FANDOM


This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Game Discussion > No more binary choices
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2125 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

In DA2 most of choices were binary - mages or templars, how annoying and lame. One of few exceptions is an argument between Dalish and templars in act 2 about Feynriel, there Hawke with a diplomatic personality could persuade them to leave each other alone. I'm sick of such binary choices in DA2, when in DAO were more options - Nature of Beast, Arl of Redcliffe and Landsmeet had many possible outcomes.

In article about DAI [[1]] is said that player will have to choose between mages and templars and that's exacly what I don't want in the upcoming game. I don't want triumph of any side, I want more possible options like leaving them to destroy each other like in Witcher or enforce peace between them like in Mass Effect 3 or be a triple agent, who cripples both sides and works for herself/himself. I require peace between them the most, even if it's extremaly hard to achieve. More difficult chalanges give everyone more satisfaction after succeeding. More options of side quests are also required by me.

Quality is a degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills requirements or simply a conformance to requirements. I require more options and peace is one of them. Duty of every company is to make products of highest quality by fulfilling requirements of customers. If BW can't do it, then their game will be a product of a low quality.

Who else requires more options than 2 obvious ones?78.8.137.252 (talk) 21:16, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I also want to have more options. The world isn't binary either.156.17.71.249 (talk) 12:44, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Right, No more binary choices!62.87.243.149 (talk) 06:08, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think giving "either-or" choices is a bad thing in itself, honestly. For example, I rather like the Bhelen/Harrowmont choice in Origins mostly because you're forced into a situation whether neither outcome is optimal, so you have to think a bit on what the lesser of two evils is, and you could make the final outcome of either choice subtly better or worse depending on your actions throughout the questline; there's no magical third option you can pull out your ass to solve everyone's problems or some illogical "kill everyone to be a dick" option that, at best, I'd only do once for a laugh then load up my previous save. What I didn't like about DA2 was that it wasn't a binary choice because there was no choice. Side with the Magi the whole way through? Side with the Magi, then join the Templars? Side with the Templars from the beginning? Doesn't matter, it all goes down more or less exactly the same way, the only difference is the characters say different things and Varic's ending narration is slightly different. The net relevance of that choice to anything? Absolutely nothing. That's the real problem with DA2's story; it puts you on a straight line while constantly telling you it's a branching path. --UrLeingod (talk) 17:36, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

Bhelen/Harrowmont problem was OK and I needed to think a lot about it and that's not the problem I mention. The problem I mention is mage/Templar mess and I also wanted to leave Orsino, Anders and Meredith to tear each other apart and travel by Izzy's new ship. I wasn't talking about Bhelen and Harrowmont problem or Amarantine and Vigil's Keep, but about mages and Templars in DA2, just about them. Well, not just about them, in Legacy no matter if you choose to aid Janeka or Larius, you have to defeat Corypheus and he possesses the warden you had supported. Also in MotA abandoning or accompanying Tallis ends the same, you have to aid her in killing Duke Prosper. Those 3 cases bother me by fact I'm technically stripped of choice. Binary choices that bother me are mages/Templar mess in DA2. To be worse, no developer mentions any other options than mages or Templars in DAI, that binary choice makes me sick like hell.78.8.99.18 (talk) 17:58, July 9, 2013 (UTC)
You do realize that BioWare has limited time and resources, because of which, they can't always come up with 4 different ways of doing a quest and having each way a marginally different outcome than the other? The choices in games almost never have large and different consequences. This illusion of choice&consequence becomes that much harder to pull off when there are more choices you can make. So what I'm trying to say is that I'd rather have a binary choice situation with well implemented consequences than a dilemma with 5 choices options, out of which only one matters. Ofcourse, in DA2 there are most of the time two choice options, out of which not one matters.
Also, the title of this thread is "No more binary choices" yet, you say that you only care about the mage/Templar mess. So...what is the true topic of this thread then?--Agent047 (talk) 19:37, July 9, 2013 (UTC)
Topic is as it's called, I just thought about endings of DA2, Legacy and MotA when I wrote this, because they are the most spectacular and annoying binary choices, I didn't think about Bhelen and Harrowmont then. Past can't be fixed, but there is still an opportunity to make future with no need to fix, if try hard. The problem of DA2 caused the obvious problem in DAI and I wish there are more options in the game, everyone can have high requirements. Duty of every company is to make products that fulfill requirements of their customers, if they can't then the products have low quality.78.8.99.18 (talk) 19:52, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

I don't want binary choices, but I also don't want cop-out choices as well. DAWUSS (talk) 15:32, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

What's "cop-out"? I can't find it in any dictionary.78.8.10.189 (talk) 15:49, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
Something is a cop-out when there is no effort put behind it, and the one doing the cop-out is avoiding their responsibilities. In writing, it often means that author has written themselves into a corner, and they can't resolve the conflict with any solutions that would make sense or are consistent with the setting. So they pull something out of their ass, basically.--Agent047 (talk) 19:09, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no such thing as the third option. In the end it always comes down to "Either/Or". Either you support Option X...or you don't. Either you go Route Y...or you don't. What you're calling multiple choice eventually comes down to "Either/Or". Let's take Redcliffe for example, Connor specifically. The choices are - kill Connor. Kill his mother. Use the Circle's lyrium to send a mage in. The latter two are just different ways to get into the Fade. In other words, either you kill Connor or you send a mage through.

The "third option" exists because its an "Or" in an Either/Or situation, but in truth it has little bearing because it doesn't technically exist. You can either reply to this post or not. There is no middle ground. Either you get out of bed at 8am...or you don't. Again, there is no middle ground, there is no third option. The third option is just another variation of "Either/Or", either you pick these options, or you pick this one. But it still comes down to that binary choice, just like everything else in our lives and world.

The smart companies know to make games that are engaging enough that you never realise that all along they are subtly asking you to pick between "Either/Or". Either you help those elves that were robbed near Lothering...or you don't. Either you make the bargain with Morrigan or a Grey Warden dies. Either you kill Flemeth or you down. Why? Because it keeps coming down to a binary choice. Either something happened or it didn't.--Madasamadthing (talk) 04:08, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Your requirements are small, that's why it doesn't bother you.78.8.10.88 (talk) 05:08, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
What you're calling multiple choice eventually comes down to "Either/Or"
So what? This line of argument reminds me of extreme nihilism/antinatalism claiming all existence is meaningless or of the publicity-starved neuroscientists/journalists arguing that free will doesn't exist because our decision-making has subconscious element to it. In all three cases, there is an "all-or-nothing" approach and complete inability to perceive the importance or even the existence of variations. The species of trout don't all become the same fish because you think there is no difference between them. Stilton and Edam don't converge into a single milk-derived product because you cannot tell them apart. Similarly, to claim that all choice is binary and therefore the same is, IMHO, either a sign of severe disappointment in the subject matter or plain ignorance about the medium (given your previous forum history, the former is more likely).
Regarding, the subject at hand, I just want the choices to logically fit within the narrative and have believable consequences. If it then leads to a strict binary choice then I'm fine with that, although I still believe that unbelievable choice is better than the unbelievable omission of one (i.e. I have eventually grown to like ME3 EC once I interpreted it as my Shepard getting to live indefinitely, but had much harder time accepting Fallout 3's ending, even with Broken Steel.)4Ferelden (talk) 09:52, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for proving my point. You were either going to reply to this, or you weren't. This isn't about my frame of references being to small, but rather how it applies to everything. Everything you do in life can be broken down to a binary choice. You choose to go out or you don't. You choose to go into a coffee shop or you don't. And it goes on. Hell, even writing this message comes down to binary, its the very concept of how computers work. Binary choices are here to stay.--Madasamadthing (talk) 13:59, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
RPG games are not about drinking coffee. We talk there about outcomes of wars, not such trivial things like coffee.78.8.159.9 (talk) 16:25, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
You choose to support one side over the other. Its about the choices you make. It doesn't matter if its going out with friends or waging a war between mages and templars. It all comes down to the choices, either/or, yes/no. That's all it is. A binary choice.--Madasamadthing (talk) 17:54, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that at this point you're just hijacking the forum for something that seems deep and meaningful to you but in reality is hardly worth restating more than once. Yes, everything can be broken down to a binary choice, just like every single thought can be broken down to neurons, and all natural events can be broken down to the interactions between the four primary forces. The question remains the same, however; so what? How are we meant to interpret it in the original context of this forum?
You might now realise that once something is universal and applies to everything, it ceases to have any special meaning, as it can be used o support anything with equal validity. Here's a quick counterargument using the Redcliffe example from earlier on. The original poster (and probably most players) saw it as a three-way choice with three outcomes. You chose to see it as a binary choice where you either kill Connor or send a mage through. However, in keeping with your Either/OR logic, a small shift in perspective nets you a lot more binary choices. You either use Jowan's ritual ... or you don't. You either send for the mages in the circle ... or you don't. You either let Jowan redeem himself ... or you don't. You either send yourself into the Fade ... or you don't. A simple change in perspective lets you see an equally valid binary choice; it all depends on what you consider to be most important. Similarly, you saw the end-game choice as one between Morrigan's offer or a death of a Grey Warden, because that is what was most important to you. Other would see it as a choice where a player character dies ... or they don't, or as a choice where Alistair sacrifices himself .. or he doesn't. OR where Loghain dies heroic death .. or he doesn't. All of those binary choices are equally valid from the programming perspective; you can't say one is less binary than the other. So, ultimately, you were right when you said that there is no middle ground following this perspective (an easier alternative is not to bother with this worldview at all, since there is no real point); instead, there are additional binary choices, whereas something like the end of the original Fallout 3 is always one binary choice, regardless of the perspective you take. This is what ultimately makes a difference; their number AND how well they fit into the pre-established story. 4Ferelden (talk) 04:52, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
And that's exacly what bothers me. I have no desire to support any of the sides. I want to be neutral and if Bioware doesn't give me that option, they don't fulfill my requirement and anger me resulting in me finding this game as game of low quality. Quality is a level of fulfilling requirements of customer.78.8.159.9 (talk) 18:33, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
Neutral? If you want to be neutral, then don't play the game. The plot of DA:II is about the brewing war between the Templars and Mages, there's no neutral option because if you don't get involved in the conflict there's no story period. That's like saying you hate Origins because it didn't let you just say "Screw fighting the Blight, I'm running away to Rivain." If you aren't invested or interested in the plot, play a different game; the computer can't build you a new story because you don't like the one it's telling.

--UrLeingod (talk) 22:48, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

What you say is nothing but crap. Your advice is a crap, so don't try to advice again. I require netral path and if BW can't fulfill this requirement, then the company is stupid to make game of such low quality, because quality is a level of fulfilling customers' requirements. Your requirements are small, that's why you don't bother about binary choices. Because of binary thinking like yours this idiotic war started, who's not with you is against you, that's your way of thinking, a close-minded thinking. Screw that! I never disliked DAO because I wanted to end the blight, you can't escape from that leaving no defence behind, I hate DA2 because there was no 3rd way of ending, it was in early concepts but BW resigned from that because they were stupid enough to be under command of EA, who gave them a strict deadline.78.8.128.220 (talk) 17:18, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Cry me a river... you sound like a little baby. Ever read a build your own story book? that game was like those, choose a side and stick with it... IRL it' like that, are you for or against something? are you gonna talk your way out of a ticket or bribe an officer or not? Are you for the war in Iraq or against... life is simple you just haven't lived enough to know better--Dave The Maniac (talk) 19:26, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
Life doesn't always give you a 'neutral' option, It isnt as if 'The Warden' can show up and say "ok guys seriously, that's enough. Mages go back to the tower and you templars return to the chantry... no more funny business or else you'll all be going to bed without dessert!" The lore is sending us to war, your character is charged with ending it, mages wont simply forgive templars and vice versa. You keep saying a great deal about the requirements of a company, but its is a company that builds video games. It's in their interest to do what customers want, however it's not any requirement. Gaming is an art, and you can't simply demand the artist pander to YOUR needs just because you want to kill everyone you feel is evil. It is simply unreasonable to ask they come up with every possible outcome to every situation. As UrLeingod stated, if you're not invested enough to pick a side by now, then don't play. Warden Mage: Ferris (talk) 08:38, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
You don't get anything. I want special choices that require certain conditions and a lot of efforts. In DAO an example of such special choice is end of the Landsmeet - choose Alistair or Anora or use your persuade skill to make them marry and rule together, it requires execution of Loghain by your hand not Alistair or recruitment of Loghain and hardened Alistair. There is also a minor quest in DAA, which isn't a binary choice, Nathaniel Howe, you can command to execute him or release him or recruit him, that's no binary choice and it has no special requirements. In DA2 are templars vs Dalish in act 2, there is a 3rd option, which requires diplomatic personality, which ends in peace. Life gives you more than 2 options, when you choose between 2 different products, you can also choose to leave with nothing, when a thug threats you, you have a choice of obeying or disobeying him, but you cn also be smart enough to outsmart him. You simply don't believe in peace, that's why you say this, you rather support mages and you want no compromise, I'm not brainwashed by Anders' propaganda or Flemeth's self-important prophecy, I do as I please. No compromise with you or others, who want no compromise option. Players of Mass Effect were disgusted by endings and they made the company to fix it, so the customers make requirements for the products, so players can make artists pender their needs as you call it. Whole marketing is based on requirements of customers, most of customers still like sex and bloody violance, so in films are shown nude scenes or brutal executions to fulfill lusts of their primitive instintcts. You like UrLeingod have too small requirements and no guts to require more and if you can't make smarter advices, then don't bother to speak. No more compromise with you and other followers of outdated binary choices. Higher requirements make new directions, without them all is stagnat and doesn't evolve.78.8.139.185 (talk) 09:17, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
It's getting increasingly more hilarious watching you flip back and fourth on your own points.... and surprise surprise, 'propaganda' is being thrown in again, I guess we all get to take another drink. How many game have you worked on? hm? And how many of those games you worked on were on the frostbite engine? You seem to know a great deal about the inner workings of game design to blatantly demand someone cater to your every whim of being able to kill all the 'bad men' that you don't fully comprehend. What if Flemeth is the harbinger of a new era of peace, and yet by your own narrow minded god-complex you seek to kill her before knowing all the information? By the very definition of the word you're now spouting propaganda.I may not completely agree with Anders on most things, but there is one I do agree on. "I've removed the chance for compromise, because there can be no compromise." A war has started, and like with any war there has to be a winner and a loser. You're not going to get the option to tell the Mages to go back to the Tower because they wouldn't reasonably listen to that nonsense. I agree life has many options, but a lot of the options all lead you to the same location. In your example, lets say you're being held at gunpoint and being robbed. You can either hand over what you have, or attempt you disarm the man. In your scenario you'd try to outwit him. Fine. you try to outwit him, he gets angry that you didnt listen to his original demand and shoots you anyway. An in-game scenario of this would be when storming Jarvia's hideout and they ask for the password, all options initiate combat. The reason here is because even if YOU can see another option you cannot speak but the second party. just because you think you can talk your way out of the situation doesn't mean they'll be willing to listen and THAT is where some of the 'binary' choices come from. I'm not suggesting the whole game be binary, Im not against your original point however you're flopped back and fourth on it so much you hardly have any more ground to stand on. I rather liked the (Mage) options i was given that slightly changed the outcome, and as they've already stated they'd be utilizing specialization outside of combat, that meets the requirements I wanted. The point you make now however about wanting a neutral option for the war, whats the point of playing the game then? the whole game is to find a conclusion to the war and your conclusion is everyone take a break until everything escalates again in a few years? You tell me, how should your neutral ending be brought about? how does this war end peacefully? Im not being sarcastic here I genuinely want to know now, how you forsee and ending where everyone is holding hands and having unicorn shaped cookies with tea together. While you're at it, since you apparently know so much more then us about war, and conflict resolution go ahead and tell me how you'd end the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as well. I mean, since you can come up with neutral options on the fly that would satisfy everyone, take a crack at that as well. Warden Mage: Ferris (talk) 16:38, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that IRL your options are by the millions, you can do anything, but there a hundreds of problems with that. 1.- Games with hundreds of outcomes and consequences are very short, this point is a tough one 'cus you have to have a right balance. 2.- The option to run away is a p*ssy move, come one confront your actions, DAII is about starting a revolution... in either ending you name carries a weight about the start of the war so yeah move to the side and be a pawn in life, confront nothing, be a kid and never stand for something. 3.- The kill everything option... sad... simply sad... why even do that... what is fun about this??? ooh yeah be a douche somewhere 'cus you cannot be one in your life. BTW this option is the psychopath option!!--Dave The Maniac (talk) 16:13, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea more choices over you are either with me or against me, but you got to understand that more choices means less content. I don't like the idea of giving Skyrim as example but take its 2 major dlc DawnGaurd and Dragonborn. Dawnguard force you to choose between 2 factions Vampires or Vampire Hunters "Choice"{still annoying ending} as with Dragonborn hardly any choice but felt as if there was more content. Not saying Da2 had much to go for it, I Mean they only had a year or 2 of development I think. I am hoping Da3 {or whatever you want call it now...} proves me wrong but doubt it, most games have to sacrifice 1 thing for another half the time very few actually can keep everything. Lets just hope all this wait means something great will come out of it and the developers listen to fans of D@ge. And also if didn't like Da2 because it choices was vague at the end or too few, think of it this way. If they had 5 different choices other then mage/templer it would've been harder to make Da3. Da2 was more like a stepping stones if anything. The only way I can like Da2 is by thinking it was a failure{Maybe too strong of a Word} on purpose so they can make a even better Da3, Da2 was nothing more then a test... Not sure how to put it but that's the best I can come up with.VampireBlood03 (talk) 23:53, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

The results are shown as a short cutscene or a different dialogue or a text in epilogue. Text doesn't take much data and better to have few good content than many medicore like side quests find owner of found item. BW developers rarerly listen to their customers, they keep dialogue wheel and most of players doesn't want it. Developers have to listen to their customers to know their requirements and how to fulfill them, otherwise customers won't be interested in buying their products and they won't survive without income. EA was proclaimed as the worst company twice, even they should learn from their mistakes and I see otherwise. Lack of time for development result in few content more than more options. If DA2 had more than 2 illusionary choices leading to same outcome, story of DA3 would be different, imagination is unlimited.62.87.129.246 (talk) 09:46, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
And Money is limited Like I said hoping for the best excepting the worst.VampireBlood03 (talk) 12:54, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
And excesive development times turns you into either Duke Nukem Forever or Half-Life 2 Episode 3... it's a very fine balance between time, money and quality, most managers don't give a rats ass about quality just as long as the other two are ok (I'm talking as a software developer).--Dave The Maniac (talk) 15:53, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

NO MORE BINARY CHOICES

NO MORE BINARY CHOICES!!!FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 08:32, December 23, 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, Two-Face is a very poor example for a binary choice debate. Chance is not choice. Winning the lottery or not is not a choice, but buying a lottery ticket is. Two-Face is about chance, not choice.
Anyway, I get that the OP wants the outcome of the war to be more than just mages win or templars win. And I suppose it's possible that there could be other outcomes. For example, they could somehow reach a truce, or completely massacre each other. Those would be very uninteresting outcomes, though. A truce would just keep things the way they are now (more or less). A complete massacre would result in a barren world, which is even less interesting. Mages win or Templars win might not be the only choices that could possibly result from the war, but they are the best outcomes in terms of story progression. In real life, diplomatic solutions or complete massacres are actually more likely, as no one really wins in war. But Dragon Age is not real life, it is fiction, and in fiction, sometimes things happened that are don't in real life. You know, like people literally walking around in their dreams.
Narrowing the choices down to two good choices rather that two good and two bad choices allows the developers to create more content. Otherwise, resources would be wasted just so that the players could have two lame endings. Granted, they could use a deus ex to give players those endings anyway, but then the endings would seem cheap and even lamer then they already are. The "Reapers Win" ending in ME wasn't really that great was it? And the Synthesis choice was the most horrendous piece of narrative garbage I've ever encountered. But the other two endings weren't that bad. Not nearly detailed enough, but at least they made sense, story-wise.
Sure the Inquisitor could manipulate both forces to destroyer each other, or pull a mega-super-ultra death spell out of his ass at the end and murder everyone, but why? For a joke ending? And achieving a truce would just result in everything staying the same. I'd rather see either the templars take control and make things even worse for mages or the mages gain Independence and the templar order collapse. In those scenarios, something has changed, the story had meaning. The other options lead to a meaningless war or a completely devastating one. Boring or depressing. Not worth all the extra resources the developers would have to spend on making them. --Silver Warden (talk) 21:38, December 23, 2013 (UTC)
2 face was supposed to be a symbol of binarity. In DA2 developers didn't use much consequences of major choices from DAO and DAA, merely side quests. They changed location and situation from Ferelden with Darkspawn to Kirkwall with qunari. Achieving peace in ME3 between quarians and geth, changed a lot. Situation in 3rd installment of DA will happen regardless of what happens in the 3rd installment. DAI is like ME3 but with demons instead of Reapers.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 21:56, December 23, 2013 (UTC)
I believe the plot of Inquisition will focus on the mage-templar war and not demons per se. An increase in the amount of demons crossing the Veil will likely happen, but I think that's a side effect of the war, not the driving factor of the game's plot.
I think the OP was addressing possible endings, not the various side quests and their outcomes. Geth v Quarians is actually a huge side quest. It's also not a fair comparison because they were at war to begin with, whereas in Dragon Age the mages and templars are not.
And comparing demons to Reapers is just...no. They're complete opposites. If anything compare Qunari to Reapers. That's still a pretty poor comparison, but at least it makes some semblance of sense. --Silver Warden (talk) 03:46, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
No, your comprasion is wrong. Demons are alien forces, who destroy all what can move in Thedas and possess all what they see. Demons like Reapers offer mages greater power for possession like Reapers did to Geth. Your last line makes no sense at all.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 08:14, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about their motivation and not their nature. Demons are beings of chaos. Reapers are all about order, as are the Qunari. The Qunari are also an alien force that invades Thedas (to an extent). Demons arrive from the from the Fade one by one or in small groups. Each demon has its own reason for wanting to possess a mortal (or corpse or whatever). The Qunari view their society as one organism and individual Qunari are merely parts of a greater whole. The Reapers literally have a single overmind (for lack of a better term) that allows them to operate both independently and collectively at the same time. The Reapers have a shared purpose and goal, as do the Qunari. Each demon has a different purpose. The sole legitimate comparison between Reapers and demons is that they can both possess people (though in very different ways). Regardless, this whole discussion has gone off topic. I'm done with it. --Silver Warden (talk) 20:09, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
Reapers are hypocrytes with flawed logic, they aren't worth of listening.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 20:16, December 24, 2013 (UTC)

MatrixBluePillRedPill That's better for a symbol of binary chocies. NO MORE BINARY CHOICES!!!!FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 11:32, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with you Drell. I was not of fan of DA2's lack of options especially since either choice produced almost identical results as to how the game ends. It was pretty much just the illusion of choice and not even a very good illusion. But DAI looks like it's going to have a much broader scope than DA2 and though the Mage Templar conflict will be part of the game I think it will be a smaller part sort of like the Werewolves and the Dalish conflict was only a small part of the larger quest in DAO. Though I do hope that they put more choices into the Mage Templar conflict and any others that appear in DAI as well. ArchonSeverusGaiusDraconia (talk) 05:10, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I also do hope so. World isn't black and white, it isn't binary, choices also shouldn't be.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 12:05, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Well based on all the interviews I've seen of Gaider and such and of what I've of the game so far it looks like they learned all the right lessons from DA2. Plus the fact that they've pushed the release date back once or twice tells me that they really want to take their time with this one and make it good because they understand that this game is kinda make or break for the franchise. So I'm pretty hopeful that DAI will be a vast improvement over DA2. Plus I'm really excited for the mounts! :) ArchonSeverusGaiusDraconia (talk) 23:48, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I hate the conversation wheel from Mass Effect. It oversimplifies things and ruins any chance I have of making my own character with his own personality.

Really? I can be good, bad, or funny? And everything else is pre-set? Wow, DA2. Thanks. This Hawke character is so interesting.

I loved that, in DAO, I could make my character outwardly racist, but deep down not have the heart to hate someone because of their race. My DAO characters actually had depth. I honestly remember nothing about the Hawkes that I made. I remember killing Anders, and that's about it. I can't describe him at all. My Wardens all felt completely different.

It's mostly because of the damned conversation wheel, but the different origins stories did a GREAT job of helping me establish a character. AldorianCaptain (talk) 07:10, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

While I agree to the point, not all decisions should be binary, I personally feel some of them should be. Allow me to explain. A good example is Dragon age Awakening, near the end you're asked to either save whats left of Amaranthine, or return to defend your keep. THAT itself is a binary choice. Save the city, or save the keep. NOW there were decisions you could make prior the limit the damage done, those were minor decisions throughout the game. Upgrade the walls provided you had the materials, send out soldiers to protect the workers, kill smugglers, etc etc etc. So when the time comes to make the big decision, you can say "I built a great keep it should be ok, lets save the city" and in the epilogue no matter which you pick, there's damage done. But because of previous minor decisions it'll say the damage could have been worse. the keep held, but only just. since you took out the smugglers, food and rations were distributed. The idea of a binary choice is to give gravity to the situation. And I feel that type of pressure should be a factor in the decision. People's lives are at stake, and theres no middle option.. which is the lesser of 2 evils? a decision without consequence is hardly a decision at all, but if done correctly the set-up to that decision could be vastly different from someone else's simply because they didn't buy the new armor set and had the money to spend on maintaining the walls. Warden Mage: Ferris (talk) 16:33, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point. And it looks like the devs have incorporated situations like this into Inquisition based on the demo that they showed at E3. So again, I'm hopeful that they learned the right lessons from DA2's failings. ArchonSeverusGaiusDraconia (talk) 01:08, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.