Aller au contenu

Photo

"You can go if you wish." Really, Leliana? REALLY?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
161 réponses à ce sujet

#51
Lebanese Dude

Lebanese Dude
  • Members
  • 5 545 messages

Do you mean the ending where you surrender to Sun Li? Holy cow, was that ever stupid. :rolleyes: I still can't fathom why they put that in the game except as a troll.

 

The real troll pick is the Refuse option in ME3.

 

They gave Shepard a nice little speech, but it's probably the dumbest thing any one would ever do. The solutions you sought for THREE ENTIRE GAMES are right there. They're not what you liked or hoped for, but they're there.

 

No really...three options to save the known galaxy...and a fourth so that your Shepard can stick to their pride or whatever. The billions of other people in the galaxy can suck it!

 

No real Shepard would ever pick that option. It's only there for meta-gaming purposes for the player's satisfaction.

 

They shouldn't have added it in and let detractors roast in their own foolishness.


  • Al Foley aime ceci

#52
Al Foley

Al Foley
  • Members
  • 14 526 messages

The real troll pick is the Refuse option in ME3.

 

They gave Shepard a nice little speech, but it's probably the dumbest thing any one would ever do. The solutions you sought for THREE ENTIRE GAMES are right there. They're not what you liked or hoped for, but they're there.

 

No really...three options to save the known galaxy...and a fourth so that your Shepard can stick to their pride or whatever. The billions of other people in the galaxy can suck it!

 

No real Shepard would ever pick that option. It's only there for meta-gaming purposes for the player's satisfaction.

 

They shouldn't have added it in and let detractors roast in their own foolishness.

Mind you, I really loved that frelling speech.  


  • Lebanese Dude aime ceci

#53
Farangbaa

Farangbaa
  • Members
  • 6 757 messages

This is like complaining that you can't abandon Ferelden in DA:O. At some point, you have to buy into the story. What DA:I does better than DA:O is that it tells you the pitch from the get-go: you're working with the Inquisition.


This. Or complaining that you didn't want to be a Spectre, or work for Cerberus for that matter.

Besides that, Cassandra basically tells you it's suicide to leave the Inquisition. And this:

If there was ever a time for a Non-Standard Game Over, that would have been it.
 
"The Herald left and the Breach destroyed the world. What did you think was going to happen?"



#54
Uccio

Uccio
  • Members
  • 4 696 messages

The real troll pick is the Refuse option in ME3.
 
They gave Shepard a nice little speech, but it's probably the dumbest thing any one would ever do. The solutions you sought for THREE ENTIRE GAMES are right there. They're not what you liked or hoped for, but they're there.
 
No really...three options to save the known galaxy...and a fourth so that your Shepard can stick to their pride or whatever. The billions of other people in the galaxy can suck it!
 
No real Shepard would ever pick that option. It's only there for meta-gaming purposes for the player's satisfaction.
 
They shouldn't have added it in and let detractors roast in their own foolishness.


The starchild itself was the real troll pic of the whole ME3. It totally nullified ME1 storyline. Why would Sovereign need to take control of Citadel when starchild was already there and could have sent the signal anytime? Complete mess.
  • Iakus et Roamingmachine aiment ceci

#55
Orian Tabris

Orian Tabris
  • Members
  • 10 226 messages

Choosing it could have started the story in a different, and darker, way. Instead of shaking hands with Cassandra and becoming a respected member of the council, you would instead be arrested by Cullen's men, and, following the intro cinematic, you'd restart the story back where you began the game: in a prison cell beneath the chantry.

You'd spend a moment staring impotently through the bars, and then Solas (or Varric, or both) would appear and attempt to convince you to do the right thing and help the Inquisition. If you refused to help yet again, Cassandra would become an instant rival, dragging you from your cell and acting as your chaperone for the first few hours of the game, treating you with the same scathing suspicion with which she treated Varric throughout Dragon Age 2.

Bold.

 

This is where it should end. You stay locked up, then Cassandra and/or Leliana come and you have the option of either staying there to rot, or join the Inquisition. If you decline, the Herald of Andraste dies, and you get the game over screen with a unique piece of text saying something like "The Herald of Andraste was locked up and left to die. One day, s/he heard fighting outside... until silence came. Several minutes later, a mysterious figure arrived. Powerless due to starvation, s/he was too weak to fend off his/her attacker, and was killed for the mark s/he bared." If they agree, essentially the same thing as before happens.


  • Regan_Cousland aime ceci

#56
Korva

Korva
  • Members
  • 2 122 messages

Yep. I mean, I laughed when I chose it as a joke, but I never thought of it as a being worth whatever resources it cost to implement. 

 

Agreed. Sure, on one hand it's a good example of how "player freedom" can and should backfire if it means doing something so incredibly dumb. Don't cosset the player for it but slap them down hard. On the other hand, the resources that went into it could have gone into fleshing out a non-stupid choice more, and I'd rather see that given priority.



#57
Lebanese Dude

Lebanese Dude
  • Members
  • 5 545 messages

The starchild itself was the real troll pic of the whole ME3. It totally nullified ME1 storyline. Why would Sovereign need to take control of Citadel when starchild was already there and could have sent the signal anytime? Complete mess.

 

Because the Starchild's connection to the Reaper "network" was disabled by the Protheans. The Protheans also disabled the keeper's functions to "repair" the hack they had set up. It was explicitly stated in ME1. Sovereign needed to dock in order to "fix" the signal.

 

Anyway this isn't the ME3 forums so I'll refrain from debate. 
 


  • MonkeyLungs et blahblahblah aiment ceci

#58
Al Foley

Al Foley
  • Members
  • 14 526 messages

Because the Starchild's connection to the Reaper "network" was disabeld by the Protheans. The Protheans also disabled the keeper's functions to "repair" the hack they had set up. It was explicitly stated in ME1. Sovereign needed to dock in order to "fix" the signal.

 

Anyway this isn't the ME3 forums so I'll refrain from debate. 
 

he said after debating. :P


  • Lebanese Dude aime ceci

#59
Lebanese Dude

Lebanese Dude
  • Members
  • 5 545 messages

he said after debating. :P

 

You got me there lol


  • Al Foley aime ceci

#60
Al Foley

Al Foley
  • Members
  • 14 526 messages

You got me there lol

It is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.  ;)  Just one that I view with amusement then annoyance.  



#61
Jorina Leto

Jorina Leto
  • Members
  • 746 messages
Yes, you can go if you wish. But you don't wish to go.
  • MonkeyLungs aime ceci

#62
llandwynwyn

llandwynwyn
  • Members
  • 3 787 messages


Not at all. The point is that such an alternate path doesn't come out of nowhere. It would cost time and money to implement, and that time and money is going to have to be taken away from somewhere else.

 

A character who is too selfish and/or stupid to see that joining the Inquisition -- as essentially an equal partner to the Left and Right Hand of the late Divine, no less! -- is not only the only way to save the world but also the best deal for saving their own hide as they'll ever get doesn't really "deserve" all that investment.

 

[I don't want to join the Inquisition]

 

[Game Over Screen]

 

It's the little things, you know.



#63
TheLastArchivist

TheLastArchivist
  • Members
  • 883 messages

Near the start of the game, after Cassandra declares that she is reforming the "Inquisition of old", the Herald can ask:

"What if I refuse [to join the team]?"

To which Leliana replies: "You can go if you wish."

What a blatant LIE! There is no way that Cassandra would have allowed the one person in all of Thedas with the power to seal the Breach to just up and vanish, leaving the rest of the world to suffocate under a never-ending tidal wave of demons.

(I suppose I'm simply stressing the importance of diversity of choice in a story-based RPG -- even if those different choices ultimately lead to the same destination. Having three dialogue options that are just three tonally different ways of saying the exact same thing is pretty uninspiring, and it hurts the illusion that you are your character, and that you're in charge of your own fate.)

 

This is a good example of how many dialogs in video games actually only give you the illusion of choice.

 

Compare with Origins and you'll see you had more freedom and more possible outcomes.



#64
Raoni Luna

Raoni Luna
  • Members
  • 213 messages

Answering all...

 

Most of you are the exact reason Bioware games become worse each time. You love story, you think RPG are about a good story. This is all that do not matter at all in a RPG. All other genre offer this. Choice without consequence is AMAZING, as long as it is choices. OF COUSE it is impossible to make anything relevant with lots of options and the solution is... MAKE IT IRRELEVANT. And this is the main clash between older Bioware games and new Bioware games. Older games had more options but things were less important, had less impact. Now the story, your companions and even the world around you react to your actions, too bad I didn't ever want that and will never want.

For me, the relevance is in YOU, in your imagination, in how you relate to the game. What I expect from a RPG is a lot more like Origins where I could choose among 4 (later 6) specializations, lots of weapon styles and so on. Yeah, it made absolutely no difference, people wouldn't see me as a bard, nor being a bard would make a difference in the story or offer me new missions, but I had more options to create my character.

 

It is just a matter of preferences, you focus is the story, the world, the consequences to your choices. My focus is myself and thus my character, my build and my choices, not the consequences, is about me, not about the story, about the world or anything else.

In short I would say Bioware games became less and less self centered, which is hell for me. The games became more focused on the story, the companions, the world and so on. Which is great for those who like these and death for people like me who couldn't care less.

Even in pen and paper, there is no roleplaying for me, there is my character sheet and me making it work, like in computer game I roleplay because, well, game demands, but I don't play D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder because there is a world, a story and I want to be in that world, travelling and doing bullshit. I play because it offers an interesting mechanic with stats, feats and classes I like. And my point, as I pointed out thousand times here is: If you play a RPG, and it is not for the mechanics, for the system, then why play RPG?

"DUMB STUPID ****** ****** IT IS OBVIOUS RPG IS ABOUT ROLEPLAYING IT IS IN THE NAME YOU ARE DEEPLY RETARDED ******" - Ok. Do you need rules to roleplay? No. Nope. So here is the difference between me and the rest of the roleplayers in the world. I realize that we can roleplay, in fact life is itself roleplaying, but when we play a roleplaying GAME, be it PnP or computer one, we are doing so for the rules, the GAME part. Story we have in all kinds of media. Roleplaying, well, as I said, life itself is roleplaying, and which game is not roleplaying? If I choose between Tatasumaki Senpuukyaku and Shinkuu Hadouken with Ryu, am I not roleplaying? Am I not playing a role?

So for the 1000th time. RPG, despite your efforts to associate it with choices and story, is NOT choices and story, Choices and story are components of every game we play. Even in packman. Consequences of choices we have even in Tetris. Also we have this both in real life.

UNIQUE SET OF RULES, UNIQUE GAME MECHANICS, that allow us to build complex character combinations we only have in RPGs. And thus, this is the ONLY thing RPGs mean to me. PnP or computer. Lots of classes, stats, lot of skills, lots of feats/talent/abilities whatever, lots of classes, lots of equipments and so on. Everything else I can find in other places.

So in short, what Bioware did, was to take all I found only in their games and give me what I find and countless boring uninteresting games. And as I said before, they did so because they are pretty sure people play their games because of their boring world and uninteresting story, so they focused on it. Andm seriously, I would have no problem with this megalomanic narcisism of their if they did not sacrifice what mattered to me: Choices and options.

Being able to be an Arcane Warrior+Blood Mage+Battle Mage >>>>>>>>>>>>> Knight Enchanter.
As being Bard+Duelist+Legionnaire >>>>>>>>>> Tempest.

But I do understand perfectly that there is a lot of people, the absolute majority of people who play Bioware games, that care for story, immersion, companions and on and on. I understand it. And thus it is perfectly normal that these people prefer choices with consequences over empty answering things that you will never affect your character.

Even the OP is surely in completely disagreement with me, because I care nothing for story or consequences, I posted here just because I love hating Inquisition more than anything in my life.

But the point is: I am hateful because to give you these "wonderful things" you love so much they had to sacrifice a lot of things, as you said, resources, and they sacrificed exactly what i liked in their games. So you all who love Bioware games, the story, the companions and all these things, are my enemies, it is nothing personal but it is because of this boring things you like, like story (seriously, story, who would care about a story if it is not your own story? the less story the better so that I can pretend my character isn't doing something imbecile that Bioware thought and is instead doing some AWESOME thing I choose) that I lost a lot of classes (specializations when it comes to DAO and later) and feats (or talents).

It is really basic: I like my character and my story and I would like a set of rules/mechanics that allow me to represent it. The more freedom the better. The more story and immersion the worse since it interferes with MY story. As I person in this forum once said: "I would love if DAI was an offline MMORPG". And I would. The problem is that it is a single player game, with all the restriction from one, such as following a very defined main plot (which a lot of modern MMORPGs also have, even those are crippled by stories now, I miss the old ones with lore but without main quests) and all the worst part of MMORPGs that is grinding, respawning and this lack of identity in combat.

But again, and please don't pretend you didn't read this while answering: I understand perfectly that the people who play Bioware games (and RPGs in general), all of them, for the the story, the characters and the setting is around 99.99999%. People seem to care for boring.

I just don't care. I have to post and defend what is important to me. It is impossible, it won't happen, and thus my bitterness and angryness. It is useless to discuss and post. As I don't care about anybody else, I'm pretty sure nobody cares for my opinion too. So no need to point those out, I am well aware of all this. So just to be clear, knowing all this: I will keep on pointless posting. And complaining. For no reason at all. Knowing it won't have any effect (but again who the hell cares for consequences from choices, I will never understand this one, the point is choosing, doing, not what happens of what you choose). And it will always be like this.



#65
Raoni Luna

Raoni Luna
  • Members
  • 213 messages

Also... not representing the whole of my post but a good part of it...

"Discussion on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I wasn’t going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing my character). I was fairly certain Dragon Age would transition towards more of a Mass Effect experience, which while enjoyable is not the type of role-playing game I play. Could I be the lead designer on such a title? Certainly… though if I were going to work on a game adopting a set-in-stone protagonist I’d rather work on something lighter, like a shooter."

 

http://blog.brentkno...08-summer-2009/

Origins was not even close to what I love and would like, but deffinetly lightyears ahead of DA2, and even more comparing to the worst of them all, Inquisition, it is becoming worse each time. The closer Bioware got to perfection was NWN. No baalspawn, no champion, not anything. Still the plot thing but it is, unfortunatly, needed. And no I'm not saying he would agree with me, we have this little agreement and that's all, I'm pretty sure this dude loves a story too, argh.



#66
ThreeF

ThreeF
  • Members
  • 2 245 messages

yay! more of what-is-RPG dictatorship


  • Il Divo et Hildegard aiment ceci

#67
WillieStyle

WillieStyle
  • Members
  • 1 298 messages

Well they could have simply not had Leliana lie about it. You're the only one who can close the breach, if demons overrun the world you're going to be screwed as well and since they need the mark they are going to their damnedest to make you co-operate whatever it takes. Only a complete idiot would refuse at that point. They could also have had a non standard game over screen (like you have in Champions of the Just).

 

Why not?  Leliana lying in that situation seems entirely in character.



#68
RVallant

RVallant
  • Members
  • 612 messages

If there was ever a time for a Non-Standard Game Over, that would have been it.

 

"The Herald left and the Breach destroyed the world. What did you think was going to happen?"

 

Go one further, have it let you explore this rather large false-area where you think you can do a few quests and kick on the story only to get ambushed by an unlimited spawning wave of demons and crap until you die.

 

Better yet, have the game check-connectivity, if you're online have it merge seemlessly into the MP "Hunt" mode where a room of a max of 99 players may join as 'demons' or 'enemies' and your IQ has to fight them all off (they can respawn, you can't.) game ends when you die.

 

>_> Bioware, my ideas are available for purchase and my brain is available for hire anyday. @_@



#69
Uccio

Uccio
  • Members
  • 4 696 messages

Why? If you so utterly refuse to engage with a story, just don't play the game. And why should your character get away with essentially being an antagonist? Elevating player choice above all breaks down damn fast unless you actively refuse to give the NPCs the actual agency, means and power they should have to fight for and enforce their own causes and values. Most games are grotesquely ass-kissy towards us as it is, giving the player far too much power far too quickly and far too little accountability for it all.

 

Story-driven games like this where you're part of a greater whole and fighting for a good cause are weakened by deviating from the intended theme, not strengthened. There are other games better suited for running away from the plot, or for playing an evil bastard, or whatever. Not every game has to cater to everything a player may want to do.

 

 

If you mean engaging by totally bowing for the andrastian human centric religion then yes. But that would mean that you blatantly ignore any other race and religion present in Thedas.

Dalish elves, dwarves or Tal-vashoth have practically nothing to gain by promoting andrastian faith. More or less there would be strong drive to seriously damage or exploit it through the storyline, even if the pc would agree to a certain extend to help the Inq. Then again he/she might just want to use the chaos to advance his own religion/race. None of this manifests in the game.

f you play a dalish elf whom has a chip on his shoulder against humans and Chantry because of the historical abuse, then there is nothing "evil" about fighting against such storyline. Hell, even the mage origin can be a anti chantry, anti andrastian because of the bad treatment and abuse by templars.

But all you get it "I am not your maker". That is just blatant ass-kissing for the preset chantry worshipping. You are just putting blinders on and pretending that it is a good cause, and it is all good for everyone to support the inquisition. 


  • Roamingmachine et Icefyre aiment ceci

#70
Regan_Cousland

Regan_Cousland
  • Members
  • 437 messages

The mark is killing you. That's the card the game should have played to not let you walk away. Help us because you agree or help us to help yourself. This is role playing.

The "we can't protect you" idea is less convincing (you can avoid people but not the mark) and offers less role playing leeway.

I think the OP's idea is overkill.

 

If my idea is overkill, it's simply because I'm passionate about BioWare games and became over-enthusiastic while imagining alternative outcomes. I accept that it's much easier to write new events into a game than it is for the developers to create them. (Although I'm sure many of us would gladly trade some of the extraneous open environments in the game for a deeper, more personalized role-playing experience.) 

I like your idea. And if I'd thought of it, I might have suggested it instead. A deadly mark would indeed have convinced those less altruistic Inquisitors amongst us to stick around. Finding a way to neutralize the mark's corrosive power could then have become an important part of the plot, increasing the story's urgency and suspense.



#71
Giantdeathrobot

Giantdeathrobot
  • Members
  • 2 942 messages

If you mean engaging by totally bowing for the andrastian human centric religion then yes. But that would mean that you blatantly ignore any other race and religion present in Thedas.

Dalish elves, dwarves or Tal-vashoth have practically nothing to gain by promoting andrastian faith. More or less there would be strong drive to seriously damage or exploit it through the storyline, even if the pc would agree to a certain extend to help the Inq. Then again he/she might just want to use the chaos to advance his own religion/race. None of this manifests in the game.

f you play a dalish elf whom has a chip on his shoulder against humans and Chantry because of the historical abuse, then there is nothing "evil" about fighting against such storyline. Hell, even the mage origin can be a anti chantry, anti andrastian because of the bad treatment and abuse by templars.

But all you get it "I am not your maker". That is just blatant ass-kissing for the preset chantry worshipping. You are just putting blinders on and pretending that it is a good cause, and it is all good for everyone to support the inquisition. 

 

The world is about to end. This isn't the time to get uppity about who is helping you stop the apocalypse. 

 

Besides, at your induction ceremony as Inquisitor you can outright say you're doing this for yourself and no one else. Should the PC have then spent the rest of the game going ''guys, just as a reminder, you god sucks and I'm only doing this for my own selfish reason. What were you saying again, Cullen?''.



#72
WillieStyle

WillieStyle
  • Members
  • 1 298 messages

The real troll pick is the Refuse option in ME3.

 

They gave Shepard a nice little speech, but it's probably the dumbest thing any one would ever do. The solutions you sought for THREE ENTIRE GAMES are right there. They're not what you liked or hoped for, but they're there.

 

No really...three options to save the known galaxy...and a fourth so that your Shepard can stick to their pride or whatever. The billions of other people in the galaxy can suck it!

 

No real Shepard would ever pick that option. It's only there for meta-gaming purposes for the player's satisfaction.

 

They shouldn't have added it in and let detractors roast in their own foolishness.

 

I apologize for this, as this isn't the ME forums, but I can't help myself.

No real Shepherd would ever pick synthesis either.  People only do so because they know they're playing a video game character and synthesis is a developer-approved ending.  Choose the "melding of synthetics and organics" option from a guy who thought turning Asari into Banshees was a good idea.  No matter how much you may want the singularity to occur, it probably shouldn't be activated by a guy who thought pureeing hundreds of thousands of humans and putting them into a "human reaper" was doing them a favor.

 

For that matter, a real Shepherd would have to be phenomenal egomaniac to pick the Control ending - again, without knowing that it was a developer-approved ending.  A central theme of the entire series is that the promise of control is a lie that the Reapers use to undermine Organic resistance.  And just in case you forgot that theme, the game reminds you in the cut-scene right before the ending.  So Shepherd would have to have an ego the size of Mount Vesuvius to go, "Yeah I know what happened to the Elusive man, and what Vendetta told me happened to the Protheans, and what happened to every single other person who tried to use the Reapers.  But I'm different.  I'll totally be able to control them."

 

This is why I'm such a fan of the Indoctrination Theory.  I like to think that if you pick anything but destroy, then Garrus, Tali, and Liara have to fight you as the final boss before they can activate the Crucible.

 

Ahem! Sorry for that rant.  


  • Roamingmachine, Uccio et BSpud aiment ceci

#73
Regan_Cousland

Regan_Cousland
  • Members
  • 437 messages

I've noticed, upon perusing your lovely replies, that some people take objection to my idea because it would be far too much extra work for BioWare.

But how much work would it really be?

No new environments are needed. The jail under the chantry already exists, and I think it would actually be nice to get more use out of such a pretty location that the story entirely neglects.

In addition, there'd be one additional cinematic conversation, lasting maybe thirty seconds, between the jailed Herald and Solas (or Varric), a couple of extra frowny animations in the war room illustrating Cassandra's displeasure with you, and then a few lines of auto-dialogue while out exploring, in which Cassandra says things like, "The Inquisition scouts are watching you, Herald. Do not even think about escaping,"

There are already thousands of tiny variations like this in the game! And if you're opposed to one player experiencing content that others do not, then you're opposed to the very concept of a roleplaying game, in which players can craft an experience that feels unique to them.

Some people have also put forward the idea that if a choice doesn't alter the plot in a meaningful way then that choice is unnecessary, i.e. Why allow the Herald to refuse to join the Inquisition if joining is inevitable?

And my answer to that is: Because choosing not to join further defines and personalizes my character. 

Not all decisions can affect the plot. The plot is a much larger, more complex beast, that must hold its course. No matter the choices you make in KOTOR, you always end up fighting Darth Malak on the Star Forge; no matter the choices you make in Mass Effect, you always end up sacrificing your life on the Citadel to thwart the Reaper invasion.

Thus many choices do, and should, exist solely to enhance the illusion that you are a living, breathing, thinking being within the world.


  • llandwynwyn, Roamingmachine, Uhh.. Jonah et 1 autre aiment ceci

#74
Lebanese Dude

Lebanese Dude
  • Members
  • 5 545 messages

But how much work would it really be?
 

 

Enough that they didn't implement it.

 

Rest assured that whatever we have thought of, they already have in some manner.


  • Nimlowyn aime ceci

#75
Uccio

Uccio
  • Members
  • 4 696 messages

The world is about to end. This isn't the time to get uppity about who is helping you stop the apocalypse. 

 

Besides, at your induction ceremony as Inquisitor you can outright say you're doing this for yourself and no one else. Should the PC have then spent the rest of the game going ''guys, just as a reminder, you god sucks and I'm only doing this for my own selfish reason. What were you saying again, Cullen?''.

 

 

And who says the world is about to end? There is nothing indicating such thing, sure the sky has a hole accompanied by small rifts here and there but thats it. A dalish elf might even think their pantheon has done this to use it to overthrow humans and their false god. Anything is possible. Only player knows the breach will end up with mass death.

Claiming "I am not the herald" is hardly nothing but lip service. If the discussion option are the only thing you have, you could as well have nothing. The game should include decision which would guide the story to specific destination.


  • Roamingmachine et Elyunha aiment ceci