inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
May 17, 2024 16:43:43 GMT
26,698
gervaise21
10,819
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Jan 17, 2024 8:33:14 GMT
There is a toggle where you can knock out enemies. Many fights you can persuade the enemy to leave or that your on their side In my experience, non-lethal is mechanically the same as killing. Other than personal rp/headcanon the game seems to (mostly) treat it as a kill regardless. I think there is a difference between simply knocking someone out, so still resolving a situation with violence, and using persuasion to get the opponent to back down, either because they recognise that to take you on would be suicidal or you genuinely win them over to your point of view. As far back as the original Baldurs Gate it was possible to talk down an opponent and so avoid automatically having to kill someone who had only been acting out of misguided loyalty to the main antagonist. I've repeatedly said on these boards how I liked the option in the original Planescape: Torment to resolve a situation, even the final confrontation, without violence provided you had a high enough wisdom score and, possibly, taken certain other actions prior to meeting them that would reinforce your persuasive skills (this at least was the case with that final confrontation). I like the option to opt for a non-lethal resolution should I choose to take that route but feel it does need to be consistent with how you have developed your PC throughout the game and your reputation within the world. However, I was not happy with the way this was managed in DAI viz a viz Leliana and the final confrontation with the Chantry sister. Whether Leliana obeyed your order to spare her was dependent on a previously asking her not kill someone, when she hardly knew you, you were not her boss and you were interfering in her job as Spy Master, so why would you? By contrast she could go ahead and kill someone when it was your direct order not to, you were her commanding officer and it would impact on your reputation personally, yet subsequently you could only passively accept the consequences of her action without being able to discipline her in any way for her insubordination. Between the first episode and the last, once I became Lord Inquisitor my PC had consistently been merciful in their judgments and tried to resolve situations non violently when possible (for example getting the Grey Wardens at Adamant to stand down instead of simply killing them), which I feel should have been the determining factor whether Leliana listened to me or not. Basically, I like the option for non lethal resolutions but please let the reason you are successful or not in achieving this be logical. Whether or not this leads to different outcomes further down the line should depend on how much that individual decision ought to impact on the wider scheme of things.
|
|
inherit
401
0
1
May 17, 2024 21:34:40 GMT
41,660
DragonKingReborn
20,557
August 2016
dragonkingreborn
http://bsn.boards.net/threads/recent/143
https://i.imgur.com/1myVt9D.jpg
DragonKingReborn
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
887
590
|
Post by DragonKingReborn on Jan 22, 2024 9:53:38 GMT
Because somebody asked about Playing DAO after BG3. Since this was me, I took on board the responses people made and have started a dwarf commoner rogue run. I won't be playing it exclusively, but so far, so good. At some point, EA upgraded me to the Ultimate Edition, because I definitely didn't have that and I spent some time going through the various mods that I wanted. I still don't have a full list, but things are underway. In terms of comparisons...well, visually even if I were to mod Origins to within an inch of its life, it wouldn't look half as good as BG3, but it doesn't have to. So far - and it's very early days, haven't even finished the Origin story yet - the hardest thing has been adapting to how quick it is...believe it or not. Real time with pause vs turn based - definitely a mindset adjustment On the plus side, Inventory. If it's not equipped on someone, it's available for anyone. This is good.
|
|
inherit
Warning Points: 1
3116
0
Apr 27, 2024 12:24:10 GMT
8,041
vonuber
2,580
January 2017
vonuber
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by vonuber on Jan 25, 2024 10:14:54 GMT
The thing I like about BG3 is that it's not afraid to lock you out of enormous amounts of content based on your decisions.
I'm trying to think of an equivalent DA scale thing - it's possible to have no companions at all in BG3, can you do that in DA?
|
|
TabithaTH
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 504 Likes: 901
inherit
10360
0
May 17, 2024 22:07:29 GMT
901
TabithaTH
504
Jul 22, 2018 12:32:26 GMT
July 2018
teatabitha
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by TabithaTH on Jan 25, 2024 22:47:04 GMT
Does it though? Maybe some major stuff has multiple scenarios, but I found that the game really helps you to not lose out on minor stuff. Practically from the start, you get equipment for both speak to dead and animals meaning anyone gets access to them regardless of class.
And BG3 has Hirelings, which means you’re never screwed even if you lose access to all companions. That makes a huge difference. In DA they usually have one of each class that’ll never leave, making you free to play as you like without worrying about not being able to continue because you’re not good enough to solo.
Having not played 'evil' yet, I can't say who'd stick around. However I can say that I worry a bit about whether I'd find it as fun since I assume most companions would leave at some point or other (or get killed).
|
|
inherit
Warning Points: 1
3116
0
Apr 27, 2024 12:24:10 GMT
8,041
vonuber
2,580
January 2017
vonuber
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by vonuber on Jan 26, 2024 1:27:38 GMT
Er yes? You can skip the entire Grove if you want, for example. Or everything at last light.
|
|
TabithaTH
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 504 Likes: 901
inherit
10360
0
May 17, 2024 22:07:29 GMT
901
TabithaTH
504
Jul 22, 2018 12:32:26 GMT
July 2018
teatabitha
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by TabithaTH on Jan 26, 2024 10:30:58 GMT
See, to me, it’s not locked out content unless the game itself renders completion impossible. You choosing to skip a quest or not explore the map fully is your choice, even if unintentional. The game warns you plenty when leaving an area might affect quests and even mentions if it thinks you are underleveled. Heck, choosing a route to moonrise is an illusion since you can do both before continuing to act 2. You can even travel back to the act 1 areas, though I had done everything, so have no experience of how it would affect anything other than the grove.
You could count major choices as locking you out of content because of multiple choices. However, it’s no different than DAO having 2 factions for each sub-area or DAI having you choose between mages and templars. For me, at least, this is less locking out and more deliberate replayability.
|
|
inherit
Warning Points: 1
3116
0
Apr 27, 2024 12:24:10 GMT
8,041
vonuber
2,580
January 2017
vonuber
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by vonuber on Jan 26, 2024 19:41:21 GMT
Eh, OK you can lock the Grove down early rendering a lot of quests impossible, and still kill the goblin camp.
|
|
inherit
1439
0
May 16, 2024 15:46:00 GMT
12,460
witchcocktor
4,037
Sept 6, 2016 10:00:37 GMT
September 2016
witchcocktor
Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by witchcocktor on Jan 28, 2024 13:10:20 GMT
One thing I hope BW takes from BG3 (even if it's too late now, but perhaps for future projects) is that companions can be evil, problematic, immoral and/or morally gray. If BG3 taught us anything is that nobody cares about characters being '' problematic '' as long as they are compelling (and sexy, lbr), and you don't need to fix them to be better people either.
I'm not into super edgy and evil characters myself, but things like retconning things or subsequent media smoothening the edges out of factions and characters is not a good way to go. Dragon Age universe should not be a cutesy flower shop/coffee AU fanfiction, and our companions should reflect that with their hot takes and opinions. Something like Dorian's views on slavery made his character more interesting, even if it makes him more morally questionable or downright immoral. But of course they decided that Inquisitor taught him out of those horrific ways in Tevinter Nights.
|
|
fairdragon
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
Posts: 953 Likes: 405
inherit
11611
0
May 17, 2024 10:49:52 GMT
405
fairdragon
953
Jul 30, 2020 17:14:13 GMT
July 2020
fairdragon
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by fairdragon on Jan 29, 2024 8:59:24 GMT
One thing I hope BW takes from BG3 (even if it's too late now, but perhaps for future projects) is that companions can be evil, problematic, immoral and/or morally gray. If BG3 taught us anything is that nobody cares about characters being '' problematic '' as long as they are compelling (and sexy, lbr), and you don't need to fix them to be better people either. I'm not into super edgy and evil characters myself, but things like retconning things or subsequent media smoothening the edges out of factions and characters is not a good way to go. Dragon Age universe should not be a cutesy flower shop/coffee AU fanfiction, and our companions should reflect that with their hot takes and opinions. Something like Dorian's views on slavery made his character more interesting, even if it makes him more morally questionable or downright immoral. But of course they decided that Inquisitor taught him out of those horrific ways in Tevinter Nights. Sorry but i have to disagree. If BG3 show me something, than that DA companions are on the right track. I have no problem with moral gray but BG3 do to much. Dorian isn't to much and i like that he lern something about other point of views on slavery. I like the fixing part very much. And i think games should always show people what is a good way to behave with other people and their opinion. Or show what you shouldn't do with consequences.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
May 17, 2024 20:53:21 GMT
31,363
colfoley
16,643
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Jan 30, 2024 1:14:03 GMT
One thing I hope BW takes from BG3 (even if it's too late now, but perhaps for future projects) is that companions can be evil, problematic, immoral and/or morally gray. If BG3 taught us anything is that nobody cares about characters being '' problematic '' as long as they are compelling (and sexy, lbr), and you don't need to fix them to be better people either. I'm not into super edgy and evil characters myself, but things like retconning things or subsequent media smoothening the edges out of factions and characters is not a good way to go. Dragon Age universe should not be a cutesy flower shop/coffee AU fanfiction, and our companions should reflect that with their hot takes and opinions. Something like Dorian's views on slavery made his character more interesting, even if it makes him more morally questionable or downright immoral. But of course they decided that Inquisitor taught him out of those horrific ways in Tevinter Nights. Now I know that I did make the very complaint earlier in this thread about how nasty the BG 3 party was but then on further reflection I was kind of wrong. Thign is though there is a lot of morally gray or even dark companions in Dragon Age throughout the years. Zevran. Morrigan. You can harden Alistair (though since I've never done it I don't know how full evil he can get) You can harden Leliana, bonus points you can do it to her twice, and the second time she turns into some kind of zealot that goes arround assasinating her political rivals within the Chantry if made Divine. Anders is a terrorist that blows up a Chantry. Bull is a card carrying spy of one of the most brutal regimes in Thedas and can even betray you if you make the wrong choices. But this highlights something though, at least I hope. That in part its not so much which companions are dark and which componanions aren't dark. But like with Dorian you can clearly influence him into a more righteous position. WHich is kind of the point of RPGs, and fiction in general, characters bouncing off one another to form relationships and influence each other in any number of ways. SUre you don't want to stray too far into GOd mod RPG protagonist thing but this is a thing that can happen. You can influence and nudge Iron Bull away from the Qun. You can soften or harden Leliana. You can make Dorian less pro slavery. You can influence Zevran's morality if he wants to betray you or not. And in BG III, from what I gather. You can even influence your more 'evil' companiosn in that game, at least to a point, like by getting Shadowheart away from the influence of Lady Shar if you so choose.
Don't know if you can positively sway Astarion so there is that. But that is the thing that makes a good RPG a good RPG allowing the player to influence things around them in the direction that they want to. And given the really morally grey nature of Dragon Age Inquisition I think this is an area that the two franchises are actually very close on. Though maybe BioWare could learn to take more risks in what they do with said companions.
|
|
Guardian
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 328 Likes: 510
inherit
2219
0
May 17, 2024 11:43:38 GMT
510
Guardian
328
Nov 30, 2016 22:10:34 GMT
November 2016
guardian
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Guardian on Jan 30, 2024 3:37:11 GMT
And in BG III, from what I gather. *spoiler* But that is the thing that makes a good RPG a good RPG allowing the player to influence things around them in the direction that they want to. And given the really morally grey nature of Dragon Age Inquisition I think this is an area that the two franchises are actually very close on. Though maybe BioWare could learn to take more risks in what they do with said companions. Regarding your spoiler, yes...to an extent. After beating Cazador, you can convince him to not finish the ritual, helping him realize that he'd become no better than Cazador. This leads him to the best possible outcome for him at the end. As for "full redemption"? Nah..it's still Astarion at the end of the day.
But yes...Shadowheart turning from Shar was always my goal. Yeah....they did do it in DA Inquisition, but I still think it was the weakest overall for the party members. The one that really hit the hardest was Bull; but it shouldn't come as a surprise how this happens. I felt the characters changing due to your actions were seen more in Origins, and to a slightly lesser extent, DA 2 (except for Anders - dude just got character assassinated between Awakenings and DA 2).
|
|
inherit
1130
0
May 16, 2024 15:37:15 GMT
438
wickedcool
675
Aug 22, 2016 13:08:32 GMT
August 2016
wickedcool
|
Post by wickedcool on Jan 30, 2024 3:42:06 GMT
I would say laezel and sten are similar in many ways. Laezel like sten has a character arc that you can explore and with the right choices she can like sten realize her world isn’t what she thought was
Just using laezel there’s a lot more effort put into her character arc than most dai characters. Dai characters you constantly have to agree with everything they say to get a desired scene even if not romancing them. Sera I constantly had to say the right thing or play childish pranks in order to get the approval needed to unlock the noble that was bothering her scene and same with solas Laezel I knew I had to take her to a particular place that she mentions right away. Once there it’s can I steer her to the light or we could go down a dark path. It was much easier to understand where she came from
You aren’t railroaded as much as you are in dai and there is much more choice. In the da games there is no persuading or threatening enemies except 1 or 2(I think 1 of the generals lets you convince her that she is being used). The aim is total crap for the most part. Hinterlands bears spawning like crazy . Even on the hardest difficulty you have tons of ways to avoid/persuade/intimidate/bribe enemies. Speak with animals is a potion for most classes and you can make it or find and just adds to the game. Dragon age did have a talking cat fyi Speak with dead is also situational but not required just fun
For me it took great parts of dao/da2 and some of dai
|
|
inherit
Warning Points: 1
3116
0
Apr 27, 2024 12:24:10 GMT
8,041
vonuber
2,580
January 2017
vonuber
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by vonuber on Jan 30, 2024 17:02:31 GMT
Yeah, there's definitely much more flexibility. For example I've just managed to recruit Minthara as a good aligned character, i would guess that's sort of the equivalent of getting Lucius Coren to change sides and join you, but also be a fully fledged companion.
Needless to say it's not an easy thing to do, and her character hasn't done a complete 180 but you can understand her motivations and more importantly see a path to sanding off the rough edges.
|
|
inherit
1587
0
May 17, 2024 12:58:46 GMT
1,676
Walter Black
1,258
Sept 15, 2016 15:02:16 GMT
September 2016
walterblack
|
Post by Walter Black on Jan 31, 2024 2:43:01 GMT
One thing I hope BW takes from BG3 (even if it's too late now, but perhaps for future projects) is that companions can be evil, problematic, immoral and/or morally gray. If BG3 taught us anything is that nobody cares about characters being '' problematic '' as long as they are compelling (and sexy, lbr), and you don't need to fix them to be better people either. I'm not into super edgy and evil characters myself, but things like retconning things or subsequent media smoothening the edges out of factions and characters is not a good way to go. Dragon Age universe should not be a cutesy flower shop/coffee AU fanfiction, and our companions should reflect that with their hot takes and opinions. Something like Dorian's views on slavery made his character more interesting, even if it makes him more morally questionable or downright immoral. But of course they decided that Inquisitor taught him out of those horrific ways in Tevinter Nights. Sorry but i have to disagree. If BG3 show me something, than that DA companions are on the right track. I have no problem with moral gray but BG3 do to much. Dorian isn't to much and i like that he lern something about other point of views on slavery. I like the fixing part very much. And i think games should always show people what is a good way to behave with other people and their opinion. Or show what you shouldn't do with consequences.
And here is where *I* must disagree. When Dragon Age was originally created as a Spiritual Successor to the first Baldur's Gate games, David Gaider and others wanted to challenge as much as they echoed. To provide a mature story that explored darker themes and more complex character arcs. But eventually later writers like Patrick Weekes and such didn't seem as interested in asking hard questions with no easy answers. Slowly but surely, DA turns more into the kind of story it was meant to deconstruct. Don't get me wrong, I love the original BG games. But they're NOT Dragon Age. Looking back on how we've grown used to "fixing" Party Members, a small part of me would like to see at least one instance where trying to get the stereotypically "good" path in a Companion Quest leading to the worst possible outcome. For all of our good intentions, this kind of Player Entitlement makes us come off as less concerned friends, and more like manipulative sociopaths. That supporting and having the Companion's back is less important that programing them into the proper tool for our uses. And with all due respect, expecting stories to "show people a good way to behave" sounds less like nuanced, adult storytelling, and more like propaganda.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
May 17, 2024 16:43:43 GMT
26,698
gervaise21
10,819
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Jan 31, 2024 8:52:00 GMT
Don't get me wrong, I love the original BG games. But they're NOT Dragon Age. This is true and that is largely because DA is not bound by the rules of D&D. The original Baldurs Gate series was. I have no idea if Wizards of the Coast have changed these rules more recently but back then you had to decide at the outset if you were going to be good, evil or neutral in your outlook, the last being probably the most difficult to navigate when it came to selecting companions as they were similarly aligned in their outlook. So if you did too many good acts, evil characters would opt to leave you and vice versa. In fact a lawful good paladin character might even attack you. I usually played chaotic good characters, which allowed me a little flexibility in what I felt my character would choose to do but still meant it was better with stick to good and neutral companions. It was also advisable not to keep good and evil companions in your party as sooner or later they would start fighting with one another. However, in BG2 I specifically wanted to romance Viconia, who started off neutral evil, so third run my PC was a chaotic neutral bard and I was careful to play them as such, which wasn't easy as some of my choices went against what I would usually do but, by dropping the paladin from my party and the two rivals for her affections, I was able to get to the end of the main game with Viconia still with me. Then in Throne of Bhaal, it was actually possible to change her alignment to true neutral if you made the right choices and said the right things, which as a neutral character myself wasn't that difficult. From what I recall, if the companion was in your party then at the appropriate point in the game, their personal quest would trigger. This had nothing to do with your approval rating with them because they would only still be in your party if they were broadly in agreement with your decisions. DAO made the whole process a lot easier because you didn't have to decide at the outset what your character would be and companions weren't designated good, evil or neutral but they still reacted to your decisions based on their own moral outlook. That did come across as more natural and morally grey but really it was still working to that original system, just not obviously so. In some ways, though, the approval system was more annoying because it wasn't just based on your decisions but also how much you talked with them, said the sort of things that stroked their ego and gave them gifts. This was far harder to navigate than the old system and meant whether or not you got their companion quest was in many cases pure luck. Morrigan was an exception because you actually had to deliberately not give her the grimoire (or didn't find it in the Mage Tower) but that was still essentially dependent on a gift and getting high enough approval of characters like Sten also depended on gift giving because I often made "good" decisions that he didn't like, for example sparing Connor, which was not the sensible decision in the light of his possession, even less as you were going to leave him free whilst you traveled to the Circle, but you just knew was the path that you ought to take for the best outcome. If you had returned with the First Enchanter to find the village destroyed or even just Teagan dead that would have been a morally grey outcome because even though you had succeeded in saving the child, it had been at the expense of others. As it was, the demon did exactly nothing even though it must have known you had left the village and were going to get help against it. So, you succeeded in preserving Isolde, Connor and the entire village by taking the illogical but "good" path. Sten disapproving of your actions wasn't evil but just practical because there ought to have been a downside to it, irrespective of his culture's fear of demons. In DAI the approval system was even more annoying. You only get Sera's first companion quest by completing the relevant war table mission and then subsequent ones by basically indulging her. My first Inquisitor chewed her out for killing the person I was currently questioning because she was out of order. It wasn't just I was in charge but we might have learned something. That's what you do, keep people talking. It doesn't necessarily mean you really approve of them, you are just trying to lull them into a false sense of security. Sera didn't appreciate that. The only other way of appeasing her was to force the guy to work for you. Oh so, recruiting the person who just murdered one of your people is okay? First run, that was the end of any personal interaction with Sera so I was never forced into playing juvenile pranks to keep her on side and get the cookie story, although I stopped short of kicking her out because she might have interpreted this the wrong way to other people. Iron Bull was equally illogical on my first run. I talked with him and went around camp with him but he didn't seem to approve of many of my decisions and his companion quest never triggered. I only discovered after finishing the game there even was one. So, I went back to an earlier save and took him on a dragon hunt. That boosted my approval enough for it to trigger. Bear in mind this was meant to be about my suitability for working with his superiors in the Qun and yet it depended on pandering to his delight in being taken on a dragon hunt. What a great spy. So far as companions leaving you, if your approval rating sank too low, this could happen in both DAO and DAI, though not so far as I can recall in DA2, although Fenris might leave if you don't do his companion quest. The main impact of the friend/rival rating is at the very end, depending on which side you take, where you are actively punished for being a middle of the road, pragmatic individual as that is when companions might potentially turn against you. In DAI as far as I am aware, because it never happened to me, you really have to work at being an arsehole for it to occur, like punching Dorian. On the whole you just get different cut scenes when you interact with them, like Cassandra getting drunk or Solas making scathing remarks because, let's face it, he was never going to leave whilst he didn't have his orb. Essentially, what I'm saying is that neither system is perfect but actually the original Baldurs Gate made more sense to me. Maybe there was less justification for characters leaving you story wise in DA because in DAO the Arch-demon was the enemy to all and in DAI Corypheus was the same, so it made sense they would stick around until they were dealt with. Whereas in BG and BG2, the opponent was more a threat to you personally, even though they did have larger designs on the world generally. This sticking together to save the world seems likely to continue in DA:D. However, if there is one thing I would like them to fix for the next game is getting the companion quest regardless of your approval rating, because it happens to be appropriate to that stage in the story or region of the game. Then how the companion views you going forward is dependent on how you deal with that situation and the choices you make within it. If you refuse to help or do something they really don't like, then give them a bit of backbone and let them leave, or make it clear that they are only staying because of the greater danger out there but they have no loyalty to you personally. Then it is up to you if you want them to stay on the team and you also have the option to kick them out. This is also true if they do something you don't approve of or vice versa because they don't like the way you have treated one of the other companions that they are friends with. Sebastian really ought to have rejected you after you give Fenris back to Danarius and, to be honest, I think Varric should too but at least not think of you as a friend. Fenris was meant to be one of his card party/drinking buddies but stabbing Fenris in the back had no impact on your relationship. That was because of the stupid way the friendship/rivalry metre got locked in at a certain point so it couldn't change. I certainly wouldn't want that system back unless it was considerably adjusted.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Jan 31, 2024 9:26:11 GMT
One thing I hope BW takes from BG3 (even if it's too late now, but perhaps for future projects) is that companions can be evil, problematic, immoral and/or morally gray. If BG3 taught us anything is that nobody cares about characters being '' problematic '' as long as they are compelling (and sexy, lbr), and you don't need to fix them to be better people either. Honestly, the stats make me think that players will do anything if it means their PC gets to bang a hot NPC. What percentage would we have seen side with the goblins without the drow nookie? Not that there's anything wrong with that... More seriously, I don't think Bio has been all that bad with this in the past. We've had our share of morally grey companions. (I sometimes find it annoying that Morrigan won't even pretend to be a good person for tactical advantage, but it makes sense that this would be a blind spot for her.) And having played an Inquisitor who romanced a QunBull... yeah, that was cold.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Jan 31, 2024 9:44:42 GMT
This was far harder to navigate than the old system and meant whether or not you got their companion quest was in many cases pure luck. Morrigan was an exception because you actually had to deliberately not give her the grimoire (or didn't find it in the Mage Tower) but that was still essentially dependent on a gift and getting high enough approval of characters like Sten also depended on gift giving because I often made "good" decisions that he didn't like, for example sparing Connor, which was not the sensible decision in the light of his possession, even less as you were going to leave him free whilst you traveled to the Circle, but you just knew was the path that you ought to take for the best outcome. If you had returned with the First Enchanter to find the village destroyed or even just Teagan dead that would have been a morally grey outcome because even though you had succeeded in saving the child, it had been at the expense of others. As it was, the demon did exactly nothing even though it must have known you had left the village and were going to get help against it. So, you succeeded in preserving Isolde, Connor and the entire village by taking the illogical but "good" path. Sten disapproving of your actions wasn't evil but just practical because there ought to have been a downside to it, irrespective of his culture's fear of demons. I was not a fan of the Redcliffe resolution either. A lot of CRPGs do a thing where the supposedly risky choice is actually optimal because you always get away with it. Ideally, there should have been a die roll before you make the choice; if you lose, you lose. The sad part is that this would have been almost free, because the game can already handle the situation where you don't save Redcliffe.
|
|
fairdragon
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
Posts: 953 Likes: 405
inherit
11611
0
May 17, 2024 10:49:52 GMT
405
fairdragon
953
Jul 30, 2020 17:14:13 GMT
July 2020
fairdragon
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by fairdragon on Jan 31, 2024 9:50:42 GMT
Sorry but i have to disagree. If BG3 show me something, than that DA companions are on the right track. I have no problem with moral gray but BG3 do to much. Dorian isn't to much and i like that he lern something about other point of views on slavery. I like the fixing part very much. And i think games should always show people what is a good way to behave with other people and their opinion. Or show what you shouldn't do with consequences.
And here is where *I* must disagree. When Dragon Age was originally created as a Spiritual Successor to the first Baldur's Gate games, David Gaider and others wanted to challenge as much as they echoed. To provide a mature story that explored darker themes and more complex character arcs. But eventually later writers like Patrick Weekes and such didn't seem as interested in asking hard questions with no easy answers. Slowly but surely, DA turns more into the kind of story it was meant to deconstruct. Don't get me wrong, I love the original BG games. But they're NOT Dragon Age. Looking back on how we've grown used to "fixing" Party Members, a small part of me would like to see at least one instance where trying to get the stereotypically "good" path in a Companion Quest leading to the worst possible outcome. For all of our good intentions, this kind of Player Entitlement makes us come off as less concerned friends, and more like manipulative sociopaths. That supporting and having the Companion's back is less important that programing them into the proper tool for our uses. And with all due respect, expecting stories to "show people a good way to behave" sounds less like nuanced, adult storytelling, and more like propaganda. Thank you for contradicting me. I agree a possibility to make someone more dark like in Pathfinder would be cool. And i also agree DAO was much better than DA2 and DAI together. But for me all 3 are better than BG3. Because i don't like the way Larian do this Comapnion stories. Allways over the top, allways most dark (if not Karlach, then they look dark) and i don't like the romance/friend system. So i think you have read something in my text i didn't write. It wasn't about DA alone but about DA in context of BG3.
So to my last part. I am sorry you get it that way. I am not a native english speaker. But i am not sure if the language is the problem here. So i will write it a little bit more detailed.
I coming from a psychology background. In my eyes every game will subconsciously teach you something. That is how our brain works. And the reason why propaganda is so effective. So my point was as opposed to BG3 were i have the feeling the game want me to accept the negativity. I want a game which bring hope. So what i mean with "show people a good way to behave". I am not sure how i can say it the best way. In DA i have the feeling you have a save space and the game show you that nothing is like it looks on the first view. So we learn to not to label something at first sight.
Or we learn to speak with both sides of a conflict before making a jugdment. Something like that.
I hope you can get what i mean.
|
|
fairdragon
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
Posts: 953 Likes: 405
inherit
11611
0
May 17, 2024 10:49:52 GMT
405
fairdragon
953
Jul 30, 2020 17:14:13 GMT
July 2020
fairdragon
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by fairdragon on Jan 31, 2024 10:15:50 GMT
This was far harder to navigate than the old system and meant whether or not you got their companion quest was in many cases pure luck. Morrigan was an exception because you actually had to deliberately not give her the grimoire (or didn't find it in the Mage Tower) but that was still essentially dependent on a gift and getting high enough approval of characters like Sten also depended on gift giving because I often made "good" decisions that he didn't like, for example sparing Connor, which was not the sensible decision in the light of his possession, even less as you were going to leave him free whilst you traveled to the Circle, but you just knew was the path that you ought to take for the best outcome. If you had returned with the First Enchanter to find the village destroyed or even just Teagan dead that would have been a morally grey outcome because even though you had succeeded in saving the child, it had been at the expense of others. As it was, the demon did exactly nothing even though it must have known you had left the village and were going to get help against it. So, you succeeded in preserving Isolde, Connor and the entire village by taking the illogical but "good" path. Sten disapproving of your actions wasn't evil but just practical because there ought to have been a downside to it, irrespective of his culture's fear of demons. I was not a fan of the Redcliffe resolution either. A lot of CRPGs do a thing where the supposedly risky choice is actually optimal because you always get away with it. Ideally, there should have been a die roll before you make the choice; if you lose, you lose. The sad part is that this would have been almost free, because the game can already handle the situation where you don't save Redcliffe. I like the way owlcat has take with rogue trader more. And it is simular to what gervaise21 said. You have 3 places to go. The places were you go second and third have some consequences. So in DAO you have 4 places to go Redcliff, Ozarmar, Brasilienforest and the tower. So where you go first should be importent.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
May 17, 2024 20:53:21 GMT
31,363
colfoley
16,643
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Jan 31, 2024 10:26:19 GMT
This was far harder to navigate than the old system and meant whether or not you got their companion quest was in many cases pure luck. Morrigan was an exception because you actually had to deliberately not give her the grimoire (or didn't find it in the Mage Tower) but that was still essentially dependent on a gift and getting high enough approval of characters like Sten also depended on gift giving because I often made "good" decisions that he didn't like, for example sparing Connor, which was not the sensible decision in the light of his possession, even less as you were going to leave him free whilst you traveled to the Circle, but you just knew was the path that you ought to take for the best outcome. If you had returned with the First Enchanter to find the village destroyed or even just Teagan dead that would have been a morally grey outcome because even though you had succeeded in saving the child, it had been at the expense of others. As it was, the demon did exactly nothing even though it must have known you had left the village and were going to get help against it. So, you succeeded in preserving Isolde, Connor and the entire village by taking the illogical but "good" path. Sten disapproving of your actions wasn't evil but just practical because there ought to have been a downside to it, irrespective of his culture's fear of demons. I was not a fan of the Redcliffe resolution either. A lot of CRPGs do a thing where the supposedly risky choice is actually optimal because you always get away with it. Ideally, there should have been a die roll before you make the choice; if you lose, you lose. The sad part is that this would have been almost free, because the game can already handle the situation where you don't save Redcliffe. I probably would've preffered the cost to be pretty much more or less mandatory. Especially given the time and the distances involved. It would've been really difficult to nail down the balance but maybe another attack, or maybe Isolde would've even died in that version to. Choices and consquences. And Origins did have this really bad habbit of presenting ideal solutions to really complicated problems without any more cosequences. The good solution where you side with someone, side with the other, and the ideal. With little in terms of cost or effort.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
7,212
river82
4,949
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Jan 31, 2024 10:41:01 GMT
Six months later and we're still arguing over BG3 xD
Companions, let's see. With the benefit of some time away from the game I Really liked Pathfinders companions. If Pathfinder didn't have that compulsory strategy thingy it might have been far more popular. God I hate it. I do prefer BG3's and Mass Effects companions over Dragon Age's though.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
May 17, 2024 20:53:21 GMT
31,363
colfoley
16,643
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Jan 31, 2024 11:24:32 GMT
Six months later and we're still arguing over BG3 xD Companions, let's see. With the benefit of some time away from the game I Really liked Pathfinders companions. If Pathfinder didn't have that compulsory strategy thingy it might have been far more popular. God I hate it. I do prefer BG3's and Mass Effects companions over Dragon Age's though. I mean its been nearly a decade and we still talk and argue over the Witcher. People have their opinions, perspectives, insights, and preferences and talking about them does help all of us come to greater knowledge and understanding.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
7,212
river82
4,949
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Jan 31, 2024 13:05:25 GMT
Six months later and we're still arguing over BG3 xD Companions, let's see. With the benefit of some time away from the game I Really liked Pathfinders companions. If Pathfinder didn't have that compulsory strategy thingy it might have been far more popular. God I hate it. I do prefer BG3's and Mass Effects companions over Dragon Age's though. I mean its been nearly a decade and we still talk and argue over the Witcher. People have their opinions, perspectives, insights, and preferences and talking about them does help all of us come to greater knowledge and understanding. They definitely do. Just a bit weird coming back to this thread 2 and a half months later to see people having the exact same argument Indicates people not willing to come to an understanding and just people talking past one another but don't let me be a party pooper!
|
|
TabithaTH
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 504 Likes: 901
inherit
10360
0
May 17, 2024 22:07:29 GMT
901
TabithaTH
504
Jul 22, 2018 12:32:26 GMT
July 2018
teatabitha
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by TabithaTH on Jan 31, 2024 15:31:49 GMT
Tbh, it’s not like there’s much of anything else to discuss, and if there is, it’s negative stuff like layoffs. Besides, people are just passionate about a game that’s currently filling a void. If people didn’t care about DA, they properly wouldn’t care enough to bother comparing it to BG3.
And I agree about the autonomy of the companions. I really love that I feel more like an inspiration and less like a dictator telling them what to do. With both Lae’zel and Shadowheart I got to stand back and let them decide for themselves and it felt really great. I didn’t like how you couldn’t do the same for Wyll, especially since (without meta knowledge) it feels like a doomed either way situation. I keep stalling Astarion’s quest because I fear my character may have to step in for once, even if the ‘bad’ choice might be the ‘best’ for him.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually feel like DA2 comes the closest in regards to companions. Regardless of choices Anders always does his thing. Likewise Isaabella does too, but If she likes/respects you enough she returns on her own accord. If romanced, Fenris runs away, but when he comes back he has worked through some of his trauma, without you needing to be the one to ‘fix’ him.
|
|
inherit
1439
0
May 16, 2024 15:46:00 GMT
12,460
witchcocktor
4,037
Sept 6, 2016 10:00:37 GMT
September 2016
witchcocktor
Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by witchcocktor on Jan 31, 2024 17:04:42 GMT
Something that I think both BG3 and DAI kind of have an issue with though is that they both have characters that you are kind of FORCED to feel a certain way about, those being Sera and Karlach. Inquisitor's dialogue choices with Sera are always pretty belittling and it feels like we are lead to think that Sera is such a crazy, unconventional person with crazy ideas whose sentences don't make sense, but I don't feel that way at all. But the dialogue tree doesn't really give me much choice about that. In BG3 though, you are basically best friends the minute Karlach hits the camp and you aren't really given much choice about it in dialogue or elsewhere. No Withers, I really don't care that Karlach died. I really, really don't. But alas, I am forced to have these big feelings about her death. I DON'T.
This is something both games could be a little more aware of.
|
|