161 réponses à ce sujet

[TK514]

I'm a fan of finding non-traditional 'Game Over's, so I would have enjoyed a refusal at the beginning that lead to a simple "The demons destroy the world" epilogue.

[Qunquistador]

I understand exactly what the OP is saying. It's all about a little extra dialogue creating a sense of narrative depth and making things less neat/cliche.

 

I'm sure it would be fun to play a selfish ****** who's like "I ain't closin' sheit until you pay me for getting blown up". Seriously, ya'll, my Merc Adaar never got paid But, personally, I think more kicking and screaming would have been logical (aka hilarious) during the surprise coronation scene at Skyhold.

 

Cassandra: "I know we said you could leave an' all, but do you want to officially be our quiz, a dangerous 24/7 job that has no apparent end, an insane list of responsibilities, an ugly uniform, no salary and no dental?"

 

The reluctant Herald:

 

 

That choice isn't there, though, so it's a good thing I have a headcanon that supports one of the many yes options my Adaar chose.

[Regan_Cousland]

Funny post, Qunquistador.   

You get it. It's all about being the kind of character you want to be (within reasonable limits). 

In an RPG, feeling connected to your character is every bit as important as making grand, plot-altering decisions, or ... picking elfroot.

Well, maybe not quite as important as picking elfroot. To close Rifts is kind, but to pick more elfroot than anyone ever thought possible is divine. 

 

[Regan_Cousland]

I'm a fan of finding non-traditional 'Game Over's, so I would have enjoyed a refusal at the beginning that lead to a simple "The demons destroy the world" epilogue.

Yes, that reminds me of the part in Batman: Arkham City, where Catwoman has the option to abandon Bruce and leave town with the money she's stolen.

You get an instant "game over" and there's some news chatter about how Arkham was destroyed, I believe. 

[Vasudeva]

Well remember the fade in Broken Circle mages quest?  When you wind up with Duncan?  You can choose the conversation option that leaves you enjoying the "peace" there with Duncan and other two grey wardens. Gets boring pretty fast, but the option IS there.  

[BloodyTalon]

I admit it would have been nice to leave then get swarmed by a mob of people and die.

[Regan_Cousland]

Yes, you can go if you wish. But you don't wish to go.

 

 

You, the player, obviously do not wish to go; you bought Dragon Age: Inquisition and you want your money's worth. lol

But your character bases her decisions on the internal logic of the world (she's in a dark and desperate situation; she's not looking for a fun gaming adventure). 

Therefore it might make sense for her, if not for you, to refuse to join the Inquisition.

Getting inside a character's headspace and acting in accordance with your assumed role is what roleplaying is all about.

[aries1001]

In DAO, AS both a Dalish elf and a City Elf, you can tell Duncan that you don't want to be a Grey Warden. And you can tell him this more than one time. Finally, Duncan invokes the right of conscription. You the have to go and be A Grey Warden. And the whole point of Ostagar in the game is to establish you and Alistair as the last Grey Wardens in Ferelden. To me, it would male sense if DAI's introduktion would have been similar. And by that, I mean, that I, as the player, and the player character, had been allowed to say no to the pc being the inquisitor. And then, the introduction, could have played as out just as the OP envisions it.

[MrNose]

*snip*

 

You want RPGs to be one narrow thing and they aren't. That sucks for you, but pretending that this is BioWare's problem and not yours is meaningless, and actually getting angry about it is doubly so. 

[Blooddrunk1004]

I remember Witcher and KOTOR having some scenes or events that lead to game over.

 

For example when Roche asks for your help when he questions you in the dungeon you can literally tell him to f*** off and attack him and what results is Geralt getting shoot in the back by crosbow, same thing when you meet Iorveth for 2nd time and if you smack talk him he decides to rain arrowstorm on you.

However the first time when i saw this was in KOTOR when you are done with Manaan and your character gets put on the trial by fishmen and if you don't manage to talk yourself out of it you get executed.

 

Im actually kinda dissapointed Bioware didn't do any fail sequences in DA. They did it in ME2, the fact that Shepard can die by asking Morinth to do wierd "stuff" with him/her made me laugh. Yeah we can all agree they serve no purpose, but small things like that makes me appreciate games and devs a lot more.

[Korva]

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.

 

You CAN already deny that you're the Herald. You CAN express lack of belief in the Maker. You CAN express dislike for the Chantry. This, and the rest of your post, has absolutely nothing to do with the demand that people should be able to flat-out refuse to join the Inquisition.

[Zoikster]

Give me allusions of choice all day long -- regardless of the endpoint. That's roleplaying to me. I can truly carve out a unique character and experience. Why this bothers people is beyond me.

[In Exile]

And the point flies over the heads of a lot of people here. The OP is simply coming up with an alternate path for the story not saying they wanted their character to not do anything at all.

And what we're saying is that this would involve an inordinate investment of resources - to the level of TW2's Act 2 - and require a parallel game since you'd have the same issue post Haven. Why can't my Inquisitor run away from Corypheus rather than risk his life and die alone? That would just come up then. You have to buy into the plot at some point.

[In Exile]

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

She's not lying. She's being coy. She's saying 'You could leave but we couldn't protect you if you did " which is just her saying "If you leave you'd die".

It is a threat. But apparently to subtle for some.

[Ryzaki]

Right. I remember in an early showing of the game Cassandra put a sword to your throat and people were livid that she would dare do such a thing to their character. Now that scene was taken out.

A lot of people here want their PC to be untouchable. So, scenes like this wont be happening.

 

Actually it's more likely that scene was taken out because we start the game after the breach. I remember being all "Why would she say you're the biggest threat I see and the breach is RIGHT THERE." and I think it was Allan who responded the breach wasn't necessarily there at that moment.

 

So that scene probably was a pre-haven explosion scene that got taken out when the rest of it did.

[Uccio]

You CAN already deny that you're the Herald. You CAN express lack of belief in the Maker. You CAN express dislike for the Chantry. This, and the rest of your post, has absolutely nothing to do with the demand that people should be able to flat-out refuse to join the Inquisition.

 

You only can SAY it, in a very mild tone. There is no in-game DECISION to ACTUALLY do ANYTHING about it. So yeah.

[Ryzaki]

That said I'd loved a choice to say "no I'm leaving." the screen FTB and you get a pretty splash screen game over that pretty much says as soon as the Inquisitor left Haven boundaries he/she was captured by The Elder One's red templars and ventaori then dragged to the Elder one. Because the breach hadn't been sealed and his/her mark changed he rips it off from him/her then either brainwashes them into submission or kills them before removing their mark. Maybe even complete with a scene of the PC at Cory's feet bowing while he laughs evilly? But obviously in shadow because spoilers.

[Il Divo]

And what we're saying is that this would involve an inordinate investment of resources - to the level of TW2's Act 2 - and require a parallel game since you'd have the same issue post Haven. Why can't my Inquisitor run away from Corypheus rather than risk his life and die alone? That would just come up then. You have to buy into the plot at some point.

 

Gaider addressed this kind of thing too a while back. Sure, maybe each individual instance might not require a lot of resources. But once you finish adding up all the different requests for each unique situation, it becomes a question of how many different groups of people are you required to satisfy? 

[Zoikster]

Gaider addressed this kind of thing too a while back. Sure, maybe each individual instance might not require a lot of resources. But once you finish adding up all the different requests for each unique situation, it becomes a question of how many different groups of people are you required to satisfy? 

Maybe Gaider should talk to the Witcher creators. They seem to have hit the sweet spot in this regard...

[LobselVith8]

You CAN already deny that you're the Herald. You CAN express lack of belief in the Maker. You CAN express dislike for the Chantry. This, and the rest of your post, has absolutely nothing to do with the demand that people should be able to flat-out refuse to join the Inquisition.

 

I think Ukki's post was, in part, about the potential distrust that a Dalish protagonist could have towards members of an organization who have been enemies of the People for centuries. The Chantry criminalized their religion and the templars have been known to pursue the mages within the clans; there is distrust between the two groups, to say the least. To put it another way, it could be like Dorian finding himself on Par Vollen, and being asked to work with the Qunari towards a common goal.

[Little Princess Peach]

I'm pretty sure the advertisement said leed them or fall, so that sort of implied that you could watch the world burn to the ground which I wanted to do

[Korva]

I think Ukki's post was, in part, about the potential distrust that a Dalish protagonist could have towards members of an organization who have been enemies of the People for centuries. The Chantry criminalized their religion and the templars have been known to pursue the mages within the clans; there is distrust between the two groups, to say the least. To put it another way, it could be like Dorian finding himself on Par Vollen, and being asked to work with the Qunari towards a common goal.

 

And maybe the player should keep that in mind when designing their character? An absolute outsider attending what is possibly the most important event in southern Thedas at the moment is going to need a damn good reason. If said outsider is an "I hate you and everything you stand for!" extremist, why would they even be there? Why would whoever pulls their strings send someone who is so unwilling to get along and only likely to get themselves killed for stirring up sh*t? Most importantly, why would they even allowed to be there, given the extremely sensitive nature of the whole thing? The dwarf, elf and qunari character's reasons to be allowed at the Conclave are really flimsy already, without making it worse by adding a nasty attitude on the character's part.

 

It brings us right back, again, to the issues of "limited resources" and "adding more options waters down each of them". Would it have been better to not add these other races and just stick with the original human-only plan, if players are only going to complain that the favor the devs did them by adding non-humans isn't handled well enough?

 

And what about the negative consequences of playing a character with a hostile, disruptive attitude, especially if it's a non-human? Are the same players who want more choices and acknowledgment willing to deal with the fallout of torpedoing the Inquisition, its leadership and the beliefs of the people around them? Are they willing to accept that they may never get the same level of friendship, trust, respect and authority that you'd get with a character who actually tries to fit the intended role? Are they willing to accept failure states and game over screens? And, most importantly, who is going to pay for all that, since it would logically require a rewrite of much of the game?

 

Choices without consequences are meaningless. And many players only want the good bits and not the negatives. I just can't get behind that. If anything, I want less gratuitous ego-stroking for the player and a lot more accountability for our words and deeds.

[LobselVith8]

And maybe the player should keep that in mind when designing their character? An absolute outsider attending what is possibly the most important event in southern Thedas at the moment is going to need a damn good reason. If said outsider is an "I hate you and everything you stand for!" extremist, why would they even be there?

If you're addressing a Dalish elf, then it can be as easy as the person caring about the potential danger that this war poses to the myriad of clans roaming across the breath and scope of Thedas.

It's not as though only a Dalish elf who likes (or is neutral towards) the Chantry of Andraste would be the only kind of person who has any incentive to attend.
 

Why would whoever pulls their strings send someone who is so unwilling to get along and only likely to get themselves killed for stirring up sh*t? Most importantly, why would they even allowed to be there, given the extremely sensitive nature of the whole thing?

Serving as a spy to gather information is much different than trusting your life to people who represent an ideology that you may find morally repugnant.
 

The dwarf, elf and qunari character's reasons to be allowed at the Conclave are really flimsy already, without making it worse by adding a nasty attitude on the character's part.

Not at all. You don't have to like the Chantry to be invested in the conclave. A Vashoth was simply a mercenary, while a Carta dwarf was invested in the lyrium angle during this discussion.
 

It brings us right back, again, to the issues of "limited resources" and "adding more options waters down each of them". Would it have been better to not add these other races and just stick with the original human-only plan, if players are only going to complain that the favor the devs did them by adding non-humans isn't handled well enough?

Considering that some of us had no intention of purchasing Inquisition until it was announced that racial options returned, I don't think that would have been the correct action to take.
 

And what about the negative consequences of playing a non-human, or someone with an attitude problem, or both? Are the same players who want more choices and acknowledgment willing to deal with the fallout of torpedoing the Inquisition, its leadership and the beliefs of the people around them? Are they willing to accept that they may never get the same level of friendship, trust, respect and authority that you'd get with a character who actually tries to fit the intended role? And, most importantly, who is going to pay for all that, since it would logically require a rewrite of much of the game?

Plenty of people have expressed an interest in seeing more reactivity to the racial options, both good and bad.
 

Choices without consequences are meaningless. And many players only want the good bits and not the negatives. I just can't get behind that. If anything, I want less gratuitous ego-stroking for the player and a lot more accountability for our words and deeds.

It isn't "ego-stroking" to play as a character who distrusts former members of the Andrastian Chantry when the organization has been an enemy of your people for centuries.

[Aimi]

Maybe Gaider should talk to the Witcher creators. They seem to have hit the sweet spot in this regard...

Yeah, I really enjoyed playing as an elf in TW2.

[Draining Dragon]

Actual branching decisions?

Too mainstream! Choo-choo! All aboard for the plot railroad!