86 réponses à ce sujet

[PhroXenGold]

Landsmeet was amazing, you have to work to get your political victory.

 

Virmire was terrible, c'mon, no more contrived choices that boils down to "save your favorite".

 

Landsmeet was ruined for me by the fact that the whole "political" bit was irrelevant. No matter what happened, it boiled down to a fight.

 

But as for characters dying, yes, but I don't want to be able to chose. Nor do I want the indentity of the character that dies to be a result of decisions I've made. I want it to be random, with no limitations on who can and can't die (I don't mind having a character die as a result of my actions - indeed, I'd love that to happen - I just don't want to be able to control who dies).

[Tamyn]

If I'm forced to let someone die, I hate when it's a choice between two of my favorites (as on Virmire). At least let me metagame to off someone I don't care for.

[Ganzevort]

*snip*

 

Saving the keep or village in the Crestwood (I think?) demo seemed potentially interesting because of the debate around the importance of civilian or military assets in times of war.

 

*snip*

 

Actually, given that we don't know anything Landsmeet-or-Virmire choices yet in DA:I (as in relating to characters), would you choose to save the village or the keep?

[metalfenix]

I liked the landsmeet, but Virmire....Even to this day I can't get into it. It's true, I don't like Ash at all...but hell, leaving her there like that....

 

But again, I'm a heartbleeder and I like to have every member of my group/crew alive and well.

[Ieldra]

I'm all for hard choices with real consequences. I may complain here and there, but I really prefer things that way.

 

However, there are two things to consider:

 

(1) Recognizeable decision patterns are bad.

 

They make it appear as if the decisions exist for their own sake and push your face into the fact that this isn't real, thus breaking immersion. Even worse, they may send a message.

 

For instance, if "good" actions always have good outcomes and "bad" actions (by intuitive morality) always have bad outcomes that would destroy the rationale for pragmatism or evil, because the point of those is exactly that they get you results for yourself (in the case of evil) or the whole as you perceive it  (in the case of pragmatism) at a price paid by others. Such a world appears increasingly artificial the more recognizeable the pattern gets. The point of evil is that it *does* pay if you can escape being punished for it by others, and the point of pragmatism is that it often *does* get you overall better results at the price of minor evil. 

 

To get back to the hard, Virmire-like decisions, if too many decisions are noticeably set up like that the world appears artificial because in reality, decisions are rarely balanced so that the good and bad aspects of all available options are more or less equivalent. 

 

(2) Drama that feels artificial is worse than no drama at all, and may inadvertently reflect badly on characters

 

Take the Landsmeet choice between Alistair and Loghain. The political setup that leads up to this is great, as are the different outcomes you can get for the question of who will become king or queen, the effect of the minor sidequests in Denerim etc... All in all, it's one of my favorite scenes in DAO. However, the choice between Alistair and Loghain feels artificial because Alistair's refusal to accept Loghain's joining has no convincing rationale. As a Warden, he should be well aware that being a Warden is not an honor in and of itself, and he should be aware that the Wardens do what they must and one body more between Thedas and the Archdemon is by far the more important consideration. As a result, he comes across as an idiot. This is a fine example of damaging character integrity for the sake of drama, unless  the writers actually wanted Alistair to come across as an idiot.

 

The problem is, Bioware doesn't exactly have a good track record at avoiding this kind of thing, most notably, but not restricted to the Mass Effect games. Virmire was reasonably well-crafted, but "drama over common sense" and "drama over consistency" had become almost defining flaws in Mass Effect 3.  

 

So, I do want the hard decision here and there, and I do want to feel the consequences. Needn't be character deaths, NPCs leaving can have a comparable impact while being less prone to feeling artificial. Howeveer, i want all kinds of decisions: those that are easy between different ideologies, those which are weighted in favor of one side, as long as it isn't always the same side, and those who are balanced and all the harder for that. A decision pattern that feels somewhat random in its distribution of outcomes is important in order for the world to feel natural and real, and in order to avoid sending messages that support specific real-world ideological stances by association.

[SardaukarElite]

Actually, given that we don't know anything Landsmeet-or-Virmire choices yet in DA:I (as in relating to characters), would you choose to save the village or the keep?

 

It depends a lot on how it is presented. I like it as a choice because I can think of good reasons for different people to take different approaches. Generally though I'd try to save the village first, deviating from that would depend on how bad I thought the consquences would be.

 

 

However, the choice between Alistair and Loghain feels artificial because Alistair's refusal to accept Loghain's joining has no convincing rationale. As a Warden, he should be well aware that being a Warden is not an honor in and of itself, and he should be aware that the Wardens do what they must and one body more between Thedas and the Archdemon is by far the more important consideration. As a result, he comes across as an idiot. This is a fine example of damaging character integrity for the sake of drama, unless  the writers actually wanted Alistair to come across as an idiot.

 

They did.

 

Alistair is consistently a naive, irrational, thin skinned, spiteful, little twit. He's always avoiding responsibility yet criticising people for not folllowing his notion of honour, even when he doesn't have a solution himself.

[Vapaa]

 

But as for characters dying, yes, but I don't want to be able to chose. Nor do I want the indentity of the character that dies to be a result of decisions I've made. I want it to be random, with no limitations on who can and can't die (I don't mind having a character die as a result of my actions - indeed, I'd love that to happen - I just don't want to be able to control who dies).

 

No, that's even more terrible, ME2's suicide mission did it right, and it's the only time in the series that the game treats you like an actual squad leader. In ME1 you are a investigator, in ME2 you are a company recruiter and in ME3 you're a diplomat, only during the SM I felt that it was what Shepard did before all those reaper shenanigans.

[Tamyn]

However, the choice between Alistair and Loghain feels artificial because Alistair's refusal to accept Loghain's joining has no convincing rationale. As a Warden, he should be well aware that being a Warden is not an honor in and of itself, and he should be aware that the Wardens do what they must and one body more between Thedas and the Archdemon is by far the more important consideration. As a result, he comes across as an idiot. This is a fine example of damaging character integrity for the sake of drama, unless  the writers actually wanted Alistair to come across as an idiot.

 

Alistair is consistently a naive, irrational, thin skinned, spiteful, little twit. He's always avoiding responsibility yet criticising people for not folllowing his notion of honour, even when he doesn't have a solution himself.

 

Alistair has no idea what Grey Wardens are really about. All he's done is party with them and kill a few darkspawn for six months. He worships Duncan like a superhero and thinks the Grey Wardens are these paragons of goodness. He's got this whole fantasy crafted about them and every time you disagree with him he gets really defensive because you're threatening his entire world view. Duncan was not a "good man"; he was a ruthless ass.

 

Alistair's not stupid, he's just a fool. He refuses to face reality because it's easier not to have to critically think. Lots of people are like that.

[Doominike]

Keep those in I say

[WildOrchid]

Landsmeet was amazing, you have to work to get your political victory.

 

Virmire was terrible, c'mon, no more contrived choices that boils down to "save your favorite".

 

Yes, this. I'd like a more complicated version of Landsmeet than "lol sorry but i'll save my bae".

[Darkly Tranquil]

Alistair has no idea what Grey Wardens are really about. All he's done is party with them and kill a few darkspawn for six months. He worships Duncan like a superhero and thinks the Grey Wardens are these paragons of goodness. He's got this whole fantasy crafted about them and every time you disagree with him he gets really defensive because you're threatening his entire world view. Duncan was not a "good man"; he was a ruthless ass.
 
Alistair's not stupid, he's just a fool. He refuses to face reality because it's easier not to have to critically think. Lots of people are like that.

I don't think that's quite fair. He's spent most of his youth being indoctrinated with the black and white morality of the Chantry and has been largely insulated from interacting with the outside world and developing a more sophisticated understanding of the moral complexities of the real world. He is naive, and his morality is rigid, but he's never been taught any different, so it's hardly surprising that he reacts to ethically complex/ambiguous situations the way he does; he is upset and confused because the ethical framework he has been taught his whole life is crumbling in the face these difficult lose/lose situations.

People don't just naturally become critical thinkers who question the establishes rules and mores of their society, that only happens through being exposed to alternate schools of thought and intellectual inquiry, both of which the Chantry actively inhibits. In addition to that, he's been told all his life that he will amount to nothing and that he is nothing. Alistair is a flawed and damaged personality, but it's a direct consequence of his dreadful, abusive, self-esteem crushing upbringing.

As for Alistair's relationship with the Grey Wardens, they are the closest thing Alistair has ever had to a sense family and of belonging, so it quite understandable that he wants to kill Loghain; if someone, by action (or inaction) caused everyone you knew and cared about to die horribly, wouldn't you want to see them dead? I know I would. When you consider his background and experiences, Alistair's visceral hatred of Loghain is entirely understandable.

[AlexiaRevan]

Virmire: Saved mah best friend....WREX!! Stuck Ash and Kaidan to the nuke  _{I wish}

DAO: Killing the older male child Loghain is always better . 

DA2: Wish could kill both Anders and Sebastian...but since you can't . I let Anders live . 

[Sifr]

I'd actually prefer more of a Suicide Mission type of deal, where the companions I can potentially lose are the result of my screwing up minor things earlier, rather than simply a mission where I'm forced to choose one over the other. Except, rather than having the result of these things happen at the end of the game, they're sprinkled across the game to more of a sense that you have to work hard and keep tract of your companions favour to try not to lose them all.

 

Basically, I want it to be possible to keep everyone, but make it difficult to do even if you do know all the tricks to how to pull this golden ending off.

[AlexiaRevan]

I'd actually prefer more of a Suicide Mission type of deal, where the companions I can potentially lose are the result of my screwing up minor things earlier, rather than simply a mission where I'm forced to choose one over the other. Except, rather than having the result of these things happen at the end of the game, they're sprinkled across the game to more of a sense that you have to work hard and keep tract of your companions favour to try not to lose them all.

 

Basically, I want it to be possible to keep everyone, but make it difficult to do even if you do know all the tricks to how to pull this golden ending off.

argh don't remind me ! *shake fist* damn ya Miranda!! lol When she said 'Any biotic can do the bubble'...I believeeeeeeeed her  Lost jack at the end of the walk   

[bootyislovebootyislife]

Weird that no one has mentionned this, but I personnally never got the Sebastian DLC cause i didn't want a chantry nut in my party.

 

For me it wasn't a Companion A vs Companion B, it was either killing or sparing Anders and I think that only deciding the fate of Anders, not being influenced by another companion leaving or anything, had a much greater emotional impact and I'm glad this is what was part of the core game

 

Also it wasn't just, kill him or don't, you could execute him, spare him but tell him to go, embrace his terrorist ways and welcome him back in the party, if you sided with the templars you could exact some Poetic justice on him and force him to fight the mages, the very people he forced into a rebellion they didn't want.

 

For me it was a very nuanced and hard decision to make, and I'd take that again in Inquisition over Companion A vs Companion B.

[AlexiaRevan]

Sebastian doesn't really influence your decision . He should've killed Anders himself...since he doesn't it's up to me . So I just let him live 

[HaHa365]

From what I've seen, I would imagine we would have more  of these type of choices. It would appear DA:I was meant to have a more choice and consequence, than previous games.

[bootyislovebootyislife]

Sebastian doesn't really influence your decision . He should've killed Anders himself...since he doesn't it's up to me . So I just let him live 

 

He doesn't influence your decision in the game. As a player, he does, since you have to weigh Anders vs Sebastian and who you want to keep

[AlexiaRevan]

well that's like Ashley and Kaidan...I wish I could say no to both . I never use anders and Sebastian . Please take them awayyyy ! lol

[Former_Fiend]

The Landsmeet was cool up until the forced duel with Loghain. If you defeated him in the landsmeet that have been all she wrote. "Guards, execute this man!"

 

The duel should have only been a tiebreaker.

 

Here's the thing; it's possible to loose the decision to Loghain. In which case the duel is a last ditch effort for "If you screwed up several times over the last few hours and can't go back and fix it, you can still advance the plot by beating this guy in a fight."

 

And once you open that door, it immediately raises the point of "If you can turn defeat into victory by demanding trial by combat, then why couldn't Loghain?" There is no good answer for that question, so they had the duel happen if you win, representing that Loghain does have the same option you do.

 

Anyway, I think it's very likely one of these decisions will occur in the game. But it's also possible they'll go another direction to avoid being repetitive. 

[Former_Fiend]

I'd prefer if companions died or left the party based on a culmination of the decisions we make throughout the game. Keep the friend/rival thing from DA2, but if you get to far into the red they decide to go do their thing elsewhere. You don't know how much I wanted Fenris and Anders to just leave, but they always stuck around like a bad smell.

 

That happened in DA2, but it wasn't getting them in the red, it was keeping them in the grey. All the party members except for Varric have points where they will leave you if neither your friendship or rivalry with them is high enough.

 

Granted, several of those points(notably Anders, but also Aveline's and one of Fenris') are at the end game, but they do exist.

[Sifr]

argh don't remind me ! *shake fist* damn ya Miranda!! lol When she said 'Any biotic can do the bubble'...I believeeeeeeeed her  Lost jack at the end of the walk 

 

Really, how did you lose Jack? Since we know that Jack actually can do the bubble, you'd have thought she'd have been able to shake the swarm off easily and showed little Ms "I'm Better than an Asari Justicar and the Most Powerful Biotic on Record" Lawson, how it's really done?

 

Sebastian doesn't really influence your decision . He should've killed Anders himself...since he doesn't it's up to me . So I just let him live 

 

Yeah, I never got that either. Why is it my decision? If you want him dead so badly Sebastian, why don't you do it?

 

To quoth the great Tallahassee, "Time to nut up or shut up!"

 

I'd have preferred that Hawke actually be forced to fight Sebastian if you picked Anders or tried to defend him from Sebastian attacking him in a fit of rage. Having Sebastian leaving as a result of being beaten and going off to lick his wounds, would have been preferable to having him simply stomp off in a huff. And if you went pro-Mage and had Anders in the party, having Sebastian return for a second battle with a contingent of Templars would have made a lot more sense as well, before being forced to once again retreat?

[Darkly Tranquil]

Here's the thing; it's possible to loose the decision to Loghain. In which case the duel is a last ditch effort for "If you screwed up several times over the last few hours and can't go back and fix it, you can still advance the plot by beating this guy in a fight."
 
And once you open that door, it immediately raises the point of "If you can turn defeat into victory by demanding trial by combat, then why couldn't Loghain?" There is no good answer for that question, so they had the duel happen if you win, representing that Loghain does have the same option you do.
 
Anyway, I think it's very likely one of these decisions will occur in the game. But it's also possible they'll go another direction to avoid being repetitive.

Let's be honest, it's a gameplay > story situation. There has to be a boss fight there, so they finagle one no matter what you do. It's just like Orsino going full retard and turning into a Harvester no matter what you do at the end of DA2.

[bootyislovebootyislife]

Really, how did you lose Jack? Since we know that Jack actually can do the bubble, you'd have thought she'd have been able to shake the swarm off easily and showed little Ms "I'm Better than an Asari Justicar and the Most Powerful Biotic on Record" Lawson, how it's really done?

 

You had to buy a biotic implant upgrade for Jack to be able to do the bubble. If you didnt, she ded

[Ianamus]

An unavoidable choice between two companions at a particular point in the game always feels incredibly artificial. I want companions to potentially choose to leave you, be killed or betray you at multiple points in the story based on previous decisions.

 

It's much more organic and allows for better repeat playthroughs because you won't always know "that choice" is coming.