55 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

You'd think, but BioWare loves their needlessly tragic binary choices. (Orzammar and DA2.) Flip a coin. Heads, you save this side but that side dies a horrible death. Tails, that side got saved but this side's spirits will curse you in the Fade for eternity.

 

I guess they feel including a "save both sides" option is a "cop-out" from a story-telling perspective, since it doesn't force you to make a hard choice and they know most people would go for the "save both" option. (Like Redcliffe. Tons of fans already complain about including the option to save both mother and child since, apparently, the choice would have been more "meaningful" only if one had to die.)

If there is to be a third option to avoid tragedy, I would prefer it be well done. I don't object to the the option to save both the Keep and the City, because you have to work for that. You need to close a serious breach in your defenses, spend what I understand to be one-percenter levels of money relative to Thedas's economy, and find natural resources that you can exploit to build a fortress that would logically do what the third option requires.

 

For comparison? In Redcliffe you leave an abomination of city-destroying power alone while you gallivant off for several days trying to find something to make this third option possible. If you'd had to specifically choose party members to leave behind as guards, lost access to them until you'd gotten back to Redcliffe with the mages, and if you'd left behind too few found them waiting outside the village with as many survivors as they'd managed to save from Connor's new army (killing party members for this would be the sort of unforgiving crap I'd expect from Daggerfall or Baldur's Gate), I'd have viewed it as well done. What we have? What we have was not.

[Merle McClure II]

...Riverdales, fair enough then, I had just assumed that as old as the game is that the OP realized he could save both but probably didn't feel comfortable with "taking the third option" in this case and was approaching the discussion from the "what if" standpoint of not being able to save both the fort and the city. --- If we take the standpoint of having turned the stronghold into a nearly invincible Fortress of DOOM then you're right, a lot of the bite in my argument goes away, because if "Lord Warden-Commander" has a reasonable expectation of being able to save both then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the Lord not to (If you were "just" Warden-Commander then I'm not sure that razing the city still wouldn't be the "smart" choice even in that situation but that's hardly clear cut.), although unless I'm completely misremembering things I thought that your army was supposed to be helping you in the city as well, and that they just didn't get any screen time and that even upgraded the fortress just barely held. --- Thanks for elaborating on the Lord of the Rings example. 

 

 

...Faerunner, I haven't personally read anyone claiming that the Conner/Isolode story would be "more meaningful" if you had to choose one to die, the arguments that I've read (And happen to agree with.) is that the "happy ever after" version feels like a shot out of nowhere and relies on the premise that the demon is content to just sit in his room peacefully for AT LEAST several days while you resolve the Circle's issue and then return with help. (Remember that visiting Redcliffe first actually a pretty well thought out suggestion from Alistair and I doubt very many of us overruled him on our first play through. I know that I didn't.) -- I personally wouldn't have an such an issue with it IF you had to leave the swamp witch (And ideally one other party member as backup if you wanted a perfectly happy ending.) behind to keep the demon checked and was thus limited in your party selection while handling the Circle.

 

 

 

As for saving both the keep and the city, well personally I don't have a problem with being able to save both since in order to do so the Warden-Commander had to pave the road to victory with blood, sweet, and coin.

 

 

Of course with that said, if the Warden-Commander didn't do all of that then I still stand by my position that the fort should take priority over a doomed city.

 

 

--EDIT-- (Hey, it worked this time!)

 

 

Yeah, basically I'd have the "third option" work exactly as Riverdales describes it.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

...Riverdales, fair enough then, I had just assumed that as old as the game is that the OP realized he could save both but probably didn't feel comfortable with "taking the third option" in this case and was approaching the discussion from the "what if" standpoint of not being able to save both the fort and the city. --- If we take the standpoint of having turned the stronghold into a nearly invincible Fortress of DOOM then you're right, a lot of the bite in my argument goes away, because if "Lord Warden-Commander" has a reasonable expectation of being able to save both then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the Lord not to (If you were "just" Warden-Commander then I'm not sure that razing the city still wouldn't be the "smart" choice even in that situation but that's hardly clear cut.), although unless I'm completely misremembering things I thought that your army was supposed to be helping you in the city as well, and that they just didn't get any screen time and that even upgraded the fortress just barely held. --- Thanks for elaborating on the Lord of the Rings example. 

You have a detachment in Amaranthine, because there's not many circumstances under which it'd be a good idea not to. But that's it. The rest of your army is at the Keep, or wherever else you've assigned them. It is explicitly stated you leave them behind when you go.

[Merle McClure II]

Ah, that's what I must have been remembering then.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

As for the Keep just barely holding if it does, that's true.

[Merle McClure II]

Thanks, question for you then, if the Warden-Commander didn't have the option of saving both (and no in-game reason to believe that both could be saved) and really did have to make the choice, which would you choose? I'm curious since we've been approaching the issue from different premises.

[Captain Wiseass]

I suppose I'd have to pick Amaranthine. The Wardens signed up for a fight to the death; the people of Amaranthine didn't.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Thanks, question for you then, if the Warden-Commander didn't have the option of saving both (and no in-game reason to believe that both could be saved) and really did have to make the choice, which would you choose? I'm curious since we've been approaching the issue from different premises.

It varies from Warden to Warden. Probably the City more often than the Keep, since the Warden's probably going to have time to build a new one before the next time he needs one given how the Mother dies soon and the Keep's going to have fewer people in it. (Though I have some Wardens who would absolutely choose their few friends over a large number of innocent strangers.)

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

The choice is there for people who want it, and even if it's implemented flawedly I'd rather people have a chance to choose between ideal "save everyone" endings OR "one side has to die/get screwed over" outcome, rather than FORCE all players to pick a "Heads, they win. Tails, you lose" outcome no matter what.

I would rather have a credibly well-done unavoidable Sadistic Choice than a poorly thought out way out, and I would rather have a credibly well-done way out than a poorly thought out unavoidable Sadistic Choice. If I had to choose between a credibly unavoidable Sadistic Choice and a credible way out I think I would rather had the credible way out, though I'd rather the hero had to work for it.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Also!

 

Leaving Redcliffe and coming back to Amaranthine, if we want to talk about "save everyone" options needing to be implemented well rather than being too easy-peasy or contrived, I actually thought the "Darkspawn have flooded Amaranthine and you have to choose between staying to help the city OR go back to save the Keep" was contrived. You want to know why? Because there was a giant gaping smugglers cave underneath the city walls, with openings to the cave both outside and inside the city, creating a way for anyone who wants to sneak in and out.

 

The Warden-Commander KNOWS darkspawn are attacking all the humans in the area, knows darkspawn are persistent and will find any weakness in fortification, knows we need to up the security everywhere, knows we need to fortify the Keep and strengthen the city's defenses; yet for some reason doesn't think that giant cave with openings inside and outside the city walls needed to be addressed?

 

Even without reading meta information (I went into Awakening completely blind, unlike DAO), I thought that smuggler's cave was really perturbing and kept looking around for a way to block off/fill in that cave, but the game doesn't give you the option of mentioning it, never mind fixing it.

 

Realistically speaking, if you complete that quest that lets you deal with smugglers underground, the Warden-Commander should have blocked off/filled in that cave under the city, thus the darkspawn would not have been able to flood Amaranthine the way they did, and you wouldn't have to choose between burning the city to rush back to the Keep OR leaving your men in the Keep to fend for themselves while you kill all the darkspawn/save as many people as you can inside Amaranthine.

 

That "Heads, they win. Tails, you lose" situation was contrived, so I'm willing to cut the "everyone lives" outcomes some slack since they at least let you not feel like a butcher/failure no matter what you choose.

I'm not bashing the "everyone lives" outcome here. Being able to fortify the Keep and have it hold makes sense under the circumstances. I am annoyed that you couldn't do the same for Amaranthine, for the same reasons. I don't like being railroaded into problems. I acknowledge that video games are limited to what the developers have the time, money, resources, and foresight to put in, but this is just a joke. The Warden is forced to act like a moron in the name of this plot twist, and some of mine are supposed to be fairly clever.

 

And it only gets worse if you complete the Smuggler's Run questline instead of Law and Order. If memory serves, if you complete Smuggler's Run the darkspawn actually attack the smugglers and take the tunnel. You enter the tunnel, kill the darkspawn, and then inform nobody that the darkspawn had found a way into the city. You don't order one of the Wardens to tell the guards about the tunnel "behind your back", you don't offer to spend some of the ridiculous money you made to comp the smugglers' losses in exchange for them sealing the tunnel, you don't do anything. The only opportunity to ever mention it again is if you elect to save Amaranthine. It comes after the darkspawn have already used that tunnel to send a second wave.

 

It occurs to me that maybe Gaider should start running a tabletop version of any game he plans to write (using NDAs to keep the concepts he's floating from getting out) and see which of his Sadistic Choices are unbeatable. If too many people find ways out, maybe he should rewrite the choice to either include the most obvious loophole(s), see if he can't close some of them without making the railroading too obvious, or just edit that choice out as a bad job.

[Merle McClure II]

Faerunner, the meta gaming aspect is part of my problem with the issue (My eyes bleed a little every time someone says that they "spared the Architect because it'd be more interesting" or "I wanted to pick Harrowmont but Bhelan is better for the dwarves" or similar stuff.), but the larger reason why Connor leaves a sour taste in my mouth is that it feels like it was just tacked on at the last second and relies on the Warden to snort fairy dust and skip down the lane while whistling their lucky tune. -- If there was AT LEAST something that the Warden had to do in order to stack the odds in the favor of everything turning out ok I'd be fine (Leaving party members behind to guard the place AND only being able to go to the Circle and back would be fine in my opinion.), but as it is, you can finish the other three Treaties, get sidetracked Lord knows how many times, and the demon who almost destroyed Redcliffe is just going to just play quietly in his room. ... Mind you, this is the SAME quest where if you don't save Redcliffe on your first visit everyone dies.

 

Besides, although not EVERY choice should be "tails you lose/heads I win", having at least a couple of no-wins tends to make the game feel more realistic and alive in my opinion, not even the "hero" should be able to ride in and fix everything all of the time.

 

 

 

As for the city/fort ... although I agree that the Warden-Commander should be able to at least mention the city's weaknesses, even if it's just to gripe about not being able to force them to actually buckle down and fix them, I can kind of understand the difference between shoring up your castle's defenses vs trying to fix an entire city that you simply can't control to the same degree.

 

 

 

--EDIT--

 

In fact, I'd almost be willing to place money on the fact that the "save everyone" bit with Connor was just tacked on at the last moment in order to avoid the critism from players who didn't want to have to make a hard choice. -- It just doesn't make any sense to me otherwise. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

As for the city/fort ... although I agree that the Warden-Commander should be able to at least mention the city's weaknesses, even if it's just to gripe about not being able to force them to actually buckle down and fix them, I can kind of understand the difference between shoring up your castle's defenses vs trying to fix an entire city that you simply can't control to the same degree.

You can force them to fix the city's vulnerability. You outrank them. And even if there's wiggle room as far as whether or not they have to obey you in this (which there might well be) the Constable of the City makes clear he's willing to give you leeway.

 

And even if they aren't willing to listen to you just because you outrank them, they'll listen to this. It's a tunnel into their city. There is no situation in which they don't want to at least limit it to their own access only.

[Merle McClure II]

I was thinking more along the lines that sure, you could order them to seal the tunnel, but that hardly means that the people who want to be able to continue to use the tunnel or the people who profit from the smuggled goods would actually follow your order, I don't remember how many people are supposed to be in the city but to me at least it's understandable that the Warden-Commander would have a much harder time securing a city of however many people of differing factions, goals, abilities, ect then their castle, similar to the differences between a civilian community and a military base.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I was thinking more along the lines that sure, you could order them to seal the tunnel, but that hardly means that the people who want to be able to continue to use the tunnel or the people who profit from the smuggled goods would actually follow your order, I don't remember how many people are supposed to be in the city but to me at least it's understandable that the Warden-Commander would have a much harder time securing a city of however many people of differing factions, goals, abilities, ect then their castle, similar to the differences between a civilian community and a military base.

You are the one percent in this game. If you imported you probably have more money going into this campaign than most of the city put together will ever see in their lives unless they watch you put your hand in your purse. If you didn't import you probably soon will anyway. There is no amount of profit they can make off that tunnel over the limited time it'll have to remain sealed that you cannot double on a whim, and that's without factoring in the risk of keeping that tunnel open. Besides which the guard could simply seal it by force without having to bother with any such payout. The Constable makes clear that he does not approve of the smugglers and would do so. And there's no reason the tunnel can't be sealed whatsoever if the smugglers are already dead, which in my playthroughs they usually are. Maybe the darkspawn would find a way in regardless, but it's not all that difficult to believe the Warden could deny them this way.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Oh, I see. 

 

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to lose my temper. 

No problem.

[Gambit458]

According to Dragon Age Keep, you can save both your keep and the city. How you do that I don't know, but I would rather be able to save both instead of one or the other

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

According to Dragon Age Keep, you can save both your keep and the city. How you do that I don't know, but I would rather be able to save both instead of one or the other

Buy every upgrade for your Keep and then save the city. That means buying the wall upgrade, finding the granite for the dwarf responsible for the wall upgrade, finding all three ore samples for Herren and allowing him as many soldiers as he needs to guard the mines, sealing the entrance from the Deep Roads under Vigil's Keep, and possibly (since I don't know that this is mandatory) finding as much lyrium sand for Dworkin as he needs to make as many bombs as he wants. And I may be forgetting something else you need to do.

[Merle McClure II]

Seems to me that you also need to upgrade the merchants as well ... although I may be mistaken.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Seems to me that you also need to upgrade the merchants as well ... although I may be mistaken.

I've gotten screwed out of that one by a bug and still saved both once. (I think.) Besides, I don't see why the merchants are necessary for this. If the siege lasted more than a week (if memory serves the darkspawn horde breaks after the first one) I could see them giving into starvation without Lilith and Armaas, but as it is I think the Keep's own stocks should be enough.

[ent1]

Unless you were too cheap or too poor to upgrade Vigil's Keep, it's just lazy and cruel not to help Amaranthine.