Connor. Somehow you've got the time to travel all the way to the tower and back again to get the mages and nothing bad has happened. If you chose that option, you should get back to Redcliff to find that Connor 's possession has gotten even worse and he is not savable.

Just referencing this, I largely agree with the rest of your post, yes, I frequently complain that a moral decision (as in choosing the morally good one) should involve sacrifice. Being a ruthless bastard isn't actually effective. But I don't know if it should have straight up failed, repurcussions yes, but it should only fail if you go anywhere besides the Circle or if you have to finish Broken Circle before you can go. Otherwise you again have a 'right' choice.

[PhroXenGold]

Just referencing this, I largely agree with the rest of your post, yes, I frequently complain that a moral decision (as in choosing the morally good one) should involve sacrifice. Being a ruthless bastard isn't actually effective. But I don't know if it should have straight up failed, repurcussions yes, but it should only fail if you go anywhere besides the Circle or if you have to finish Broken Circle before you can go. Otherwise you again have a 'right' choice.

 

My problem with saving Connor by going to the mages is not just about it being a "good" choice. It's about it being a good choice that makes no real sense. You're leaving a possesed mage effectively unattended for several days. That, of all the choices in the game, should have consequences. Having...the blood mage, I forget his name...sacrifice himself to save Connor is fine in my book - even if it is pretty much a "good" choice: the mage redeems himself, and Connor is saved - beacuse it makes sense. Going and fetching the Circle seems shoehorned in to give a happy ending without actually considering the consequences.

 

And just to note, I don't want all the "good" choices to go bad. I don't mind some working out OK - in fact, having them all going bad would be as disappointing as them all turning out fine - I'd just like the good option to not always be the right one.

[TheEternalStudent]

My problem with saving Connor by going to the mages is not just about it being a "good" choice. It's about it being a good choice that makes no real sense. You're leaving a possesed mage effectively unattended for several days. That, of all the choices in the game, should have consequences. Having...the blood mage, I forget his name...sacrifice himself to save Connor is fine in my book - even if it is pretty much a "good" choice: the mage redeems himself, and Connor is saved - beacuse it makes sense. Going and fetching the Circle seems shoehorned in to give a happy ending without actually considering the consequences.

 

And just to note, I don't want all the "good" choices to go bad. I don't mind some working out OK - in fact, having them all going bad would be as disappointing as them all turning out fine - I'd just like the good option to not always be the right one.

It makes sense, but only under very tightly constrained conditions. It's a gamble, or at least should be. It fits with the mechanics of magic as we understand them, and so I don't mind it being there. Not acknowledging the possibility is ridiculous, even if they had dismissed it. It should be a high-risk high-reward, but instead it's no-risk, all-reward. And that's the problem as I see it.

 

Better yet, you should have been able to send a companion or two to ask the Circle for help while you stay there in case Connor starts acting up.

[Chashan]

My problem with saving Connor by going to the mages is not just about it being a "good" choice. It's about it being a good choice that makes no real sense. You're leaving a possesed mage effectively unattended for several days. That, of all the choices in the game, should have consequences. Having...the blood mage, I forget his name...sacrifice himself to save Connor is fine in my book - even if it is pretty much a "good" choice: the mage redeems himself, and Connor is saved - beacuse it makes sense. Going and fetching the Circle seems shoehorned in to give a happy ending without actually considering the consequences.

 

And just to note, I don't want all the "good" choices to go bad. I don't mind some working out OK - in fact, having them all going bad would be as disappointing as them all turning out fine - I'd just like the good option to not always be the right one.

 

Jowan was the man's name, and he is not the one offered up to sacrifice for Connor (although, one could have him enter the Fade and still have him executed after), that would be his ma'.

 

This may sound odd coming from my end, but I actually appreciate the very palpable repercussions to be considered with Connor prior to committing to any of the options available, even though after the fact those may not materialize. I find the scenario set up in such a way that I can ignore the meta-wise "best" outcome of employing the Circle. That slaying Connor right there on the spot is acted out so magnificently by Isolde only helps make that my personal favorite.

[PhroXenGold]

Jowan was the man's name, and he is not the one offered up to sacrifice for Connor (although, one could have him enter the Fade and still have him executed after), that would be his ma'.

 

This may sound odd coming from my end, but I actually appreciate the very palpable repercussions to be considered with Connor prior to committing to any of the options available, even though after the fact those may not materialize. I find the scenario set up in such a way that I can ignore the meta-wise "best" outcome of employing the Circle. That slaying Connor right there on the spot is acted out so magnificently by Isolde only helps make that my personal favorite.

 

Heh, shows how long since I've done that route, I was thinking Jowan died. But in that case, yeah, the Circle route is even worse. A clear cut "best" choice that involves massive risk that gets completely overlooked and no negative consequences what-so-ever. Take it out and you've got a great set of choices.

 

Killing Connor is indeed a brilliant scene. Really made me feel bad, but, what other reasonable option was there? The blood mage was dead, killed for his crimes. Leaving an abomination for the time it would take to get outside help was unreasonable. The boy had to die.

[Xilizhra]

But they are not giving your character a choice. And in an RPG, you are playing your character.

 

To be fair, as I've said earlier, I wouldn't have a problem with it being random. I feel it would be a bit pointless, as players would just restart to get the one they want due to it being so close to the start, thereby removing the entire reason for having a random death. If they did kill off a character at random, it should be later in the game, but with the random seed generated right at the beginning so you can't just save scum around it. That way it would have real meaning.

Frankly, I think having it be that early in the game would be the point, so you could continue to reset it until you got the one you want without creating a narratively jarring choice scene. I fervently despise the idea of random deaths later in the game, and having the ability to control that seed would be one of the few things I'd use a mod for.

 

Heh, shows how long since I've done that route, I was thinking Jowan died. But in that case, yeah, the Circle route is even worse. A clear cut "best" choice that involves massive risk that gets completely overlooked and no negative consequences what-so-ever. Take it out and you've got a great set of choices.

 

Killing Connor is indeed a brilliant scene. Really made me feel bad, but, what other reasonable option was there? The blood mage was dead, killed for his crimes. Leaving an abomination for the time it would take to get outside help was unreasonable. The boy had to die.

There's no massive risk, there's just not a chance to say on-screen to the rest of your party "stay here and make sure the demon doesn't go berserk." That would have easily solved everything.

[Lady Luminous]

My problem with saving Connor by going to the mages is not just about it being a "good" choice. It's about it being a good choice that makes no real sense. You're leaving a possesed mage effectively unattended for several days. That, of all the choices in the game, should have consequences. Having...the blood mage, I forget his name...sacrifice himself to save Connor is fine in my book - even if it is pretty much a "good" choice: the mage redeems himself, and Connor is saved - beacuse it makes sense. Going and fetching the Circle seems shoehorned in to give a happy ending without actually considering the consequences.

 

And just to note, I don't want all the "good" choices to go bad. I don't mind some working out OK - in fact, having them all going bad would be as disappointing as them all turning out fine - I'd just like the good option to not always be the right one.

 

This is so true, Redcliffe Village wouldn't have survived another night without our party, yet we're off to The Circle for at least 3-5 days (if not a week or longer)? 

[Lady Luminous]

It is one of the downsides to having cinematics. It restricts bioware's design. 

-The ogre should have appeared

-It should have put us in a combat situation right there.

-If one of our relatives died in combat is should have been perma.

 

This would have allowed the option to save both companions,lose them both or have a variation of the sorts.

 

I think it should be more of an ogre appears equidistant between you and your siblings. You get to dive and push one out of the way, and then have an epic 1x1 fight with the ogre.

 

Sadly the sibling you didn't push out of the way gets tragically killed in a rock slide when the ogre lunges for you.