Guest_PaladinDragoon_*
This was always one decision I was never sure which was the best option. After having play through DAI and experiencing both options. I now prefer the dark ritual never happening.
I have always like Loghain. Seeing Loghain die in the fade just wasn't the way he should have went out. I was able to correct two problems. Let Loghain kill the Archdemon. Allowing him to redeem himself the right way. Two, Never forcing that ritual upon Kieran.
This is why I wish we didn't make earthshattering decisions (like who will rule Orlais in DA:I). It ties the hands of the developers when it comes to future games and stories. Each successive game becomes a ripple effect, and they have to generate more and more optional content (like all of Alistair's iterations) to accommodate all the possible choices. I'd rather have narrower agency and more in-depth stories than the other way around.
This is why I wish we didn't make earthshattering decisions (like who will rule Orlais in DA:I). It ties the hands of the developers when it comes to future games and stories. Each successive game becomes a ripple effect, and they have to generate more and more optional content (like all of Alistair's iterations) to accommodate all the possible choices. I'd rather have narrower agency and more in-depth stories than the other way around.
Choices are welcome but earth shattering decisions not so much.
In Witch Hunt Morrigan ends up telling that she's going to prepare her son for what is to come, that change is coming to this world etc etc
The kid was meant for great things.
Was this all scrapped in DA:I?
If the OGB exists Flemeth removes his old god part (?? what was it really that she removed?) and he becomes a normal child. I thought something huge was going to happen to this child in the future. I didn't know his old god soul was removable...
So many questions with no answers.
But what was going to be the role of the OGB in the future? Before DA:I I thought he was meant to be a God or some sort of great leader when the change in the world took place.
Recall that OGB was just an option. Her son may or may not exist depending on the player's choice. So how much weight can an optional NPC have?
Just be glad it didn't happen off screen.
Don't give them ideas, we'll probably have to read ten graphic novels before the next DLC....
Forcing someone to have sex with someone else against their will is rape. It doesn't morph into something else just because its a guy that is the one being forced into the situation. Had Morrigan been a man and we had to pressure a woman to sleep with him so she could get pregnant BSN would have melted down so hard its not even funny.
Errrr.... no. As a rape survivor, all I can say is this: No, totally no. And please don't equate the two, it's insulting to rape victims. OK?
what i find disappointing is the, to me, lame excuse of "wee cant do x because y number of players never did it"
big bloody deal, some ppl never did it, who cares, that's the whole damn point of choice = consequence, if i knew for a fact my choices had good/bad consequences from previous games i'd damn well go replay them or if i was new to the series go out an buy them but no i know for a fact its BioWare an my choices mean zilch, they will get brushed under the carpet an made redundant.
Heck they coulda had a cracking plot that if you used the DR to basically escape your GW duty it came back an bit you in the arse with this, but no just another damn lame "lets just brush this under the carpet"
Recall that OGB was just an option. Her son may or may not exist depending on the player's choice. So how much weight can an optional NPC have?
it's called a mirage
It wasn't nothing. It was something; it was a throwaway plot element Bioware stopped caring about back around late 2010, about the same time they stopped caring about their franchise as a whole.
Ah, yes, "choices matter". I thought we have dismissed that claim.
Telltale/BioWare(EA)/some other studios love to use this "your choices matter" as a sell point, since people just love the illusion of choice (insert Architect's speech from Matrix here). Yet it is a highly debatable point, and it all comes down to how you define what counts as "choice matter"
1. In a way, previous choices "matter" because it does alter your game experience a little, but it is simply cosmetic. Sure, there are codex changes here and there, you can see different combos between hawkes and warden allies, and some cute cameos or references to pander to the fans, etc. But does it really impact the narrative in a meaningful way? Not really.
2. I, along with some others, don't think previous choices matter because everything you did essentially does not impact anything substantially. Alistair/Loghain/Stroud serve the same funtion, King/Queen of Ferelden always have mages in Redcliffe, whatever happened in Redcliffe does not affect the current situation at all...this list can continue, but the point is simple.
Am I suprised/angry? Not at all. Even if the devs/writers have amazing ideas of having dramatically diversed narratives depending on previous choices, it is possible but extremely unlikely for the higher-ups to approve considering the associated cost and benefit.
Fair points.
To me, the illusion of choice is what matters most. In the end, no story-based game has 'real' choice. It's just the illusion of it, the suspension of disbelief and theatric masquerade that everything you're doing matters and you're making a difference, but you're not. The story will always begin and end the same way; all that changes is the player's perception of how much of an impact they had.
To Bioware's credit, of course they couldn't make multiple full plot endings to certain things. It'd be way too expensive and there's only so much devs can do. However, what irritates me is that Bioware gave up on the illusion of choice entirely. They stopped caring, and they made it blatantly obvious your choices don't matter and never did. Illusion of choice is a vital component of every game story there ever has been, and to abandon it and be so in-your-face about it is detrimental.
1. I wouldn't say the illusion of choice is a vital to every game story though. There are still games and even some major titles, such as Diablo 3, are strictly linear. I am not sure you have any choice in the narrative.
2. I am not sure why you think they gave it up "completely". There is still a facade going on, is there? My previous examples still serve, meaning there are still cosmetic changes. Nothing significant, but your previous choices does do something, however trivial, to the game.
3. It is mostly a point on sementics, but I think they still "care" by pandering to the fans with fan-services. As for what you are referring to, it is but an inevitable result of the corporate ways.
I guess I am not *that* bothered by it because I still love Bethesda games? They do what you said though, simply rub it in your face that whatever you did does not matter in the slightest.
1. I wouldn't say the illusion of choice is a vital to every game story though. There are still games and even some major titles, such as Diablo 3, are strictly linear. I am not sure you have any choice in the narrative.
2. I am not sure why you think they gave it up "completely". There is still a facade going on, is there? My previous examples still serve, meaning there are still cosmetic changes. Nothing significant, but your previous choices does do something, however trivial, to the game.
3. It is mostly a point on sementics, but I think they still "care" by pandering to the fans with fan-services. As for what you are referring to, it is but an inevitable result of the corporate ways.
Linearity has its own illusion of choice. Even in highly linear shooter games these days criticism is still thrown the way of games that lead you "on rails", where you feel like you do nothing but point and click. Even if no choice is possible or available, keeping the illusion that you're making a major difference, that your contribution is invaluable as the player, or lack thereof, is part of the illusion of choice, the feeling that YOU have agency in the game. It can occur regardless of linearity.
As for the choice being dropped completely, I'm not sure. DA:I certainly offers more choice than 2, I'll say that, but it doesn't present nearly as much player agency as Origins did.
I always felt bad for the people who were convinced the OGB was going to be a future protagonist or something like that. They frankly should have known better than to expect such importance from an optional npc. Bioware has never done something like that, Not in their entire history since Baulder's Gate. There was no precedent set by this developer for anything like that.
I think it would be best if Bioware stopped the whole decisions carrying over between games. Make a lot more choices with more consequences in the game you are currently playing, but set a cannon after for the sequel which is neatly summarized in the beginning of the game.
Be happy Kieran is alive. Hopefully we'll see him once more as a man with his mother!
Thing is, I don't think carrying over decisions is really the problem here, or rather I think this can be done without setting a canon between sequels. Bioware's problem is that they keep putting incredible amounts of power in the player's hands, like deciding the fates of nations, crowning monarchs. Decisions like that cannot help but restrict what you can do in following games because of the widely felt effects of them. Instead, Bioware should restrict the scale the decisions they offer, something more like most choices present in TW2. Sure, there are some big choices in the second and third chapters but for the most part the choices only have local effect and the story is mostly self contained.I think it would be best if Bioware stopped the whole decisions carrying over between games. Make a lot more choices with more consequences in the game you are currently playing, but set a cannon after for the sequel which is neatly summarized in the beginning of the game.
TW2 had some fairly different endings depending on your choices. You still held the fate of Nations in your hands. You could kill a King, for example. Temeria can cease to exist entirely if you make certain decisions, or a whole new country can be born with Askia's rebellion. However, I think it's too soon to say Bioware should be drawing inspiration from TW, since 3 isn't even out yet to see how it handled those variables or if they can even produce a good story in an open world setting (which 99% of devs are unable to accomplish).
Thing is, I don't think carrying over decisions is really the problem here, or rather I think this can be done without setting a canon between sequels. Bioware's problem is that they keep putting incredible amounts of power in the player's hands, like deciding the fates of nations, crowning monarchs. Decisions like that cannot help but restrict what you can do in following games because of the widely felt effects of them. Instead, Bioware should restrict the scale the decisions they offer, something more like most choices present in TW2. Sure, there are some big choices in the second and third chapters but for the most part the choices only have local effect and the story is mostly self contained.
However, then they will run the risk of making the decisions uninteresting due to their lack of scale. But you have a point. Either go big in each game and have a canon or scale down the consequences of the choices to reduce the ripple effects in the sequels.
I have always like Loghain. Seeing Loghain die in the fade just wasn't the way he should have went out. I was able to correct two problems. Let Loghain kill the Archdemon. Allowing him to redeem himself the right way. Two, Never forcing that ritual upon Kieran.
Oddly, I feel that other way about this, that feeding Loghain to the Archdemon is giving him the easy way out and not letting him live with what he did or take ownership of it. Keeping him alive and giving him a decade to reflect on his mistakes and come to terms with them, makes him a better man for the experience in my opinion.
After ten years of performing the thankless task of being a Warden, exiled from his homeland and forced to serve in a nation he despises and with comrades that despise him just as much back, he still nonetheless does his job and never wavers in his dedication to his new mission. We see that he's come to adhere to the principles of the Order and continues to do so, even when a lot of the Orlesian Wardens were ready to abandon them, making him actually a better Warden than they were at that point?
When he offers to sacrifice himself in the Fade, it's because he's doing so not for himself as a means to atone, but rather as a selfless act meant to save his friends. It's a fitting end for him and proves he is no longer the traitor and betrayer that everyone thinks he is.
Oddly, I feel that other way about this, that feeding Loghain to the Archdemon is giving him the easy way out
Thing is, I don't think carrying over decisions is really the problem here, or rather I think this can be done without setting a canon between sequels. Bioware's problem is that they keep putting incredible amounts of power in the player's hands, like deciding the fates of nations, crowning monarchs. Decisions like that cannot help but restrict what you can do in following games because of the widely felt effects of them. Instead, Bioware should restrict the scale the decisions they offer, something more like most choices present in TW2. Sure, there are some big choices in the second and third chapters but for the most part the choices only have local effect and the story is mostly self contained.
I agree. Bioware shouldn't be letting the players choose all the cards Bioware should work with.
Everytime you place a super-important decision in the player's hands, the decision itself loses its importance in the the game universe - because its outcomes become optional.
There can never be a game-changing event that rests in the hands of an optional npc nor can it even rest upon the shoulders of a player. I've always used Flemeth as an example because she demonstrates my point. No matter what you do in DAO, she's going to survive to DA2 and to DAI, because the plot needs her. She can never be replaced by a random npc.
If you get a character like the OGB who may or may not even exist depending on your choice, he's never going to have anything more than a glorified cameo or something like that - because the plot does not need him to move forward. And that's exactly what happened in DAI.
The only bad part about this is that they used an Old God for a super minor role. You can't just use your lore characters like that. If they're as important as an Old God, then their role should be important.
I agree. Bioware shouldn't be letting the players choose all the cards Bioware should work with.
Everytime you place a super-important decision in the player's hands, the decision itself loses its importance in the the game universe - because its outcomes become optional.
There can never be a game-changing event that rests in the hands of an optional npc nor can it even rest upon the shoulders of a player. I've always used Flemeth as an example because she demonstrates my point. No matter what you do in DAO, she's going to survive to DA2 and to DAI, because the plot needs her. She can never be replaced by a random npc.
If you get a character like the OGB who may or may not even exist depending on your choice, he's never going to have anything more than a glorified cameo or something like that - because the plot does not need him to move forward. And that's exactly what happened in DAI.
The only bad part about this is that they used an Old God for a super minor role. You can't just use your lore characters like that. If they're as important as an Old God, then their role should be important.
Sure, there was no OGB in my first playthrough of DAO, and there was in my second. It's still lore, but optional lore. If they wanted something to build a game's story around, either they need to transfer that Old God into a mandatory NPC or start that idea from scratch.
The bottom line is this:
Expect most choices in video games to boil down to slight flavor differences, but overall you're getting the same game.
For Example: Think of the game as a burger. You may decide to add cheese, use BBQ sauce instead of ketchup and mustard, use sauteed onions versus raw onions, whole wheat versus pretzel bun, etc., but at the end of the day it's still a burger. You would be considered a lunatic if you complained that despite all of the different stuff you added that you still taste the burger instead of...I dunno, fried catfish.
Well from what I gather TW3 is going to have a more personal focus with the politics being in the background, and I'm not sure exactly of the setting but I seem to remember that it's set outside the area's most drastically affected by those optional political changes. Or the Nilfgard invasion basically makes it all mostly irrelevant.TW2 had some fairly different endings depending on your choices. You still held the fate of Nations in your hands. You could kill a King, for example. Temeria can cease to exist entirely if you make certain decisions, or a whole new country can be born with Askia's rebellion. However, I think it's too soon to say Bioware should be drawing inspiration from TW, since 3 isn't even out yet to see how it handled those variables or if they can even produce a good story in an open world setting (which 99% of devs are unable to accomplish).
Retour en haut