69 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

I am SERIOUSLY hoping for the next game to be set in Tevinter, with many of our protagonists potential options during major decisions being influenced by whatever happened in the South during the events of the Inquisition. They were just too big to ignore.

 

There's an even better place than Tevinter for a game based on the Tevinter/Qunari war (which I am hoping DA4 will be): Seheron. Two major factions in play with plenty of combat, subterfuge, and power struggles. There's even a way to prevent slotting the PC into one of the two factions automatically, as you could start off as a fledging Fog Warrior that will eventually help decide on a Tevinter/Qunari/native-led Seheron.

[Farangbaa]

We're probably going to Weisshaupt though. To save those foolish Wardens.

[Lebanese Dude]

There's an even better place than Tevinter for a game based on the Tevinter/Qunari war (which I am hoping DA4 will be): Seheron. Two major factions in play with plenty of combat, subterfuge, and power struggles. There's even a way to prevent slotting the PC into one of the two factions automatically, as you could start off as a fledging Fog Warrior that will eventually help decide on a Tevinter/Qunari/native-led Seheron.

Why not!!?

[CronoDragoon]

We're probably going to Weisshaupt though. To save those foolish Wardens.

 

Maybe. But Weisshaupt is rather close to Seheron, right across the Nocen Sea.

 

Biower pls.

[Nefla]

I had meant to imply possible continuity in future DAI DLC but in any case...Why not? Isn't that the point of playing the games in the same setting? These aren't disconnected games despite different protagonists. Isn't that what people technically expect from the imports in BioWare games? 

 

I recall the ME3 Geth-Quarian options being influenced by two seemingly trivial choices from previous games.

 

Spoiler

Also I find it odd that you say the choices have little impact on the game, considering this is the first game where there is significant divergence in the main plot and game setting depending on what side you choose in the Mage/Templar War. That's two entire mutually exclusive settings in the same game.... Then there is also some divergence in how you battle Corypheus with consequences we don't really know yet.

 

You seem to be discounting them.

I feel like not enough is shown in the actual game. Like I said, I don't expect every loose end to be tied up, but I don't want to have almost zero visible impact on the game I'm playing while I'm playing it. I did like that there was a separate quest for recruiting the mages or templars (though, compare that to TW2 doing the exact same thing but to significant effect on the rest of the game and DA:I's version falls behind) but I feel that after the recruitment itself, nothing changes. We don't see the results. The mages or templars appear at the breach, both close with the same scene and then both factions disappear from the game. If nothing else, at least give us two different endings. *sigh*

[CronoDragoon]

I feel like not enough is shown in the actual game. Like I said, I don't expect every loose end to be tied up, but I don't want to have almost zero visible impact on the game I'm playing while I'm playing it. I did like that there was a separate quest for recruiting the mages or templars (though, compare that to TW2 doing the exact same thing but to significant effect on the rest of the game and DA:I's version falls behind) but I feel that after the recruitment itself, nothing changes. We don't see the results. The mages or templars appear at the breach, both close with the same scene and then both factions disappear from the game. If nothing else, at least give us two different endings. *sigh*

 

Well, the other faction doesn't disappear as it becomes Cory's servants. The choice additionally branches Samson and Calpernia side quest chains, though Cal's is far more interesting imo.

[Ashagar]

The thing is regardless the ending vary depending on who becomes divine and who you side with, for instance if Cassandra becomes divine she both recreates and reforms the seekers, Templars and circles to get rid of the abuses of the past and of course Vivienne simply restores the old status qua If you side with the mages Fiona causes issues in both cases having learned nothing from the chaos she caused in the past.

 

If I remember correctly, If Cassandra is divine most of Fiona's supporters abandon her to go into the reformed circles while if Vivienne is Divine the mages are evenly split and there is now a threat of a new war this time between mages instead of a war between mages and Templars.

[Nefla]

Well, the other faction doesn't disappear as it becomes Cory's servants. The choice additionally branches Samson and Calpernia side quest chains, though Cal's is far more interesting imo.

I meant whichever one you choose disappears after closing the breach: if you pick the templars, they show up, close the breach, then disappear from the game with only Barris being there, and only on the war table, if you pick mages then the mages show up, close the breach, and then disappear from the game with only Fiona randomly hanging around your library. Also neither faction helps you in Haven. The Sampson/Calpernia missions end up reminding me of what we lost with Inquisition: real side quests. Sampson/Calpernia's quests are like the side quests we used to get. I'll be honest, I probably wouldn't be so bitter and critical about what I feel are shortcomings in DA:I if there had been plenty of long, fun, engaging side quests with dialogue options, companion input, and choices. I can gloss over a lot if I'm having fun and there is a lot of character building and replay value. That just wasn't there for me. I'm hoping for some awesome story DLC but right now I'm depressed and disappointed about DA:I.

[TheRaccoon]

I meant whichever one you choose disappears after closing the breach: if you pick the templars, they show up, close the breach, then disappear from the game with only Barris being there, and only on the war table, if you pick mages then the mages show up, close the breach, and then disappear from the game with only Fiona randomly hanging around your library. Also neither faction helps you in Haven. The Sampson/Calpernia missions end up reminding me of what we lost with Inquisition: real side quests. Sampson/Calpernia's quests are like the side quests we used to get. I'll be honest, I probably wouldn't be so bitter and critical about what I feel are shortcomings in DA:I if there had been plenty of long, fun, engaging side quests with dialogue options, companion input, and choices. I can gloss over a lot if I'm having fun and there is a lot of character building and replay value. That just wasn't there for me. I'm hoping for some awesome story DLC but right now I'm depressed and disappointed about DA:I.

 

With all due respect, the faction you chose to help does not disappear from the game. You can actually see them hanging around at Skyhold (with random ambient dialog). This is same to the Grey Wardens. If you let them stay, you can see them at Skyhold. You can also see your mage/templar allies during the Arbor Wild mission. There are also different people to judge (Alexius/Knight-Captain) base on which faction you chose.

But I agree that there is not enough dialog/interactions between the player and the companions/advisors. This is probably due to the pacing problem of the game though.

[pdusen]

have to say that I think I prefer the way the witcher series does choices... it's not about good vs evil, or even good vs good for them... usually it's evil vs evil which is actually probably the most realistic way to write stories for a world based on real world history. Real life just has so much evil in it.

I love the Witcher, but I have to say that playing through a whole game where all of the choices are clearly bad gets really grating after a while...

[Lebanese Dude]

I meant whichever one you choose disappears after closing the breach: if you pick the templars, they show up, close the breach, then disappear from the game with only Barris being there, and only on the war table, if you pick mages then the mages show up, close the breach, and then disappear from the game with only Fiona randomly hanging around your library. Also neither faction helps you in Haven. The Sampson/Calpernia missions end up reminding me of what we lost with Inquisition: real side quests. Sampson/Calpernia's quests are like the side quests we used to get. 

 

But they're not side-quests...

 

They're a direct consequence from your earlier choice of whom you side with in Mage/Templar war and are part of the main quest. They're literally the final boss of the arguable climax of the game...

 

The entire setting and plot changes, despite Samson/Calpurnia not being continuously displayed throughout the main quests. This is what practical divergence looks like, unless you expect two entirely different games from the point of choice so early in the game.

[Hazegurl]

With all due respect, the faction you chose to help does not disappear from the game. You can actually see them hanging around at Skyhold (with random ambient dialog). This is same to the Grey Wardens. If you let them stay, you can see them at Skyhold. You can also see your mage/templar allies during the Arbor Wild mission. There are also different people to judge (Alexius/Knight-Captain) base on which faction you chose.

But I agree that there is not enough dialog/interactions between the player and the companions/advisors. This is probably due to the pacing problem of the game though.

But it's more cosmetic than anything tangible. In DAO, they also had the factions chosen stand around at camp but at the end you got to actually use them in battle. Yes it wasn't perfect and in need of improvement but you still got a chance to use them.  I would say that you got a little more from picking the Templars than the Mages. You get Barris war table missions, promote him, and you see him fighting on the field.

 

This is why I think they should have left in the Keep attacks because this would have given the player a chance to use the Mages or Templars et al in battle so we can see what we invested in beyond a cut scene. I think those series of war table missions we got if we pick the GWs should have been actual side quests where we have a limited number of GWs and if we make a mistake in our choices to use them, they die out.  I think that making those missions war table only was a poor choice.

[Lebanese Dude]

 

I think those series of war table missions we got if we pick the GWs should have been actual side quests where we have a limited number of GWs and if we make a mistake in our choices to use them, they die out.  I think that making those missions war table only was a poor choice.

 

Now I'm not saying that this doesn't have appeal but that's an entire plotline by itself though. DAI isn't ultimately about the Wardens... Judging by the descriptions in the quest, you'd need to create a whole Deep Roads section, simulate two major battles, and a castle siege. That's rather impractical.

 

That's where the war table comes in. You have sub-stories as part of the plot driven by your own choice of approach. This acts out very much like a Command Center. It's pretty fun for RP'ing.

[Nefla]

But they're not side-quests...

 

They're a direct consequence from your earlier choice of whom you side with in Mage/Templar war and are part of the main quest. They're literally the final boss of the arguable climax of the game...

 

The entire setting and plot changes, despite Samson/Calpurnia not being continuously displayed throughout the main quests. This is what practical divergence looks like, unless you expect two entirely different games from the point of choice so early in the game.

How are they not side quests if they're optional and many never see them? I liked that little addition, don't get me wrong but I wanted to see the army we supposedly got. Where are they in Haven? Where are they in the Arbor Wilds? There are like 12 random allies trickled along a forest path, that doesn't give you the impression of an army at all. Even the preceding cutscene showed only small groups or handfuls of scouts. The entire setting and plot of the game doesn't change based on Sampson/Calpernia, what are you talking about? Do you mean the plot of the one side quest? This was not enough to satisfy me.

[Farangbaa]

How are they not side quests if they're optional and many never see them? I liked that little addition, don't get me wrong but I wanted to see the army we supposedly got. Where are they in Haven? Where are they in the Arbor Wilds? There are like 12 random allies trickled along a forest path, that doesn't give you the impression of an army at all. Even the preceding cutscene showed only small groups or handfuls of scouts. The entire setting and plot of the game doesn't change based on Sampson/Calpernia, what are you talking about? Do you mean the plot of the one side quest? This was not enough to satisfy me.

I can't get over how you call a main plot mission a side quest.

[Lebanese Dude]

How are they not side quests if they're optional and many never see them? I liked that little addition, don't get me wrong but I wanted to see the army we supposedly got. Where are they in Haven? Where are they in the Arbor Wilds? There are like 12 random allies trickled along a forest path, that doesn't give you the impression of an army at all. Even the preceding cutscene showed only small groups or handfuls of scouts. The entire setting and plot of the game doesn't change based on Sampson/Calpernia, what are you talking about? Do you mean the plot of the one side quest? This was not enough to satisfy me.

 

They're a divergent main plot. That's the thing. A side quest is a quest that is independent of the main plot, and thus is played "on the side".

 

Samson and Calpurnia are direct results of an earlier choice in the main plot. As a result, your main quest proceeds differently with a different enemy force attacking Haven and a different enemy force assaulting the Arbor Wilds, both main quests. There is a side quest for each of them to learn more about them, but that's different.

 

It's an entirely unique setting at that point. You can't dismiss that. 

 

It's understandable to feel that the side you picked is "useless" after the Breach besides some points in the story (isn't that the case with all DAO choices anyway? In DAI you at least can interact with them throughout the game and use them in the war table as a commanding officer).

 

The thing is you end up getting attacked by the side you DIDN'T assist and they become the main antagonist's force. So the consequence of the choice is there.

 

Also I don't understand the battlefield part. Arbor Wilds played out just like the Battle for Denerim, except you were racing Corypheus to a common goal rather than attempting to kill him and your combatants differed depending on what choices you made previously. Making it a battle like Ostagar would make little sense given that it wasn't an outright melee.

[Nefla]

I can't get over how you call a main plot mission a side quest.

A side quest is an optional quest. A main plot quest is required to advance story and beat the game.

 

They're a divergent main plot. That's the thing. A side quest is a quest that is independent of the main plot, and thus is played "one the side".

Samson and Calpurnia are direct results of an earlier choice in the main plot. As a result, your main quest proceeds differently with a different enemy force attacking Haven and a different enemy force assaulting the Arbor Wilds, both main quests.

 

It's an entirely different setting at that point. You can't dismiss that.

You may feel like Corypheus having a different lieutenant gives the game an entirely different setting but I don't. (especially when we only see them 3 times in the game, twice if we don't do their side mission) If they'd had a much larger role say that of Loghain in DA:O while Corypheus has the role the Arcdemon held (which he kind of already does) then it would be another story. As it is, it's just not enough for me. I think most of the plot was poorly done and poorly fit together. I wish they'd sat down and come up with something more coherent. It feels like I'm doing random, individual tasks that have no relation to each other. 

[Lebanese Dude]

A side quest is an optional quest. A main plot quest is required to advance story and beat the game.

 

You may feel like Corypheus having a different lieutenant gives the game an entirely different setting but I don't. (especially when we only see them 3 times in the game, twice if we don't do their side mission) If they'd had a much larger role say that of Loghain in DA:O while Corypheus has the role the Arcdemon held (which he kind of already does) then it would be another story. As it is, it's just not enough for me. I think most of the plot was poorly done and poorly fit together. I wish they'd sat down and come up with something more coherent. It feels like I'm doing random, individual tasks that have no relation to each other.

 

How many times do you see Loghain? You interact with him at most at two points early in the story (only if you have Persuasion) and then at the Landsmeet.

 

The decision to recruit him while dismissing Alistair is a crucial crisis point in the story, but that's no different than choosing who to drink from the well. You either end up having Loghain with you or Alistair while fighting the Blight. Similarly, you either end up taming a dragon or having Morrigan become one. 

 

Also I fail to see how the story wasn't connected. The entire point of the game is dismantling Corypheus's many plans before they came to fruition. That they occur "sequentially" is merely happenstance. You could totally do them in any order, but they all were devised and were being done concurrently. There is a common goal. They're not random events. Just like you did favors for different factions to have them honor the treaties to provide assistance against the Blight, so did you undertake missions to dismantle Corypheus's plans in order to prevent him from succeeding or fking up the world in the process.

At least you almost utterly failed in DAI at least twice. When were you ever threatened in DAO outside of random weaksauce ambushes and Skip The Fade mods?

[MaxQuartiroli]

But punishment is naturally not enjoyable in a video game. We can talk about logical consequences, sure. There are situations where the purely happy ending seems a bit contrived. But at the same time, just having negative consequences for their sake (the favoured ME if you save the rachni they're all indoctrinated and kill your LI) is just spiteful. 

 I would not call it "punishment"... punishment should be applied for irresponsible choices (if provided). I think that ME2 was great in this way: Jacob suggests you to reinforce the Normandy shields: you don't do it and then some **** happens. You know what will happen if you mate an Ardat-Yakshi. You decide to try the same with Morinth? Deal with the consequences!

 

But when a player makes evil choices I suppose that he does not expect to be "punished". At the opposite I think that he just want to have an ending that will rewards his evil choices by reflecting the way he played. In this regard Jade Empire did really a wonderful job.

[frankf43]

Except in choose your own adventure books there are wildly different endings depending on what sth you tooj. In DAI the ending is basically the same, no matter what you did.

 

It's not about the ending it's all about the journey. And no by the way, I have a completely different Chantry coming out of my first playthrough to my second. There are other things that are different but I won't go into detail in the Non Spoiler section.