338 réponses à ce sujet

[Innsmouth Dweller]

There is only such force in DA2. You are forced to flee to Kirkwall, you are forced to work for mercenaries for a year, you are forced to collect money for the Deep Roads expedition, you are forced to watch Anders blow up the chantry, you are forced to fight Meredith or Orsino, even if you agreed with one of them the whole way.

 

You had zero say in how Hawke rose to power. You had zero influence on the story. You could chose class or gender. Neither of which had any bearing on the story or the world you are in. People didn't even notice you being a blood mage. You had 3 personalities to chose from, and that's really the only choice you have in the game.

 

In DA:O you can have pretty much any personality (which is what roleplaying is all about), you could use any weapons you wanted, you had a ton of different endings. DA2 had 1 ending.

 

DA2 is as far from a pen and paper game you can get. I'd swap DM, if this is what your pen and paper sessions are like.

pretty much this.

in DA:I defense tho: there are choices you can make. and they impact the story pretty heavily. 

 

but i'm still RPing a tool who can say only 'you've screwed up' but in three different ways... aggressive, compassionate or... neutral, i suppose. and that's still saying the same thing.

i guess, it is a role-playing game. because you're playing a role. but you cannot decide yourself what role you'll play, you are cast into a predetermined one. and that's the reason i personally loathe the boring inquisitor. and Hawke - his voice was stolen and turned into something not mine.

[scrutinizer]

Hydwn

http://forum.bioware...1#entry18276938

Such a fantastic post has gotten by without anyone noticing, let alone answering.

So let's get to it (rubs hands).

 

 

Quick: list all the things that picking Bhelen over Harrowmont changes practically in DAO.  After the final cutscene, the dialogue of dwarves in Orzammar will change.  There is a possible random encounter on the road, and other than that, one single dwarf outside Orzammar will mention it.  You've decided the fate of a nation, and no one outside it will care.  You'll get a different slideshow at the end, unnarrated and not particularly large.  You certainly don't get a different army based on which choice you make.

Practically? Like no-nonsense, down-to-earth, visible and meaningful alterations? None.

However, there are changes for the sake of role-play:

- it does alter dialogue in Orzammar.

- it does alter the slideshow at the end (your 'unnarrated and not particularly large' criticism is inappropriate - it's as large as any other epilogue slide [which I believe is sufficient], and in a written form - I am happy to utilize my reading skill whenever I have the chance, instead of an unnecessary voice invading my ears)

- if you are a dwarf noble and chose Harrowmont, he declares the hero to be the heir of the House Aeducan

- if you are a dwarf commoner and Bhelen was killed, Rica's son will be the Aeducan heir and she herself is an ambassador, ready to tell you that you can return to Orzammar as a member of the warrior caste

- if you let Branka live, you also get different slides depending on who's the king: Bhelen wants to abuse the anvil, Branka refuses, resulting in a siege, in which her golems prove to be an inpenetrable defense/Harrowmont refuses to supply dwarves for the anvil and raids the surface for human or elven subjects - this fact comes to light and Ferelden is at war with Orzammar, which forces Harrowmont to close the city gates, further strengthening the isolation

 

The choice of Celene and Gaspard changes a lot of dialogue, and party reactions.  Throw Briala in, and there's even more.  Folks will comment on it frequently, and there are war table missions related to it.  Ferelden certainly cares if you picked Gaspard, and didn't bother to make peace.

Sure, but it's for the sake of role-play only. What does it change practically? Nothing.

 

Origins has the easier job.  It only needs to be reactive to one game.  But it actually does a worse job of it DAI does reacting to three games.  The elves don't care what you did to the dwarves, and Loghain won't use anything you did at Redcliffe against you.  

Agreed - Origins has the easier job, since it's just one game. Then again, you cannot blame the game for that. As with ME trilogy, DA story through Origins and DA2 is a mere build up for the grand conclusion, where the players expect all the choices they have made to resonate profoundly. And it just never happens, neither in ME nor in DA. Bioware has written themselves into a corner, where there are too many variables, too many story threads and it is impossible to weave them all together and have a one, coherent game. It's hardly Origins fault. It's Bioware's, and in Inquisition it lies bare for anyone to see.

Now, after I finished Origins and saw the slides I was genuinely intrigued how it's (the path I've taken, the choices I've made) going to play out in the next game, in DA2. To my great disappointment, DA2 was set far from Ferelden and barely has any connection. Fair enough, let's wait for DA3 then. And yet again, I get another hero who has no connection to the dark spawn, no connection to my journey and adventures from Origins. Moreover, this hero has no connection to DA2. It's how Bioware tries to dodge the issue, to reduce the insane amount of variables they imposed on themselves - by shifting the action to a completely different individual, to a completely different problem. Thanks to this strategy, an abundance of possible paths are excluded from the get-go. 

I do agree that there are traces of your previous playthroughs to be found - they are just meek and non-essential. Because of my choices Harrowmont was at war with Ferelden. It's a crucial event. It should shape the world.

Regarding elves - why would they care what have you done with the dwarves? They are far away from Orzammar, and have their own problems. They live in the wild. News do not travel there. As for Loghain and Redcliffe - how could he possibly know what has happened? The castle is shut tight and he has no informers there (he has a lone elf in the tavern, whom you can kill or intimidate with ease). Even if he somehow acquired information of what happened, Eamon would stand behind you and protect you, recognizing Loghain as the main threat. However, these are all speculations.

 

It's pretty hilarious Arl Eamon's reactions to your decisions because he needs to be on your side no matter what.  "You killed my wife (or son) and you executed Alistair and saved Loghain, but oh well."

1) you saved his life

2) you saved his child's life by sacrificing his wife

3) you killed his child as he was possessed by a demon and there was no other way around it (at least, that would be the line of reasoning)

4) you killed Alistair because he hadn't give you a choice (if you wanted to spare Loghain)

5) you spared Loghain, as you want him to become a Warden and sacrifice himself to kill the archdemon, letting you live

 

You listed the most hardcore options - these are tough times and sacrifices have to be made.

What you faild to mention is that it's possible to save both Connor and Isolde, but only if you completed the circle quest first and sided with the mages (you dig this choice and how your previous actions influence the subsequent story and your choices?). It's possible to kill Loghain, and make Alistair a king. Eamon approves.

 

Seriously, you can be worse than Loghain in this story, and people who should care don't seem to.   And they certainly don't notice what you've done in other places.  For all the complaints that DA2 was completely episodic, nothing is as episodic as DAO. At least DA2 had reactivity from act to act.

No. You can't betray your king (effectively killing him) and the Wardens in a battle against the darkspawn that could have severly hindered their progress if he fought. Instead, he let the darkspawn raze everything in their path, failing to recognize them as the main threat. You can't do that. You save Ferelden.

I'm extremely curious what you mean by 'they certainly don't notice what you've done in other places'? What I've done? Killed elves, so the cursed warewolves can live? I'm a blood mage? What? Any of these does not matter. You save the entire country (and possibly the world) in the end. This end justifies the means.

 

If I had any doubt the game was keeping track of my choices, it was dispelled the first time I spoke to Leliana in my first playthrough, and she told me about her friend the hero of Ferelden who became queen, and the second time when her lover the hero of ferelden was her lover, and on an important mission.  Or the third playthrough I just started where she rails against the hero for having killed her.  Any lingering doubts are dispelled the instant you enter a cave in Crestwood.  

A few lines of text. That's all we get.

And are you sure you are going to defend 'adaptive storytelling' by telling me Leliana has come back from the dead? I decapited her in Origins. There was no trace of her in DA2, and suddenly she was resurrected like she's some almighty entity that cannot die? - yeah, he killed me, but whatever, I'm here. I killed her myself. This is the epitome of poor storytelling, which shows a total lack of coherency, while displaying the full effect of how Bioware struggles to knit together the variables they themselves introduced. It's a classic shot in the foot. Let me transcript the very dialogue:

 

L: I used to believe I was chosen, just as some say you are. Once, I was sure I died. I did die. Who else but the Maker could have resurrected me? But if he didn't save me to help the divine, then why? Why am I still alive?

I: Wait. You died?

L: It was right there at the Temple of the Urn of Sacred Ashes. We found the Urn, proved the legends were true. But the hero of Ferelden corrupted them, and all I wanted at the moment was vengeance. It was a fight I couldn't win, but I didn't care. And the hero struck me down. I awoke later in agony. The Ashes were gone. I can't explain how I survived.

I: [response implying its impossible.]

L: Believe what you want. I'm still here. Ugh, enough wallowing. I should never have let you see me like this. Such weakness.

 

1) it's just a brief mention (as I said, few lines of dialogue)

2) I didn't just struck her down, it beheaded her. She woke up later in agony? Her head was in agony, or her body? They were separate objects the last I checked.

3) really appreciate that she cannot explain it

4) what weaknes? Girl, you endured death. I want you at my side during battle.

5) I killed Wynne as well, in the very same spot. Why hasn't she come back?

6) if the Maker is so generous, I'd prefer having Duncan at my side. He's a formidable ally and would help tremendously

7) the Maker brought her back, so she can spy for me? Ugh... thanks, I guess. It doesn't sound like a oh-so-weighty-divine mission that necessitates resurrection.

 

 

Then at the midpoint it does something DA2 tried to do and DAO didn't bother with - it branches the entire story, the nemesis, the future mission structure, and the future war table missions through a choice of mages versus templars.  You might lament that the ending was the same, but everything up to that point is drastically altered.  Drinking from the pool, having an old god baby in your playthrough, all of ti alters the mission structure.  

Details. All you do here is throw hazy and meaningless references to how the entire game branches. You didn't say anything specific here.

You know which game truly branches? The Witcher 2. Based on your in-game choice, you receive an entire choice-specific chapter, unique to this playthrough. Can you say the same for DA:I?

 

This is tons more drastic than anything you'll see in DAO.  The post-game will change based on your decisions, and it's someone else who gives the speech when the invasion of Denerim begins, but nothing else much changes in the assault on Denerim.  Even on hard difficulties I don't experience any serious difference between an army of templars or an army of mages.

Again, what is more drastic? Specific examples, please, with how they affect the story and the missions.

The difference between the army of templars and the army of mages is that either templars help you, or mages. Logic?

 

It comes down to what you were expecting that you didn't see...?  A fully rendered cutscene for each decision?  DAO didn't have that, and DA2 didn't even have a slideshow.  The resource cost would have been enormous.  The storyline changes throughout and the slideshow changes, so what's the problem exactly?

DA:O did not have that and didn't have to in fact, as it's merely a beginning of a trilogy. DA:I is the conclusion of said trilogy. Do not confuse the two, they have entirely different objectives to fulfill. 

For the third time, how the storyline changes exactly?

 

I'd like to add two cents here.

 

Have you tried playing as a quanari? A race with convictions and archetypes so alien and distant from what Ferelden or Orlais deems as normal, that it resulted in extremely tense clashes between the two cultures (remember DA2?). Go ahead, choose a quanari and see how the reactions of NPC and companions are affected. You would expect Cassandra to execute you on the spot, the first time you meet. No. She just hands your the keys to the most powerful organization in Thedas and is ready to follow your lead. No questions asked. Doesn't matter my people have fought many bloody wars with your kind.

That's where Origins shone. It had the titular origins, which immediately gave you a solid background for you character, and moreover, hold some weight through the entire game. Folk would refer to you depending on you race and origin, your dialogue choices would be race-specific (even if they didn't change squat practically), even the ending has a few paths made exclusively for particular races and origins. Sure, at the end of the day, it's an illusion of choice and something different (like the 'practically' question I tackled at the very beginning of this post), but from a role-playing standpoint origins were huge. They enabled you to really be a part of the world which adjusts and is mindful of your unique character.

The illusions of Origins hold firm, as it's just the first installment into the series, and the gameworld is much smaller - I believe the size matters here, since smaller chunks are easier to interweave. The vast world and the vast amount of variables (choices that has to resonate here) are puny foundation on which DA:I is built. You cannot hide something that grew so big behind mere illusions.

Only the Well of Sorrows matters in some way and can be deemed as meaningful (in terms of consequences, cause what's a choice worth without its consequences?). 

In comparison, let's take a small, early game choice from Origins: city elf origin, you slay Arl's son (he's a rapist; deserves such fate) and later on, when you are a full-fledged Warden, you try to gather support for the Landsmeet. No dice. You try to convince the Landsmeet that Logain's plan to enslave elves was a bad idea. No dice. Because of you previous actions they perceive elves as blood-thirsty maniacs. This is a choice-and-consequence action, which is severely lacking in DA:I

Don't even get me started on the weak plot and a fail of a villain Cory is. Gotta go to work (sorry for any typos, don't have time to correct them).

 

Peace.

[Akka le Vil]

DA2 love interests were "playersexual" at first and people were okay with that for the most part. Later David Gaider said they are all bisexual instead. *shrugs*

 

I don't know in which world the players were "okay with that for the most part". It was one of the most controversial point of DA2, and I'd even say it became ridiculously big compared to its place in the game.
 

[BWGungan]

Well it appears I'm probably 2 story missions away from the end of Inquisition, and I have to say that overall I'm a bit disappointed.  The variety and scope of the open world areas was great to see since the main complaint about DA:2 was the lack of interesting environments, but at the same time I feel like they were trying too hard and overshot the optimal mark by a lot.

 

There are so many pointless filler quests in this game that it becomes daunting.  By the time I got to the Hissing Wastes, I just wanted it to end, for the love of God just end.  Most of the areas have zero main story or companion story content as well. That was a huge mistake in my opinion.  Running around 5 zones killing rebel Mages doesn't amount to much of a companion mission either.

 

The combat feels awful, especially if you're playing as a melee class.  For about 75% of the game (Hard mode) it was impossible for me to keep my 2H warrior alive against higher powered mobs, and for my first 3-4 dragon kills I just left him dead and killed the Dragon with Vivienne because Spirit Blade is overpowered as all hell.  The main issue with 2H combat is that the attack animations are so slow, and laborious that you swing and miss a lot, for any number of reasons that have to do with stuff moving in and out of your attack range. All I can say is thank God that Reaver attacks are fast, and leap you forward on use.

 

Further to the combat is that the tactical camera is crap. There's no other way to say it.  All it is god for is pausing the game and moving characters to specific spots on the field.  The removal of the Gambit system from DA:O ruined any tactical aspect the combat could have had.  The AI Behaviours and Tactics in DA:I were incompetent, and entirely random. The only way to play this game is to control a single character and hope the Ai doesn't get itself killed.

 

Now I could forgive all of the above, except that DA:I had the poorest story and most boring characters I've experienced in any BioWare game.  This was the biggest let down for me.  Eight main story missions?  Come on.  With the exception of a few short highlights in Dorian's story, Sera's crazy humor, Varric's consistently well-meaning nature, and Iron Bull's awkward moments, this cast of characters was just the dullest bunch of forgettable people ever.  They were none of them relatable to me, and I found it difficult to invest enough in any of them to even romance them (ultimately I chose Josephine strictly for her accent).

 

It's true what they say on the rest of the internet.  DA:I has a raging filler issue and awful combat (unless you're a ranged class), but none of that would have mattered if the story were worth the time investment.  It just isn't.

 

In the end, DA:I falls somewhere in the good (not great), if forgettable, category.

[Eusark]

My complete playthrough of DA:I was around ~123 hours and my thought upon seeing the last scene was, "Finally I'm done with it." Sad, really.

Well.....that sounds very sad

[Akka le Vil]

Well.....that sounds very sad

 

Sad but rather true. The amount of padding and filler is making playing the game an increasing chore.

War Table missions taking sometimes several hours (and I mean that literally, I've one waiting that requires around 24 hours and another at 6) combined with the fact that, even setting true filler aside, companion missions requires wadding through yet another filler zone, had slowed my DAI run to a crawl.

 

I tend to like very long games, but the ways DAI is using to be long (again, mostly filler and padding) makes it more and more boring and after a while wishing for it to just end.

Most ironically, despite all this the main story feels pretty short - just incredibly stretched.

[Mirth]

I'm finding the fetch quests/ filler in DA:I to be rather annoying.

 

I think the 'Real-time' war table missions are .... stupid.  Beyond stupid as a matter of fact.  Whomever suggested it needs to be fired.  Immediately. 
I mean, serious.. who thought this was a good idea??  Making me wait 16 HOURS for my adviser to return from a mission, before I can use them again.  16 HOURS!!!  Are you f*#^king serious?  You want me to what?  Stop playing until tomorrow night??

 

Yes, I can roll my clock forward, but honestly.. WHY THE HELL would I do that?  Is that supposed to be 'clever game design'???

Seriously??
 

No.. I'm sorry.  I repeat.  Whoever s idea that was, needs to be fired.  Immediately.  Pack your desk.  Security will be here in a moment to escort you out.

[Zachriel]

Let's take the choice that's closest between the two games: Bhelen/Harrowmont and Celene/Gaspard.  Both are choices between the ruler of a kingdom the PC has no personal stake in, but needs troops from.  Both are a choices between a backwards-thinking leader and a forward-thinking machiavellian politician.  

 

Quick: list all the things that picking Bhelen over Harrowmont changes practically in DAO.  After the final cutscene, the dialogue of dwarves in Orzammar will change.  There is a possible random encounter on the road, and other than that, one single dwarf outside Orzammar will mention it.  You've decided the fate of a nation, and no one outside it will care.  You'll get a different slideshow at the end, unnarrated and not particularly large.  You certainly don't get a different army based on which choice you make.

 

 

Features that DAO and DA2 had or did not have and things that those games did or did not do is not relevant to the point I'm making, which is this:  Bioware said that this game would have a dynamic world and story that change in reaction to your choices.  It does not.

 

The choice of Celene and Gaspard changes a lot of dialogue, and party reactions.  Throw Briala in, and there's even more.  Folks will comment on it frequently, and there are war table missions related to it.  Ferelden certainly cares if you picked Gaspard, and didn't bother to make peace.

 

 

War table missions and dialogue.  Yep, that is the extent to which the game reacts to one of the biggest decisions you make.  You just decided the fate of nations, and the game acknowledges that by giving you a few extra lines of dialogue and banter and some pointless busy work on the war table.  

 

If I had any doubt the game was keeping track of my choices, it was dispelled the first time I spoke to Leliana in my first playthrough, and she told me about her friend the hero of Ferelden who became queen, and the second time when her lover the hero of ferelden was her lover, and on an important mission.  Or the third playthrough I just started where she rails against the hero for having killed her.  Any lingering doubts are dispelled the instant you enter a cave in Crestwood. 

 

 

Sure, the game keeps track of your choices.  The issue is, what difference does it make?  The answer is simple:  None.  None whatsoever.   Hell, you just proved that makes no difference whatsoever what you decided to do with Leliana in DAO.  She's alive and well regardless.  All you get is a few lines of dialogue to acknowledge the decision you made while completely countermanding it.  Why does the Keep even ask you that question?  The same can be said of every decision you make in DAI.  It makes no difference.  The outcome is always the same regardless of anything that you do or say.

 

And if you didn't feel the choices mattered, you must not have feelings for Hawke.  Or Alistair.  Or Krem.  Or any of your new companions.  Hell, I read the Calling and felt like a jerk just for killing Fiona on a Templars run >_<

 

 

I liked my sarcastic Hawke and I loved Allistair.  Yes, this decision can have a lot of emotional impact.  But again, what difference does it make?  The exact same thing happens to the Wardens regardless.  For that matter, why is Allistair even present in this game?  Because you kept him alive in DAO, certainly, but why else?  His presence or lack thereof makes no difference at all.  He does nothing to advance or change the narrative of the game.  You can completely replace him with someone else - in fact, the game does just that if your Keep import says he was no longer a Warden - and the story plays out in exactly the same way.  The fact that he can be replaced completely by an NPC we barely interacted with in the previous game says everything.  His presence in this game serves no purpose except to make a meaningless non decision from the player feel like it means something.  If Allistair is dead or king and the choice is between Hawke and Stroud... Who cares?  I barely even know Stroud, so of course I'm going with Hawke.  And in the end, none of it matters anyway.

 

For that matter, what difference does it make if you recruit the Wardens or Exile them?  You get to use them in a couple of war table operations if you recruit them.  Nothing more.

 

Then at the midpoint it does something DA2 tried to do and DAO didn't bother with - it branches the entire story, the nemesis, the future mission structure, and the future war table missions through a choice of mages versus templars.  You might lament that the ending was the same, but everything up to that point is drastically altered.  Drinking from the pool, having an old god baby in your playthrough, all of ti alters the mission structure.  

 

 

Branches the entire story?  What are you even talking about?  You get a different side quest and fight a different boss based on one choice early in the game.  That's all.  That's not branching the entire story.  If you want to see a game that actually does split the story arc based on one of your choices, look at The Witcher 2.

 

It comes down to what you were expecting that you didn't see...?  A fully rendered cutscene for each decision?  DAO didn't have that, and DA2 didn't even have a slideshow.  The resource cost would have been enormous.  The storyline changes throughout and the slideshow changes, so what's the problem exactly?

 

 

 

What was I expecting to see?  Cutscenes?  No, not even close.  I was expecting a dynamic world and story line.  As an example, I'll use something else that Bioware said would be in the game but isn't.  It's a specific example that perfectly exemplifies what the kind of thing that I was expecting to see in this game.  They used it as a prime example of choice and consequence in this game in several interviews early on in development.  They even showed video of it at least twice at conventions.  What I'm referring to is the now infamous "keep vs village" choice.  At some point in the game we were supposed to have been presented with a choice to either save a recently captured Keep or a nearby village.  Choose one, and the other would be destroyed.  Obliterated, even. It would be gone for good, along with all of the NPCs in it.  That is exactly the kind of thing I was expecting, and I was expecting to see a lot of it.  Why?  Once again, because Bioware said it would be in this game.

 

You know which game had something like that in it?  Once again, The Witcher 2.  Early in the game an entire town either continues to live in peace and prosperity or is plunged in chaos and wiped off the map based on your decisions.  That's the kind of choice and consequence I was expecting.  Not choosing more or less at random between three potential rulers of the mightiest nation in Thedas resulting in.... no significant consequences whatsoever.   What will happen to Orlais and Ferelden down the line might be interesting or even tragic if you chose Gaspard, but we don't get to actually see any of that in DAI.  It's just hinted at in the epilogue narration.

[PrinceofTime]

Because the game is disappointing. To many petulant babies on this site cant seem to grasp the fact that not everyone thinks the game is up to snuff.