48 réponses à ce sujet

[Ascendra]

I'm just curios, can't you work around a personal character dislike? I mean from a role-playing perspective your Inquisitor knows nothing about Morrigan or Leliana or Cullen or whoever. They do not share common past. You as a player know them, your character doesn't.

 

I ignored Leliana in DAO and wasnt really happy I had to work with her in Inquisition, but when I began playing I saw her as someone my character in that particular situation can respect and work with. My Inquisitor saw a different, more ruthless Leliana, not a starry-eyed girl with weird love of shoes. Morrigan is a better case for me because I love her as a character, however my Inquisitor distrusted her in the beginning but accepted her help nonetheless.

Same with Liara in ME. In ME1 I ignored her, in ME2 with the DLC help she managed to become one of the most important people in Shepard's life. I as a player hated the fact that she was forced on me, but I saw reasons for my Shepard to be her best friend, so I played along.

I may not like the character personally, but since they are in the game, I might as well make the best of the situation.

[Baba]

I'm just curios, can't you work around a personal character dislike? I mean from a role-playing perspective your Inquisitor knows nothing about Morrigan or Leliana or Cullen or whoever. They do not share common past. You as a player know them, your character doesn't.

 

I ignored Leliana in DAO and wasnt really happy I had to work with her in Inquisition, but when I began playing I saw her as someone my character in that particular situation can respect and work with. My Inquisitor saw a different, more ruthless Leliana, not a starry-eyed girl with weird love of shoes. Morrigan is a better case for me because I love her as a character, however my Inquisitor distrusted her in the beginning but accepted her help nonetheless.

Same with Liara in ME. In ME1 I ignored her, in ME2 with the DLC help she managed to become one of the most important people in Shepard's life. I as a player hated the fact that she was forced on me, but I saw reasons for my Shepard to be her best friend, so I played along.

I may not like the character personally, but since they are in the game, I might as well make the best of the situation.

 

 

I see what you mean and I think it's possible.

 

However;

 

The hero knows about Flemeth and her story (which you find out if you have the political perk which grants you bonus choices in conversations while talking to Flemeth. Chances are that if that were the case, he'd know about Morrigan.

 

Also I think she's the only, or one of the only characters to join the inquisition which you can not refuse (apart from your 3 advisers), although that's also probably everyone else's role is insignificant.

 

In addition during the Wicked thingy quest, where you have to make a choice between the 3 people, you find out about the adviser that the queen has and that she is dubious.

 

But the real kicker is this for me, during the Elf temple quest, it becomes clear why she is here. Even the story itself shows (the most evident part is where she transforms into a bird to stop the elf from destroying the well of sorrows) that she's here for personal gain.

 

Add this to the warning that Lelinia gives you about her and I would gauge it is likely even a character who'd never met her before might be inclined to not want her presence?

[Ascendra]

I understand where you two are coming from. I guess I'm biased towards Morrigan and my Inquisition opinion of her is based on Origins opinion.

I never saw her as particularly malicious. True she is selfish and practically oozes distrust - the way she acts, the way she talks, some of her opinions. She can disapprove of good actions as much as she wants but in Origins she actually never did anything outright evil or malicious. DR is a questionable thing, but arguably it is there to save our lives and add to the drama. I viewed it as a necessary evil. I was playing a city elf and by the end she lost all hope of coming out of this alive. She befriended Morrigan and when the woman approached her with the idea she jumped at the opportunity. For her it was a small price to pay to ensure hers and Alistair's continued breathing. She viewed Morrigan as a close friend who saved her life, not as a conniving evil witch who tried to get into the pants of the man she loved.

Same thing in Inquisition. Morrigan shows signs that she shouldn't be distrusted, but never really does anything bad other than trying to gain knowledge of Old magic, which she always said she wanted and which was the reason for preserving the OG soul. If anything my character is more scared of Leliana going berserk on her, because she is a nice one, but murders people right and left, because the ends justify the means. At least Morrigan was always honest about her intentions, she hid things from you true, but its quite normal to hide such a thing from a complete stranger, because she would always be misunderstood regardless of her intentions.

 

Anyway, going back to original topic of the post. I agree the Well thing could have been done better. If comparing to DR there were several outcomes - you die, you do the ritual if male, Alistair dies you live, Alistair does the ritual you both live and so on. Here you are basically pigeonholed into either of you drinking. There must have been a reason for such treatment, though I don't yet understand what it is.

[SpiritMuse]

Don't you just hate it when people do things their way anyway no matter how much you try to tell them not to?

Yeah.

I've never felt limited in my choices, or felt that they didn't matter. Whether in ME or DA. It's because the end goal of the character never changes - DAO wardens always work to stop the blight, DAI inquisitors always work to stop Corypheus, Shepards will always work to stop the reapers. So it makes sense that the end result wouldn't really change - every version of everyone is always traveling in the same direction, what differs is the detours they make on the way.

[Silcron]

I think the game was fine sotrywise, it just needed to hide how it forces some choices (which is fine) better. I'll give an example:

Spoiler

The Well of Sorrows. If the conversation had had a tone of urgency and stress. ("It can't be all good, there must be a trap! Yeah, but Corypheus is coming and we don't know how to destroy it, someone must take it! I want it, let me do it! I don't know if I trust you with it. Can't you tell us something else about it? Oh, sh¡t, there's Corypheus! Quickly...") forcing the player to either have Morrigan or himself get it would still happen.

The point is to make it so the situation forces you to make a choice, then the player won't care that the game is forcing you to do something, because it will seem that naturally the player character didn't have any other choice. This is where DAI fails in my opinion, not in the choices themselves.

Hell, SWToR does a superb job there. For example, if you go lightside with the Jedi Knight story you are officially named Master, if you go darkside the Order refuses to name you as such, and a Republic PR guy goes and pulls an "Honorary Master" title out of his ass because they don't want the hero to be on their bad side, specially for all the propaganda they will sure make. (There's also the Imperial Agent story, but that would be heavier spoilers, the other one is kind of obvious.)

[Baba]

I think you're right @Silicron. I wouldn't mind so much if I had no or little choice if the story actually showed or explained why I had no or little choice.

[Ascendra]

I think you're right @Silicron. I wouldn't mind so much if I had no or little choice if the story actually showed or explained why I had no or little choice.

 

Pretty much this. Viable justification for a choice or justification for a lack of choice is always good.

 

Out of curiosity, what choices did you like in the game?

For me were: Cole's amulet; Blackwall's quest; Fade dilemma (it was also great to have different wardens based on your DAO choices); Mages or Templars with branching stories and subsequent antagonists based on who you allied with; discreet possibility of turning Leliana to the light; Wicked hearts and of course choosing one of the most important people in Thedas.

[Baba]

Pretty much this. Viable justification for a choice or justification for a lack of choice is always good.

 

Out of curiosity, what choices did you like in the game?

For me were: Cole's amulet; Blackwall's quest; Fade dilemma (it was also great to have different wardens based on your DAO choices); Mages or Templars with branching stories and subsequent antagonists based on who you allied with; discreet possibility of turning Leliana to the light; Wicked hearts and of course choosing one of the most important people in Thedas.

 

I liked Cole's amulet the best I think because it made him into a human or a spirit, however I never used Cole in my parties and never saw what difference that made.

 

Blackwall's quest was good, but when I judged him and decided to send him to the wardens I wasn't expecting my hero to tell him to stay in the mean time... that was strange and made me frustrated, I wanted to save him from death but I still wanted him punished.

 

Hawk's fade choice was tough for me, but I chose for Hawk to stay because the text was hinting that it was possible he might survive and I thought if anyone would he would, he was the champion after all.. but again, the only consequence that had was to make Varic greatly dissaprove and sad. I also chose him to stay because he had a point and the wardens needed to be rebuilt, but I never saw that happen either.

 

I would have thought siding with the mages or templars would have been the core most important choice in the game leading to different stories depending on who you side with but it turns out the story is almost identical and the quests are the same.

 

Leliana or Cassandra becoming seeker, again, was something I was thinking was important but a) I didn't have any choice in the matter because when they said they didn't want to and I confirmed it was up to them to chose, they then changed their mind.. not only that but I would have thought that if they'd made the decision to apply for becoming divine they would have left the keep but that didn't happen either, everything continued as if nothing had happened.

 

Wicked hearts was one of the most frustrating choices because you find out that it was Corypheus was behind all the murders and scheming yet once the assassin is beaten instead of proceeding with the negotiations as planned which would have allowed you to choose in a civilised way who to support, you are forced into a quick decision with 2 out of 3 incriminating the duke.

 

And again, none of this has any impact at all, though you do see Orlesian soldiers briefly when fighting your way to the last battle.

 

That's my biggest critic of the game, it provides you with choices that give you the illusion of being important ones but whatever you choose, the story and quests end up the same.

 

I would have liked to replay the game by siding with the templars but there's no point to it since it's exactly the same quests and all..

[Han Shot First]

Hell, SWToR does a superb job there. For example, if you go lightside with the Jedi Knight story you are officially named Master, if you go darkside the Order refuses to name you as such, and a Republic PR guy goes and pulls an "Honorary Master" title out of his ass because they don't want the hero to be on their bad side, specially for all the propaganda they will sure make. (There's also the Imperial Agent story, but that would be heavier spoilers, the other one is kind of obvious.)

 

I thought that was a misstep by SWTOR.

 

Originally dark side Jedis wouldn't get named Master.. Instead dark side Jedis became Republic Generals, because the Republic doesn't really care much about light side/dark side alignment, it just cares about defeating the Empire. The Jedi on the other hand do care about alignment. The original setup all made sense from a lore point of view.

 

What then happened is that fans started griping about not being able to get the Master title on a dark side playthough, so they devs changed it to where you become Master regardless of alignment. I think the devs should have ignored the whiners and kept things as they were originally were.

[Icy Magebane]

Not what I was expecting when I opened this, but it's actually a nearly exact assessment of one of my biggest problems with this game's plot. 

Spoiler

That stuff with Morrigan pretty much torpedoed the plot as far as I was concerned... I totally agree with the OP on that.  I had a bad feeling from the moment she forced her way into the War Council and things went downhill fast.  The whole time she was with us I was waiting for a chance to refuse to help her or take control of where the story was headed, but once we reached the Well and I saw that there was no option to refuse to take part in this bizarre plan that got sprung on us totally out of nowhere, I gave up.  I mean, in the middle of our hunt for Corypheus, we are told that the only way to win is to allow a strange woman who admits to practicing blood magic to drink from an ancient magical pool that she claims will give her some undisclosed power or insight.  Um... WTF?   This is coming from a person the Inquisitor had only known for a couple of days and whom he had no reason to trust or even work with... Not only did she force her way into the Inquisition even before joining the group of advisior without permission, but in my game Leliana never traveled alongside the Warden, so literally nobody knew who Morrigan was or anything about her...  other than the fact that she was an incredibly shady blood mage.  As you can probably guess, it went well beyond annoying to have to deal with this crap and then get berated by her for even asking questions about this... I mean, why in the heck should we trust her?  There was literally no reason to do so...

 

Well, whatever... it's not the first unsatisfying conclusion I've experienced and it won't be the last.

 

While I don't mind a linear RPG, that's not really what I was expecting from a Bioware title, so I guess I agree with that complaint as well...

[theluc76]

Baba, Many players feel as you. Sorry to read that you found out the hard way.

[Aulis Vaara]

Except that in all those games mentioned before your choices meant something BECAUSE the games ended and there were no sequels.

In DAO your choices only seemed important, in fact they weren't, they were only altering the final slides. The results of those choices are almost non-existent in DA:I. Your choices in DAO DID NOT MATTER in the long run. 

 

Darling, I have fought the Archdemon with werewolves and with elves, with mages and with templar, with and without golems. While fundamentally different endgames would be nice, most people simply want their choices acknowledges, to play into the end game. The fact that this does NOT happen is simply bad storytelling. It's called pulling things out of your ass and deus ex machina and myriad other lovely terms. The end of the story should flow from what came before, not ignore what came before. For bonus points, your story should flow from your worldbuilding. See Brandon Sanderson for details.

[Baba]

Not what I was expecting when I opened this, but it's actually a nearly exact assessment of one of my biggest problems with this game's plot. 

Spoiler

That stuff with Morrigan pretty much torpedoed the plot as far as I was concerned... I totally agree with the OP on that.  I had a bad feeling from the moment she forced her way into the War Council and things went downhill fast.  The whole time she was with us I was waiting for a chance to refuse to help her or take control of where the story was headed, but once we reached the Well and I saw that there was no option to refuse to take part in this bizarre plan that got sprung on us totally out of nowhere, I gave up.  I mean, in the middle of our hunt for Corypheus, we are told that the only way to win is to allow a strange woman who admits to practicing blood magic to drink from an ancient magical pool that she claims will give her some undisclosed power or insight.  Um... WTF?   This is coming from a person the Inquisitor had only known for a couple of days and whom he had no reason to trust or even work with... Not only did she force her way into the Inquisition even before joining the group of advisior without permission, but in my game Leliana never traveled alongside the Warden, so literally nobody knew who Morrigan was or anything about her...  other than the fact that she was an incredibly shady blood mage.  As you can probably guess, it went well beyond annoying to have to deal with this crap and then get berated by her for even asking questions about this... I mean, why in the heck should we trust her?  There was literally no reason to do so...

 

Well, whatever... it's not the first unsatisfying conclusion I've experienced and it won't be the last.

 

While I don't mind a linear RPG, that's not really what I was expecting from a Bioware title, so I guess I agree with that complaint as well...

 

 

Not only that, but she does tell you before that happens that it's possible to kill Corpheus by killing the dragon first since he put some of his life force in it or something like that.

 

In the end, the well only served to give her the power to turn into a dragon herself and fight it herself..

[Rolhir]

If you want really meaningful choices in a game, there should only be ONE game which ends with meaningful choices, no sequel. I would have like a game like BG2 which lets you become a friggin god, but there is a reason why there is no BG3. A game where your character is a god would be drastically different to a game where your character is human suffering from loss of god essence. Same with DA, your choices matter less because there are sequels, and Bioware has to balance the choices to make them feel impactful yet go in line with a story they want to continue telling.

I would disagree and say the exact opposite. Sure, you can have wildly different possible endings and results to choices, but you don't get to see the results of those choices usually, nor do you have to live with them. ME2's ending with anyone being able to die is cool and all, but knowing that after you finish the game, they will still be gone. Having them die is bad enough, but knowing that in the future they will still be dead beyond this mission? So much more painful to say goodbye to a character. Having Alistair leave the party due to events at the Landsmeet was good. Even better? Seeing him in DAII as a drunk in the Hanged Man. Your choices can have much much deeper impact if you can see that you actually changed things in a continuing living story.

[Ascendra]

Darling, I have fought the Archdemon with werewolves and with elves, with mages and with templar, with and without golems. While fundamentally different endgames would be nice, most people simply want their choices acknowledges, to play into the end game. The fact that this does NOT happen is simply bad storytelling. It's called pulling things out of your ass and deus ex machina and myriad other lovely terms. The end of the story should flow from what came before, not ignore what came before. For bonus points, your story should flow from your worldbuilding. See Brandon Sanderson for details.

 

Please drop the condescending attitude.

The armies gave you nothing, no tactical advantage. It was nice to see them, but other than colorful sprites they were really there to keep the illusion of having your choices matter. If fact it was just that, an illusion. If you consider it a consequence of your decision fine, whatever floats your boat.

I've said many times that I would like my big decisions to mean something, really mean something and really carry over from game to game. Some of them do, some of them don't, some carry over but seem less significant in the next game. I want a truly branching story with definite paths. Unfortunately the likelihood of getting it will be less and less the further we progress with the sequels, and probably only smaller decisions will carry over, or big decisions will feel less significant due to their implementation. Oh, and there are also things like budget, allocation of resources etc. Maybe too many branches are simply not worth investing into? I can only guess. 

I do not like the more linear story of DA:I and contrary to what you think I do not defend it, but I can respect the reason its there. Can you?

 

Oh, and it was Brian Sanderson that was responsible for the last three books of WoT? Must have been the reason why I never finished the series. 

A game is not a book (if anything DAI is more akin to a book with its linearity), every player plays it differently, has different characters, personalities, your choices may be opposite to mine and then mine to OP's, and Bioware has to integrate all of them into a nicely flowing story, and besides us there are thousands of other players, whose choices also have to be integrated. And then there is the next installment where choices from DAO, DA2 and DAI have to be integrated besides the story they want to tell, so yeah, you get the point, darling.

[Ascendra]

I would disagree and say the exact opposite. Sure, you can have wildly different possible endings and results to choices, but you don't get to see the results of those choices usually, nor do you have to live with them. ME2's ending with anyone being able to die is cool and all, but knowing that after you finish the game, they will still be gone. Having them die is bad enough, but knowing that in the future they will still be dead beyond this mission? So much more painful to say goodbye to a character. Having Alistair leave the party due to events at the Landsmeet was good. Even better? Seeing him in DAII as a drunk in the Hanged Man. Your choices can have much much deeper impact if you can see that you actually changed things in a continuing living story.

 

I know, and I see your point.

I guess this is where it comes down to opinion really, what you consider a viable consequence and what not. I like the consequences you mentioned, but I got the impression those are not near as grand as the ones OP suggested to happen. Maybe I'm wrong. @Baba please correct me if I'm wrong.

I was more referring big decisions like OGB for example, which seemed big in DAO, or our Warden becoming King/Queen Consort. The there's Leli's supposed *death* which quite a lot of people were mad about. All these would have seemed more impactful in my mind if they were left as they were, i.e. the next game did not touch upon them, happened in 150 years after the events of DAO etc. Unfortunately the sequels kind of.... scrapped them, and the results seemed less epic.

But if thats how the writers want their story to progress, I'm not complaining, I respect that. These decisions just seemed so epic at one point, so 'choicy'

[Ascendra]

 

Blackwall's quest was good, but when I judged him and decided to send him to the wardens I wasn't expecting my hero to tell him to stay in the mean time... that was strange and made me frustrated, I wanted to save him from death but I still wanted him punished.

 

That was probably for people that wanted a middle ground between harsh punishment and retaining him in the party. Would have been nice to have an option to exile him straight away. I left him to repent, now i regret it. My Inquisitor turned more hardass than I wanted her, might as well have exiled him .

 

 

Hawk's fade choice was tough for me, but I chose for Hawk to stay because the text was hinting that it was possible he might survive and I thought if anyone would he would, he was the champion after all.. but again, the only consequence that had was to make Varic greatly dissaprove and sad. I also chose him to stay because he had a point and the wardens needed to be rebuilt, but I never saw that happen either.

 

Wardens I think maybe addressed later, though with the whole Wardens-are-bad/misguided trend I have little hope.

 

 

I would have thought siding with the mages or templars would have been the core most important choice in the game leading to different stories depending on who you side with but it turns out the story is almost identical and the quests are the same.

 

I think this choice determines Cory's general? I sided with Templars and got Calpernia the slave mage and The Shrine of Dumat quest. I heard if you side with mages its Samson (the lyrium addict from DA2) that leads the Templars?

 

 

 

Wicked hearts was one of the most frustrating choices because you find out that it was Corypheus was behind all the murders and scheming yet once the assassin is beaten instead of proceeding with the negotiations as planned which would have allowed you to choose in a civilised way who to support, you are forced into a quick decision with 2 out of 3 incriminating the duke.

 

 

I loved that quest. I remember feeling a bit weird with dialogue choices after I gathered evidence against all three of them. I had equal possibilities to get rid of any of them and leave a combination of rulers or a ruler I wanted. The last conversation was fine though - I managed to get them to work together, and the three options I had were basically "Celene knew everything and was making a trap", "Gaspard fell for it", and "Briala outplayed everyone". The more I think about it the more I think it was done right. Maybe this is the only reason to make all these scheming, vicious and cunning people to work together? To call them out on their overscheming? What would have been a more peaceful solution?

[Rolhir]

I know, and I see your point.

I guess this is where it comes down to opinion really, what you consider a viable consequence and what not. I like the consequences you mentioned, but I got the impression those are not near as grand as the ones OP suggested to happen. Maybe I'm wrong. @Baba please correct me if I'm wrong.

I was more referring big decisions like OGB for example, which seemed big in DAO, or our Warden becoming King/Queen Consort. The there's Leli's supposed *death* which quite a lot of people were mad about. All these would have seemed more impactful in my mind if they were left as they were, i.e. the next game did not touch upon them, happened in 150 years after the events of DAO etc. Unfortunately the sequels kind of.... scrapped them, and the results seemed less epic.

But if thats how the writers want their story to progress, I'm not complaining, I respect that. These decisions just seemed to epic at one point, so 'choicy'

I'd definitely say that Mass Effect was better at carrying choices over (I'm still blown away that Wrex/Ashley/Kaidan could be in all 3 games or only in 1) mostly due to the fact that it was a single story about a single character; however, Dragon Age still does a good job with it. While I admit, I feel like the OGB should have been bigger than it was, I really liked the result in DAI because I didn't have a clue how the scene would play out without it. I would guess that the scenes are very very similar and have the same result, but it didn't feel that way. Sure it didn't happen the way I would have imagined, but my choice was acknowledged and blended seamlessly into the story.

 

Continuing the story means that your imagination of what happens afterwards is overwritten with the game's new lore, rather in the same way that a voiced character means you can't interpret how the character says things or how they sound. Sure, that means the devs are writing the story and not you, but they were already doing that with the first game anyway. Now I'm curious if the people who want to leave the endings open-ended are the same people who don't want voiced characters.....

[Ascendra]

I'd definitely say that Mass Effect was better at carrying choices over (I'm still blown away that Wrex/Ashley/Kaidan could be in all 3 games or only in 1) mostly due to the fact that it was a single story about a single character; however, Dragon Age still does a good job with it. While I admit, I feel like the OGB should have been bigger than it was, I really liked the result in DAI because I didn't have a clue how the scene would play out without it. I would guess that the scenes are very very similar and have the same result, but it didn't feel that way. Sure it didn't happen the way I would have imagined, but my choice was acknowledged and blended seamlessly into the story.

 

Continuing the story means that your imagination of what happens afterwards is overwritten with the game's new lore, rather in the same way that a voiced character means you can't interpret how the character says things or how they sound. Sure, that means the devs are writing the story and not you, but they were already doing that with the first game anyway. Now I'm curious if the people who want to leave the endings open-ended are the same people who don't want voiced characters.....

 

You're right about ME. One protagonist does wonders to continuity and relationship development. I'd say the DA team has a much tougher job of integrating everything than ME team.

 

I thought the OGB was huge tbh, I hated the people that continued to bring him up on forums (simply because going over and over the same topic is tedious) so I mostly ignored them, but I was secretly wishing the kid would be brought back in a larger capacity. A kid growing up and becoming our companion would have been cool.

 

I'm actually the one that loves the voiced protagonist but still wants the endings to be open-ended. Of course a lot of people would feel differently. I can never repeat in my mind what Bioware does with a protagonist for obvious reasons, but I headcannon a lot of things myself. I'm only happy to get a general direction of how Hawke or Inquisitor would act, sound, what their expressions would be, and I'm then happy to continue their stories and fill the blanks myself. It also helps that Bioware pretty much nailed with the Inquisitor the way I would have wanted my Warden to behave and speak - huge thanks to Alix for awesome job. I even made my Inquisitor based on what I wanted my cannon Warden to look, they look very similar. I do agree though that you get invested in a voiced character that fits your original idea of them (in your head). I got lucky with Hawke and Quizzy but I had problems being invested in Shepard purely because she was too manly for my usual characters.

Anyway, thoughts? Does open-ending prevent us liking voiced protagonists and vice versa?

 

edit: OP, I have a weird feeling I'm unintentionally taking over your thread with my ramblings.  So if it gets too annoying please say.

[Jaspe84]

I was most disappointed by how most of the regions/maps were pure filler content and had no impact on how the last mission went down or any story driven mission for that matter. Emerald Graves, Exalted Plains and Hissing Wastes atleast felt like total filler but most disappointed region was Emprise Du Lion because i thought it would pretty much rule out red templars from helping "TheBigBad" but no they were still there in the final region/map. So all this clearing out threats and building up the inquisition didn't seem to matter at all.

[massive_effect]

I don't understand how most journalists gave this a 9+ and GOTY. This game does nothing new, to say the least. Not even the graphics are particularly worthy of 9+. I am honestly dumbfounded by the strong reviews.

[DetcelferVisionary]

How is the narrative supposed to continue if the linear story is not FORCED upon you exactly? It's financially impossible to have 100+ different outcomes and make every choice matter and somehow keep all the facets in place in the follow up story.  

[SkyKing]

How is the narrative supposed to continue if the linear story is not FORCED upon you exactly? It's financially impossible to have 100+ different outcomes and make every choice matter and somehow keep all the facets in place in the follow up story.  

 

DAO pulled it off perfectly. Bioware just got very very very lazy. Also, dragonagekeep.com.