I don't think that was the point of this thread though, we were talking about objective right and wrong.

 

I said GRRM Is wrong, is a degenerate, is messed up, if I ever came across him personally I'd probably have to resist the urge to barf.

 

BUT obviously people can read and commiserate with his stories, those things don't need to coincide with each other. Besides in between every massacre there's usually a moment where GOT demonstrate that they are capable of basic things like giving water to a prisoner before mutilating their genitals or whatever.

 

Just don't expect everyone to go swooning over that or chalk it up to "different tastes" when they don't.

Yes because GRRM MUST be sick in the head because of what he writes. Great strawman.

Even if that were true, why would people gravitate towards such stories? They don't evince strength of heroism only weakness.

What does your question have to do with liking more darker and tragic work? If it was not for people liking dark or tragic work many plays, stories, fairy tales ect would not exist and thus lots of inspiration would be gone, which is a fact.

Show me a person who likes getting hit by buses.

Hard boiled Masochist and people who like attempting suicide.

I disagree: I see it more as George R. R. Martin not wanting to cheat to let the protagonists win and likewise he does not want to cheat to have the antagonists win. This means both feel the consequences of their character flaws and actions.

 

Take the Red Wedding and how in large part it came about;

 

Robb Stark was willing to dirty his own hands. His death was the fatal result of his flaw of honor: he felt honor bound to marry a woman whose virginity he'd taken when she consoled him about the death of his brothers. This lead to Walter Frey feeling spat on as Robb Stark had promised to marry a woman of Frey's house. As revenge, Walter Frey arranged the Red Wedding leading to the death of Robb Stark.

 

This pettiness was in turn the flaw of Walter Frey. As a consequence of what he'd done in betraying Robb Stark and breaking the rule of sacred hospility, people began targeting members of his house which had it's reputation utterly ruined. The exact opposite of what Walter Frey wanted had happened as now no one respects the Frey house and now even more people than before spits on it and considers it beneath them.
 

Robb did not get his hands dirty as he didn't marry the person he was meant to then had the gal to turn up to the Frey castle with no plan at all. Had Robb simply made his sacrifice and put away his honor for one second, the red wedding would have never happened and thus the Freys family would not have had their rep destroyed. Robb allowed the Lanisters a opening and they took it.

There's nothing to really enjoy in those stories, GOT is just one big kill fetish against all the people who "wronged" him for being ugly or something throughout his life, anyway whatever I just think he's the biggest degenerate there is.

 

I guess if people are going to consume it thought what are you going to do there it is.

Just because you see nothing of value does not mean others do not.

Fine, then lets go with orange and blue mortality,  that's way more interesting.

I don't need GRRM to tell me there's crappy people, Nazis Stalin the Khmer Rouge whatever there's evil people everywhere, I just don't get why we tell stories about them. They're trash who cares about their stories.

Because people have different taste then you and like to enjoy different type of stories.

Anyway I'm just over gray, 50 Shades of Gray sucked, all these gray anti-heroic characters suck, it's old hat, bring on the empowered moralities and characters that don't wallow in pity or confusion or project that onto the world.

What does a shitty book like 50 shades of grey have to do with grey morality?

And he has to be a despicable person to earnestly just represent that without comment or fighting back, it amounts to enforcement and support of the concept.

 

Like if I just make a character and just have them kill everything in a video game for no reason, that's effectively acknowledging it as valid, or comprehensible or something.

 

Not everyone is like his characters.

Yes, he's despicable because he preferred to write a story with realistic characters that shows just how dark humanity can be. There have been morally good characters in ASOIAF, they die very quickly because they are not willing to get their hands dirty by people who are willing. That's real life.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why the bsn is mocked. People have been asking for years for Bioware to remove this crappy system, they are and now people are coming out oft he wood work to defend it. This is the Mako all over again.

Anyway as to the topic I'd rather it be a more "explicit" morality, clear indications of good and evil, gray is the norm and has been the norm. Bioware innovated by ditching the concept of "normal gray" this would just be retrograde.

Bioware didn't do ****. They gave a clear black and white with white being heavy favored. DAO did grey better then ME games ever did, even bloody TOR did a better job with grey and that's fricken star wars. If you liked that then cool, but that's not innovation, that's restricting rp.

OP's clearly never played other crpgs. FO1/2, NV, wasteland 2, DAO ect all have choices where you can be a complete dick or be evil vwithout the paragon and renegade crap. Using DAI as the definition of grey is silly.

It's better, that's for sure.

 

The Missing Miners quest was a big bucket of blah as well, though. 

Skelligs Most Wanted makes up for that too.

ME is not supposed to be side quest heavy anyway, but DA could definitely use some good side quests. The maps of DA:I who are not relevant in main story are hollow and full of fetch and mindless kill quests. There are very good side quests, but there are few.

Not being side quest heavy does not excuse crappy side quests, more so when the focus on this game seems to be exploring a new galaxy.

 

We can doubt if this topic were against female characters would be still opened.

 

Maybe the Bioware mods are doing some brainwash or just for fun.

 

Welcome to double standard, where if you say you don't want to play a game because it has a female lead you are bashed, trolled and called a sexist, but it's fine if its a male lead.

Can we at least agree  Bioware should look at TW3s side quests instead of their own since the side quests in DA and ME series leave alot to be desired.

Your lover chops off your hand isn't romance great?

mmmmmmmmm gwent

Not really. Or rather, of course you're asking for a choice to be favoured: you're asking for your moral view (letting innocents die to stop terrorists) to be favoured. ME has stupid consequences, so let's ignore how that played out in the game. But to play it more carefully, they could as easily had dead Balak replaced by an even more awful and effective Batarian terrorist. That's the problem with these moral choices: there's no way to end without favouring one moral view or another.

The fact that no one gives a **** a terrorist was allowed to walk free is the problem. If you're going to guilt trip me because I sacrificed three people to save the majority, then guilt trip people who dammed the majority to save three people. It is favoring because the very action of letting him walk is largely ignored like nothing is wrong.

I think you should get guilt tripped in that scenario. But also guilt tripped if you let him go to save everyone, at the cost of the lives he takes while he's gone.

 

Like The Witcher franchise. No win situations. I don't want the game to be filled to the brim with no win situations, but a few would be nice. Even small ones.

A good example in TW would in fact be the outcome for B&W, you have many outcomes that range from happy if not bittersweet to outright tragic, and they are all well done with their own merits, no real favoring outside preferences. It makes replaying worth it. This was a problem Bioware ran into big time with ME as it went on longer and why I just can't replay the series anymore.

Well I don't know what I mean exactly, I'm just sick of the "everything is not what it seems, learn to become one with your inner:" blah blah.

 

I think maybe I just mean less talk more action, less meditation more certainty, not necessarily "crazy stark morality."

I just want choices to not be so favored, it got to the point in ME where doing renegade was simply for the novelty of being a dick since you either

1:got less content

2:Got screwed over

3;Get guilt trip

There was never any real pay off 99% of the time. When I'm being guilt trip that I sacrificed three people to kill a terrorist who would have killed more, there's a problem in your design. Reflecting and being sad is one thing (that's good), guilt tripping is another.

The only thing they mentioned was they are shifting to "grayer morality" which if anything is more like DA2 again.

 

I would or preferred them to go the other way at any rate, more black and white morality, I'm sick of grey.

Why is grey a bad thing, ME was waaaay tooo black and white to the point that C&C became a joke.

So the retcon then. That doesn't make it better. Cerberus was never consistent. A Witcher equivalent would be if The Wild Hunt suddenly became time travelers and could tried to kill Geralt in his infancy in TW3. Or if The White Frost suddenly was poisonous. Its just, "wat".

TBF, the white frost and Ciri's powers DID get retcon, it's one reason the last act is the mess it is

You don't like being so awesome you can make both antagonists shoot themselves rather than oppose you?

I liked Saren shooting himself, less so with TIM as it just feelsl like a copy repaste of a character arc.

Why not? The game points to how they'd mobilize if they needed to.

If you want to swallow a load of bull then that;'s fine, but I can't. There's no logical way Cerberus getting this power boost makes sense after they got decimated hard in Retribution, even TIM makes it clear they got hit hard.