32 réponses à ce sujet

[Kage]

I really dont like how they do it. During the game, your choices have no consequence at all, because your experience will end up being the same. However, you do change the world drastically, and therefor, Bioware has a nightmare for DA4 because they need to reflect that.

 

I think it is not a good idea at all. It takes a lot of development efforts, and does not improve your experience at all. At the end, the player feels choices are an illusion, although they are not really and I know Bioware has invested a lot on them.

 

I believe it would be much better to have choices that are reflected in the same game, so the player feels they matter, and forget so much about choices between games, which only add complexity and are IMHO a waste of resources in many cases.

 

I am quite certain that most players (not super fans, just average players which are the biggest %) will not care much if

Spoiler

Stroud/Alistair/Loghain

is the grey warden, but they will expect a difference in the game once they have to choose

Spoiler

between Hawke and him

. However your choice does not matter at all, so choosing during your second playthrough is like "whatever I dont care".

 

The replayability of DAI comes from using a different save in Dragon Age Keep, not from choosing different options, and I feel that does not work at all!

[Akrabra]

I do agree to some extent. The consequenses of the choices are lacking, but the flavor of the choices are amazing. Abit hard for me to explain what i mean, but it was done in a tasteful manner which made you think more than Dragon Age II did. My main problem with the choices are that they end up as War-Table missions, and that would be no problem if those missions actually ended in us playing the resolution, not just reading the report. 

 

Example - You let the Grey Wardens remain in Orlais and then you get a quest chain on the war-table .it is actully very well written and i was interested in it. You can use Cullen to send out the Wardens to investigate and get to the bottom of a conspiracy type thing. And then send them in to large scale attacks as the chain goes on, but at no point are we allowed to participate in these attacks, not even in the climax, which sounds like it had an amazing ending. To bad i had to read it not see it. 

 

They should have let all your major choices play out with a combination of War-Table and actually beeing there solving the issues of your choices. Could have made for a good change of pace. Making you actually feel like you run the Inquisition, but that when your choices come back to haunt you, the personal stake in it makes you go there and solve the problem. 

 

Things like this is what could have been in the game with 6 - 12 more months in development, or sacled back on other things in the game. I think the game would have been better for it.

[Rawgrim]

There are no real choices with concequences in the game. Plain and simple. And you have zero setbacks in the game either. Handholding all the way.

[Gileadan]

I actually felt that the Warden war table missions were actively trolling me, since some decisions can be bad without any hint in the description to alert you of the fact. You're basically guessing.  For example, picking Josephine's suggestion to call in additional allies for help results in the game going "Lulz, what you didn't know is that your 'allies' are also traitors. Your wardens suffer heavy losses. Want to use them in another mission? Tee hee."

[GreyWarden_Smith]

The major decisions are meant to felt in future which is going to be weird when you're a different protagonist and will only create a slight variance in story anyway. I  would've like if my decisions effect the end game of this game to be fair like if we got the wardens to stay they help you against Cory in some manner or the Mages give a way of attacking Cory and the Templars give you another method of attacking Cory to add variance to the end game ( even if it was just cutscene that showed your choice having an impact would've been cool) but alas it doesn't.

[BansheeOwnage]

I actually felt that the Warden war table missions were actively trolling me, since some decisions can be bad without any hint in the description to alert you of the fact. You're basically guessing.  For example, picking Josephine's suggestion to call in additional allies for help results in the game going "Lulz, what you didn't know is that your 'allies' are also traitors. Your wardens suffer heavy losses. Want to use them in another mission? Tee hee."

That's one of my biggest complaints about the War Table. There isn't any strategy involved in who you pick, it just has completely unforeseeable consequences, not natural ones. Another example is a chain where you expose a spy - and you have to pick which suspect to expose, without knowing anything. I wish we got to play some of the missions instead.

[9TailsFox]

That's one of my biggest complaints about the War Table. There isn't any strategy involved in who you pick, it just has completely unforeseeable consequences, not natural ones. Another example is a chain where you expose a spy - and you have to pick which suspect to expose, without knowing anything. I wish we got to play some of the missions instead.

This is bad example. You know spy is not elf not hunter.. You can actually sole this wto using process of elimination.

[BansheeOwnage]

This is bad example. You know spy is not elf not hunter.. You can actually sole this wto using process of elimination.

My memory of the specifics isn't the best, but I know something that would have helped immensely is...

 

a summary of your progress through the mission-chain so far. If we had clues, I no longer remembered them by the time the new mission ended and I came back from doing other quests. If we could just read the previous mission reports, that would solve that problem.

 

Still, there are other missions that are better examples, like the already-stated Grey Warden chain.

[Basement Cat]

That's one of my biggest complaints about the War Table. There isn't any strategy involved in who you pick, it just has completely unforeseeable consequences, not natural ones. Another example is a chain where you expose a spy - and you have to pick which suspect to expose, without knowing anything. I wish we got to play some of the missions instead.

The War Table is filled with tremendous wasted potential. The little blurbs that are supposed to help us choose which advisor to send are not really informative, so it's guess work. We can't go back to look at old reports, which would have been helpful. The timer mechanic is ridiculously arbitrary (13 hours to get an average staff? Really?) The gather resources missions give pitiful amounts and then there is the matter of the Lavellan clan quest chain.

[correctamundo]

I want the war table to stay but I want them to work on it. And I want more side quests from wartable decisions.

[Toasted Llama]

Would be cool if you could deal with the aftermath of the missions on the war table.

 

Like if you screwed up during the war table you have to go there and fix it personally or if you did well you go there and you'll get access to special loot/merchants or something

[TheOgre]

I want the war table to stay but I want them to work on it. And I want more side quests from wartable decisions.

Yeah I think the war table was a neat idea. I like the suggestions also here in the thread that improve upon the concept. Like past judgments leading up to the war table mission at hand. War table missions that you can help in or your suggestion would help it immensely. Please don't take away the war table altogether Bw.

[Basement Cat]

I want the war table to stay but I want them to work on it. And I want more side quests from wartable decisions.

Personally I would overhaul the War Table and Power and Influence mechanic to merge them together. Instead of abstract power points that we get for doing just about anything, divide it into three categories. Forces, Secrets and Diplomacy.

 

Say we have a meter that measures the strength of each section, and the total represents our influence. The numbers on the meter would represent how many soldiers, spies and diplomats we have. We can boost these numbers through the various agents we recruit (instead of time reduction). Let's take this hypothetical scenario with the Hinterlands:

 

 

Get Vale's irregulars (+25 to Forces)

Get Speaker Anais and her cultists (+10 to Secrets or +10 to Diplomacy depending on choices)

Get Master Dennet (+5 to Forces)

Etc.

 

I put a high number on Vale's Irregulars because of the amount of work required to get them. All three numbers added up would determine our influence and unlock the story missions.

 

Next thing: instead of an advisor being locked to one mission for a given amount of time (feels artificial), the various War Table missions require an investment of points from whichever advisor we are dispatching. For example:

 

Deal with the Angry Varghest: Send scouts (-15 to Secrets) or send Soldiers (-15 to Forces) (no diplomacy option). Now, this subtraction is potentially temporary. In this particular mission, if we send scouts, the agents die but the threat is dealt with. If we send soldiers, the threat is dealt with with no losses according to the report. If scouts are picked in this case, the score subtraction is permanent (because, hey, they're dead). If soldiers are picked, we get our 15 points back (great success!). So we could send spies, soldiers, etc. on more than one mission at a time. (hello, resource collections)

 

Such a mechanic would allow us to feel the weight of our decisions as well as give us a clear visual of which of the three branches we favor. Imagine seeing your Forces score go way down if you got the Wardens killed in a War Table mission (-100. Ouch!) Instead of the influence reward we get from some missions, we would get a boost to one of our three departments.

 

Now, of course this would have the potential for min maxing (which is ok), but let's say on a first play through, you have a bunch of screw ups and you get almost all of your spies and soldiers killed. What do you do? Is it game over? Well no. You could get allies and boost your Diplomacy score. How? Well, the Dwarves of Orzammar would be willing to send aid if you helped them recover some artifacts for them (mosaics collection); A Nevarran Mortalitasi is curious about that strange temple in the Forbidden Oasis (shards collection); An Orlesian noble would pledge some of his forces to you if you cleared his land of rifts (self explanatory).

 

That way, all those pointless fetch quests could be tied into the plot as a way out of a hole if you screwed up at the War Table. You could still do them to boost your Diplomacy score anyway (min maxing), but they would remain largely optional.

 

Maybe throw in a cutscene or two with the advisors after a major loss or gain in their respective score, perhaps even some grumbling if one department is heavily favored, and that would add a good deal of flavor.

 

Enough rambling. Just ideas I'm toying with.

[Dracon525]

To me, the main story choices, as mentioned above, were pointless. I think the only one that ACTUALLY changed anything was Mages or Templars (but even then, it's not much difference). And none of them seem urgent or make you think! Honestly, the most difficult choice for me in the game was during Bull's quest, and that was only because of how i'd built my character's personality and views.

[9TailsFox]

My memory of the specifics isn't the best, but I know something that would have helped immensely is...

 

a summary of your progress through the mission-chain so far. If we had clues, I no longer remembered them by the time the new mission ended and I came back from doing other quests. If we could just read the previous mission reports, that would solve that problem.

 

Still, there are other missions that are better examples, like the already-stated Grey Warden chain.

Couldn't agree more, you want me remember something I did days ago. Better example would be warden wto chain. It's not about strategy or tactics we fight or we die. You just make decision a and hope best. Yes world is unpredictable. But come on obviously most logic decision, something random happens (rock slide  ) and everyone die.

[bondari reloads.]

I would have liked a mission log to keep track of what happened, if only to give an illusion of the bureaucracy involved.

That said, I was amazed at how, for a continent in complete turmoil, they still managed to maintain an information infrastructure rivalling our own. Those messenger birds never went missing; only scouts did.

Imo, the war table has to go.

[Rawgrim]

I would have liked a mission log to keep track of what happened, if only to give an illusion of the bureaucracy involved.

That said, I was amazed at how, for a continent in complete turmoil, they still managed to maintain an information infrastructure rivalling our own. Those messenger birds never went missing; only scouts did.

Imo, the war table has to go.

 

And yet Hawke had to walk back to the wardens to report that Stroud was dead etc.

[Meredydd]

The quests in DAI should have been more like the ones in Origins. In Origins, all the side quests had a story and were interesting. Plus, the sheer range of decisions your could make in a simple side quest was astounding. Not only that, but DAO's side quests were memorable. Remember the crazy Avaar guys shouting about the approaching Darkspawn horde in Lothering or the Andrastian priest trying to convince that greedy merchant to lower his prices because everyone was starving or that family of elves who were robbed by the bandits on the highway. All these side quests had an abundance of different paths you could take and were all memorable. Depending on the decision you made, you genuinely felt like a hero or a villain. And your companions actually gave you a piece of their mind if they didn't agree with you. That's what I call a RPG. Instead in DAI, all we get is an approval rating. DAO definitely wins in the questing department. DAI made me feel that Bioware was just being lazy. They had a better engine, a bigger budget, and more time yet they failed to recapture the RP element of questing. Even the main story quests had very limited decisions. There was usually just two to pick from.

[esper]

All the sidequest were interesting in da:o?

Boy, have we played a different game, I didn't even complete most of the sidequest in da:o because most of them was just go fetch me 10 garnets. Find 10 versions of that scroll, go kill that mage. Go find 10 love letters.

 

The crazy Chasind Guys were not a sidequest, and the merchant barely was (I think maybe you could get someone to ask you to deal with it), they were side events. Minor happinings you stumbled into.

 

I don't think I finished one of the request boards (the chantry, those weird one on the bars, those mercs, I came close with the mage collective, but not even then).

 

As it is in most rgp. At least da:I, I have pretty enviroments when looking after shards. That's a step up from hoping I come across ten garnets or loveletters.

[9TailsFox]

All the sidequest were interesting in da:o?

Boy, have we played a different game, I didn't even complete most of the sidequest in da:o because most of them was just go fetch me 10 garnets. Find 10 versions of that scroll, go kill that mage. Go find 10 love letters.

 

The crazy Chasind Guys were not a sidequest, and the merchant barely was (I think maybe you could get someone to ask you to deal with it), they were side events. Minor happinings you stumbled into.

 

I don't think I finished one of the request boards (the chantry, those weird one on the bars, those mercs, I came close with the mage collective, but not even then).

 

As it is in most rgp. At least da:I, I have pretty enviroments when looking after shards. That's a step up from hoping I come across ten garnets or loveletters.

You talking about fetch quests. DA:O have fetch quests all games have fetch quest but DA:O and DA2 have main story, real side quests, and fetch quests. DA:I have short main story, and only fetch quest with like few side quests, and all of it disconnected and pacing is horrible.

[esper]

I know that they were fest quest, (And personally I think that da:I has too big of a world, for the size it's content) I just found the notion that all da:o's sidequest were wonderful hilarious, because they were not. They were fetch quest the majority of them. (And add that the majority of the main quest too was fetch as well) 

 

 

They were still side quest. and we had at least three different forms of request boards, we did those bloody quests for.

 

I personally prefer the shards to all of da:o's fetch quesst, because they had a way to be found. 

 

Mosaic pieces and bottles of Thedas, though, can go and join the many, many bad fetch quest of RPG's

[Rawgrim]

The size of the gameworld is no excuse. The gameworld in The Witcher 3 is way bigger than the one in DA:I, and TW3 has zero fetch quests. Every side quest in that game (121 quests all in all, I believe) have a very good story it. Even the monster hunting quests have a fleshed out story, and most side quests can be solved in different ways and they have concequences. If some guys down in Poland can do this, then Bioware, with the backing of EA, should be able to do this to. Easily.

[Sah291]

To me, the main story choices, as mentioned above, were pointless. I think the only one that ACTUALLY changed anything was Mages or Templars (but even then, it's not much difference). And none of them seem urgent or make you think! Honestly, the most difficult choice for me in the game was during Bull's quest, and that was only because of how i'd built my character's personality and views.

Yeah. Two of the choices that were the most difficult for me to make were whether to make Cole spirit or human, or whether to drink from the well...and those were difficult purely from a role playing perspective, because of my character's personality, since neither choice changed the game much, outside of character development for my Inquisitor. On the one hand, I appreciated the different approach to "choices". Those kinds of choices are interesting and thought provoking because they pose a problem and don't necessarily have a good or bad outcome.

With some of the other kinds of choices, I feel like there is too often an obvious "correct" choice, based on the good or bad outcome..and then the object becomes more about winning the "best" ending, versus the more interesting story. That said, seeing different content and outcomes is important too, and is what ultimately makes me want replay.

So I don't know. I suspect this is part of the reason why the romances are always so popular and hotly debated in these games. It's one of the areas the player has the most agency and can see how their choices matter and impact other characters.

[Torgette]

I want the war table to stay but I want them to work on it. And I want more side quests from wartable decisions.

 

I would like the war table to interact more with the actual quests you find in each zone, but do more than just open up new paths/areas.

[Kage]

I would like the war table to interact more with the actual quests you find in each zone, but do more than just open up new paths/areas.

 

I didnt like that aspect of the war table, just to open areas. You needed power to open areas, it just seemed... Grindy.

It was like a stupid MMO: "Grind some power during x time to unlock this area which has no content whatsoever, just items".