Aller au contenu

Photo

Freedom of choice?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
7 réponses à ce sujet

#1
RatusMachina

RatusMachina
  • Members
  • 9 messages
   So, the DA series is famous for its freedom of choice and how it lets you decide major and both minor events, yet I can't help myself but be slightly angry at how DA2 played out. I mean, the story and progression didn't feel natural and smooth like in origins or inquisition. And just to point out, I'm not one of those DA2 extreme haters. DA2 was a different game, it was more of a ME style rather than its predecessor origins, but it was an awesome game nonetheless. Yes, the characters were less interesting than in DA:O or DA:I, yes the areas were re-used, but it was still a damn good game. It was just different and was branded a name, of which people expected something else. But I don't wish to discuss this today.
 
   I came to complain about the story and how it feels too predestined. I didn't have the freedom, or at least the illusion of freedom as in the other DA games. It was either morally impossible or physically impossible to want to do something different than what the game offers and still be able to justify it. But in DA2 I found that this didn't apply. My biggest complaint is that Hawke doesn't feel like the resemblance of me. I can't fully reflect my personality like in Inquisition and a bit less, but still more than in DA2, in orgins as well. I can openly deny my belief in the Maker, tell quite controversial opinions, which is awesome! But in DA2 I found myself in a situation where I couldn't in many situations choose an option in any way resembling my own opinion and the decision I'd want to make. For example, I am a big Qunari sympathizer, I gained the Arishok's respect, I agreed and sympathized with him on everything and yet the game forces me out of the boom to fight him. I felt like a soldier of the red army supposed to protect the USA. At first I couldn't believe there was no way for me to support the Qunari, force the nobles out and convert to the Qun. During the confrontation with the Arishok regarding the elven converts I agreed with him/them and was with excitement awaiting the option to submit to the Qun and fight against the chaos of the bas' of Kirkwall to bring order. But it never came, I was left dissapointed. I understand  it would be almost impossible to modify the game in such a manner to still be true to the story, it just immensly upset me that I wasn't even offered the possibility to do as I wished and prepared to do for the whole game. Act 3 was just a very depressing part of the game for me, I felt like I betrayed my own ideals, I was Champion of Kirkwall, but I hated when they called me by it, as it constantly reminded me of how I was pushed against my will into a decision without any chance to reverse it. In Inquisition I can at least tell everyone I am not the Herald of Andraste, they keep calling me like it, but I CAN say no and this small act of rebellion at least slightly pleases me. 
   I think even a small side ending would make me satisfied with the game. Like for example, a big red warning that the game will end sooner and you won't get the full experience, as Act 3 won't follow and you can either change your decision or play again for the full DA experience and if you choose to do it anyways, it will play short cutscene in which Hawke (you) either dies defending what he believes in, or just creates a different world state by his action and I would completely understand Bioware not wanting to build on these actions, thus just ending the game there, but still accepting the decision I made and possibly allow me to forward it to DA:I. But, oh well. What can you do, I guess supporting the Mages will have to do. 
   Just a small side note, I liked how they made the death screen in some important missions in Inquisition, as they described what would happen if you died in that exact moment, even that would make me happy, if it was possible for such a premature "side-ending" to happen based on your decisions, not only your death. For example in ME I side with the Reapers/Saren and then I get a short cutscene explaining that Shepard got indoctrinated and the galaxy is f*cked, like if you said NOPE to the godchild in the end. That's all I potentially ask of Dragon Age.


#2
NeroonWilliams

NeroonWilliams
  • Members
  • 723 messages

There is ONE option at that point that somewhat fits into your idea, and that is letting the Arishok take Isabela with the rest of the Qunari.  No fight, just they all leave and you get to follow the path that the Qun demands.



#3
BronzTrooper

BronzTrooper
  • Members
  • 5 013 messages

tbf, even if the Arishok lives through DA2, he's eventually court-marshaled because of his attack on Kirkwall.  That shows that the Qun believed he was wrong to do that, meaning that you killing the Arishok isn't really doing anything to harm the Qunari as a whole.  Hell, with Sten now the Arishok, the Qunari might actually be better off than before.

 

Anyway, the way I see it, DA2's plot was linear for 2 reasons: 1) because EA made BW rush it out the door, and 2) because DA2 is setting up the circumstances for DA:I.  It was originally planned to have Hawke possibly be the Inquisitor in DA:I, not to mention that quite a bit of DA:I was originally meant to be an expansion for DA2, but BW eventually scrapped it.

 

I agree that there wasn't much freedom of choice in DA2 when compared to DA:O and DA:I (hell, even DA:I doesn't compare to DA:O), but considering the circumstances, it makes sense.

 

As for Act III, I always felt it was rushed; like I was being pushed to finish the game.  Even during my first playthrough of DA2.  I don't like that in a RPG, or any game, really.  I just hope that ME:A and DA4 won't have that issue.


  • DeathScepter et NeroonWilliams aiment ceci

#4
9TailsFox

9TailsFox
  • Members
  • 3 713 messages

tbf, even if the Arishok lives through DA2, he's eventually court-marshaled because of his attack on Kirkwall.  That shows that the Qun believed he was wrong to do that, meaning that you killing the Arishok isn't really doing anything to harm the Qunari as a whole.  Hell, with Sten now the Arishok, the Qunari might actually be better off than before.

 

Anyway, the way I see it, DA2's plot was linear for 2 reasons: 1) because EA made BW rush it out the door, and 2) because DA2 is setting up the circumstances for DA:I.  It was originally planned to have Hawke possibly be the Inquisitor in DA:I, not to mention that quite a bit of DA:I was originally meant to be an expansion for DA2, but BW eventually scrapped it.

 

I agree that there wasn't much freedom of choice in DA2 when compared to DA:O and DA:I (hell, even DA:I doesn't compare to DA:O), but considering the circumstances, it makes sense.

 

As for Act III, I always felt it was rushed; like I was being pushed to finish the game.  Even during my first playthrough of DA2.  I don't like that in a RPG, or any game, really.  I just hope that ME:A and DA4 won't have that issue.

DAI ending was much more rushed and anticlimactic. DA:I story pacing is very bad  because of "open world" we get some story then bunch of filers, some story, filers again... DA2 pacing is bad because time jumps but it's not as bad as Inquisition.


  • DeathScepter aime ceci

#5
BronzTrooper

BronzTrooper
  • Members
  • 5 013 messages

DAI ending was much more rushed and anticlimactic. DA:I story pacing is wary bad  because of "open world" we get some story then bunch of feelers, some story, feelers again... DA2 pacing is bad because time jumps but it's not as bad as Inquisition.

 

I'm not saying that DA:I's ending wasn't anticlimactic, nor was I comparing the 2 endings.  In Act III of DA2, I felt like I was being pushed to finish the game.  I didn't have that feeling with DA:I, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was better.



#6
DebatableBubble

DebatableBubble
  • Members
  • 604 messages

There's definitely not as much player choice in DA2 compared to Origins but I think that's also because of who we're playing as as well as what kind of story it was. One person can't tell the masses in Kirkwall to just make nice with the Qunari, for example. 



#7
viberunner

viberunner
  • Members
  • 30 messages

It once again comes down to the fact DAO had a "Jedi Revan" / "Galactic Emperor Shepard" / "Hero of 1000 Faces" thing going on where the world (galaxy/reality itself) revolves around you; whereas in DA 2 you're just an observer who came to was in the right place at the right time a couple of times.

 

So no, you do not get to control, shape, or alter the world very much through your choices. What you do get to do is choose is how you face the world.



#8
aoibhealfae

aoibhealfae
  • Members
  • 2 203 messages

Dragon Age II aren't meant to be a standalone. The Inquisition was meant to be Hawke's destiny instead of being Virmire-d in DAI. Do people even play a story-driven game for the sakes of the story and the character itself?