47 réponses à ce sujet

[line_genrou]

I don't think that the Blight was trivialized

It's been 10 years after the fifth blight.

People are expecting the game to have the same dark feel of DAO, but that would be illogical because in DAO another event was happening: the Blight. In DAI the problem is the breach and other minor problems like the mages vs templars etc

 

BUT, one thing I find it weird is how people are perceiving the wardens in this game. Ready to turn on them (like Hawke) considering they were treated with reverence and if not, with some respect in DAO. Which is even more absurd considering that the time DAO happened the wardens were still recent back to Ferelden after an ugly exile. So it would make more sense that the animosity and distrust that we see in DAI to happen in DAO. Not to mention how a grey warden just saved their asses 10 years ago.

 

Even after Loghain's acusation of beatryal from the grey wardens, when you met people in places they were doubtful of Loghain's claims against the order, because of the reputation the wardens have in the world of Thedas.

 

Makes me think that the writers want to put the wardens in a bad light so another order becomes more important or heroic/whatever (the Inquisition?)

[Nykara]

I didn't read all the responses but to the OP: It has been stated many times that the Blights are often forgotten as is the Grey Warden's sacrifices in between each Blight. As time goes by between each one, people move on and forget. The next Blight wont be for a very long time so currently, with Cory being a much bigger threat people aren't focused on the Blights and rightly so.

[line_genrou]

I think Bioware is trying to get you to see the Wardens as a non Ferelden outsider might see the Wardens.  However, this is largely impossible for the players to do since we were introduced to the Wardens from the inside and know firsthand how important a Warden can be and how real the Fifth Blight actually was.  Remember that in DA2 a lot of people actually said that the Fifth Blight couldn't be a Blight because it was so comparatively small and the Fereldens were essentially just hamming it up.  Given Orlesian hatred of Ferelden, it wouldn't surprise me if that is a also a common opinion in Orlais.

 

I don't think it's unrealistic for people to have these negative opinions of the Warden in game.  I just think it's impossible for the players to share them for the most part, and thus something of a narrative dead end on Bioware's part.  

The wardens is not a Ferelden order, they are largely respected in all of Thedas.

[ChachiBobinks]

I didn't read all the responses but to the OP: It has been stated many times that the Blights are often forgotten as is the Grey Warden's sacrifices in between each Blight. As time goes by between each one, people move on and forget. The next Blight wont be for a very long time so currently, with Cory being a much bigger threat people aren't focused on the Blights and rightly so.

 

In one of my posts, I stated that I felt that this trivialization was completely intentional, and this is exactly why. So glad I'm not alone in this one. I feel that if it is indeed trivialized, it's because we're meant to respect/understand the sacrifice and whatnot the same way the Herald and the people would - it's out of sight, out of mind, largely because there are bigger issues to deal with.

[Il Divo]

 

The Wardens can't even necessarily say something like "the Warden must sacrifice his life using the unique, magical properties of Wardens to do it" because we potentially have the Hero of Ferelden, killer of archdemons and still kicking around, as contrary evidence to this statement. 

 

Still, that's a pretty unique exceptional circumstance, one the Wardens haven't even encountered (as far as we know) until the conclusion of the Fifth Blight. 

[line_genrou]

Well the respect part is up for debate.  We have direct evidence in all three games of various people hating the Wardens for various reasons (even to the extent that they were completely exiled from Ferelden at one point).  

 

And I know they aren't a Ferelden order.  My point was that Ferelden is going to have a high opinion of the Wardens at the moment because the Wardens just saved them from a Blight. 

 

A lot of people outside Ferelden don't even believe it was a Blight so they would hardly be impressed by claims that Grey Wardens stopped it. 

Empress Celene agreed that it was a Blight because the warden-commander of Orlais told her that. The Blight would destroy all of Thedas if the HoF haven't stopped. The grey wardens of Orlais were ready to help Ferelden.

In the Winter Palace there is even something build dedicated  to the HoF for stopping the 5th Blight.

 

I don't remember direct evidence in DAO about people hating the wardens (and I'm replaying the game right now). In fact, they don't seem to hate them at all but look at them with awe. This was my point in the other post.

[In Exile]

Well, the problem with that is that people will immediately ask "how do you kill archdemons?" to which all the Wardens can respond is "We can't tell you. It's a secret." If someone is already distrustful of Grey Wardens (think Vivienne) I don't see them taking the Wardens on faith on this issue.

The Wardens can't even necessarily say something like "the Warden must sacrifice his life using the unique, magical properties of Wardens to do it" because we potentially have the Hero of Ferelden, killer of archdemons and still kicking around, as contrary evidence to this statement.

The GWs - at their foundation - had world leaders sign a number of treaties that effectively have then surrender substantial portions of their sovereignty to allow them to recruit. Including a clause about GW secrets wouldn't be particularly problematic.

In DA magic is real. Saying that the GWs must perform a magical ritual to become a GW called the joining and saying that this ritual allows them the power to kill the AD is perfectly reasonable and a complete answer. They don't have to explain the mechanic of it - a non-mage couldn't even grasp it.

They don't have to talk about the US. They don't have to explain the taint. They don't have to mention the magic.

They can just say that the method of the ritual is part of the GW order's internal secret but that is magic that allows them to locate darkspawn, grants them immunity to the taint and allows them to kill the AD.

Even if the Circles try to replicate it they'd completely fail - without BM and darkspawn AD blood they're SOL. And if somehow they find an alternative its a huge win-win.

[phaonica]

I see. So you're disappointed that the warden decision has little impact on the game?

As for the decisions not meaning as much as you think they should- I think this is an unfortunate side effect of Bioware not being able to write a totally different sequel for each player.

 

I guess so. I think I'm just disappointed that after 3 games, it seems like DA isn't getting any better at the "impactful choices" mechanic. I usually don't get a clear idea of the risks involved in choosing any given path OR the risks just simply aren't immediate enough to care, most (if not all) paths work out with little to no negative consequences, and most of the choices I"m left wondering if they will matter in the *next* game, when they should be having an effect on *this* game.

[TheLastArchivist]

We can't even decide if we die in the end. And major political changes just don't change a damn thing in gameplay, only in War Table missions.

 

I mean, in DA:O, naming Alistair king can utterly destroy your romance with him. Or the general that left you and Cailan to die may end up becoming a Warden. You may end up eliminating all mages from Ferelden and have templars help you in the battle of Denerim instead. Companions may come to address you differently, coming to respect you, even if they are from a foreign culture (whenever Sten calls me kadan, it sends shivers down my spine). 

Those are BIG changes that impact your gameplay and give the game a sense that you matter, that the player DOES shape the world around him.

 

In DA:I, it's like your decisions only matter in the Epilogue. They don't translate as any sort of personal experience for the player. Aside the companions's personal quests, nohing else has everlasting impact. You go there, you do it, then everything just sort of returns to normal. Even the ending can only be one. Where's the spirit of RPG in DA:I?Am I lead by circumstances or do I shape them?

 

What it all comes down to is that quests that don't have an impact, altering the reality of the player's avatar simply cease to matter to the player. After you play them once, they just become moot, not being able to evoke any emotions anymore.

[Poledo]

Thanks for all the feedback folks. I do truly love the writing and the background and the series. I still do feel like this game was very "in the moment" and that choices were made just for the sake of making the inquisitor larger than life rather than following lore or to give you the feeling of importance without the repercussions of the choices you made. No matter what inky comes out smelling like a rose. Half my choices really were based on who I was romancing over what the impact might be because they truly had little impact beyond that moment.

 

I get that the blight is gone and it's easy for people to forget, but the Wardens were really down played as morally bankrupt lunatics who barely held onto sanity on a good day. I know there are discussions on Wardens being mosty criminals etc ... but this still doesn't fly with me. The process of becoming a warden seems to me really changes your perspective, and most of the criminals we have seen in the past games that became wardens weren't really bad people, just people who made bad choices. Much like Blackwall in DAI.

 

Anyway - I don't want to detract from the overall greatness that is DA. I have 400 plus hours into this game and I am not even close to done - I have 3 characters waiting to start a new journey with different plans for each. Thanks for the feedback!

[In Exile]

We can't even decide if we die in the end. And major political changes just don't change a damn thing in gameplay, only in War Table missions.

I mean, in DA:O, naming Alistair king can utterly destroy your romance with him. Or the general that left you and Cailan to die may end up becoming a Warden. You may end up eliminating all mages from Ferelden and have templars help you in the battle of Denerim instead. Companions may come to address you differently, coming to respect you, even if they are from a foreign culture (whenever Sten calls me kadan, it sends shivers down my spine).
Those are BIG changes that impact your gameplay and give the game a sense that you matter, that the player DOES shape the world around him.

In DA:I, it's like your decisions only matter in the Epilogue. They don't translate as any sort of personal experience for the player. Aside the companions's personal quests, nohing else has everlasting impact. You go there, you do it, then everything just sort of returns to normal. Even the ending can only be one. Where's the spirit of RPG in DA:I?Am I lead by circumstances or do I shape them?

What it all comes down to is that quests that don't have an impact, altering the reality of the player's avatar simply cease to matter to the player. After you play them once, they just become moot, not being able to evoke any emotions anymore.

Cassandra has literally the same mechanic as Alistair. She dumps you if she becomes Divine. And the choice for Divine is far more complex.

Also at least for the MQ in DAO it's the same epilogue driven consequence.

[The_Last_Griffon]

I think that, like some in other threads have suggested, that DA could benefit from incorporating horror genre elements like DAO seemed to (imo). I think that what really makes the horror elements work in DAO is that horror elements are meant to evoke visceral and emotional reactions of fear and uncertainty. As much as I like DAI, it feels to me like a mostly low-risk, low-reward story. Logically, I know that dealing with the Breach and Corypheus is high risk, but each individual choice doesn't give you a good picture of the consequences that should not only be strategic choices, but also choices that have some personal, emotional complications.

 

Well said! I couldn't agree more.

[In Exile]

People keep saying that Cassandra dumps you if she becomes Divine, but I don't remember this happening.

She doesn't become Divine until the end of the game. She only hints she'll dump you before that happens.

[Aren]

The darkspawn are trivial mooks. That's what they always were in DAO.

the common  yes, but the Children and the disciples of Awakening were Intreasting.

[In Exile]

I never got anything I interpreted as a hint she would dump me. I got some dialog that was more or less her asking "what does this mean for us?" to which my Inquisitor said something like "it doesn't mean we can't be together." I don't remember precisely what she said, but I certainly didn't interpret whatever it was as "actually it does mean we can't be together."

After the game ended, she just asked if she could come adventure with me again.

*Edit* From the wiki: "If Cassandra is elected as Divine, her dialogue indicates that she does not believe she and the Inquisitor will be able to continue their relationship. However, it remains inconclusive whether or not their relationship truly ends after Corypheus' defeat. If Cassandra has been properly courted, she will join the Inquisitor in his private quarters during the celebrations at the end of the game, regardless of whether or not she has been elected Divine."

The dialogue isn't ambiguous. Cassandra is just talking to you in a gentle fashion about dumping you. " I don't think this will work out" is just a roundabout way of her saying "Once I leave we're done".

[Aren]

I don't think the wardens have to publicly announce that the only way to become a GW is to take part into a blood magic ritual that turns you into a ghoul with a longer expiration date if you're lucky enough that it doesn't kill you outright. That would probably have gotten them exterminated by the Chantry.

But there's a middle ground here.

What I do think is stupid is their keeping secret the sole reason for their existence which is that the have to kill the archdemon themselves for it to stay dead. Their plan in DAO literally dooms Ferelden: they all fight in the Vanguard and risk their lives for no benefit. The GWs aren't shock troops. They're not even troops. They're a resource that has to be preserved at all costs.

everyone but Not Riordan he is the only one who act like a true Grey warden who is in search only for the archedemon.

[Shahadem]

There is definitely some high risk items but they are down played as well. It seems like the breach is going to be the driving force behind the story and getting the mages or templars to help close it..... then you choose one and you bring 5 mages/templars with you and have a brief cut scene where you watch it get closed with zero effort.  Incredibly trivial. I'm pretty sure there were that many mages or templars already hanging around my camp - why did I need to go through choosing a side?

 

Because your choice couldn't be important. The entire Mage/Templar war seemed like it was going to be the huge driving force behind the plot in DA2, and I imagine that initially it really was, but somewhere the story must have been drastically altered and the Mage/Templar war became an annoying mosquito that Bioware had to swat.