32 réponses à ce sujet

[RosaAquafire]

Be prepared for tl;dr, but if you're interested in this, I swear it's intereting

All through development of this game, we heard it over and over. DA:O would be defined by how it stripped away the usual trappings of good and evil in video games. Taking inspiration from the ultimate in morally grey fantasy, A Song of Ice and Fire, this game was supposed to be all about complex situations where there's no right answer to moral questions.

Is it just me, or is the game not delivering this at all?

I've finished all four main quests in the middle section of the game, and I've been left very disatisfied by the fact that there's a very obviously right answer to all of these "complex moral decisions."

Redcliffe - The decision between Isolde or Connor would have been exactly what was promised, but the inclusion of a happy third option where nobody suffers takes all the bite out of the dilemna. Even an dark character would never roleplay to off either an arless or a future arl who could instead be eating out of their hand. Plus, it costs you a world of support from Alistair to choose either of these.

Option A: Isolde dies, Option B: Connor dies, Option C: Nobody dies, and there isn't even any penalty for choosing it ... not a complex moral dilemna.

In my opinion, the third option shouldn't have been there. That would have been a moral dilemna. Does the child deserve to be spared, at the cost of his mother's life? Or is he too far gone?


Broken Circle - This one is laughable. Do you want to kill a bunch of innocent mages, or not? If one doesn't kill the mages, you lose nothing and you were right and Cullen was wrong about them. If you don't, you lose their alliance and Wynne won't stay with your party. Plus, you just feel like a douche.

Option A: A bunch of innocent people live and one templar is annoyed. Option B: A bunch of innocent people die, and you lose the support of the most morally concious character in the game ... not a complex moral dilemna.

In my opinion, this choice should have been either

A) You need to kill a lot of innocent, likeable templars to save the mages, or
Irving is actually a Maleficar after all, Cullen was right, and we screwed up by being the good guys. (If this is true, then colour me red and spank my behind, A+ Bioware.)


Brecilian Forest - Once again, this one has a flawless concept. Do you kill the werewolves to save the ailing elves, or do you spare the werewolves at the cost of the eleven lives? But once again, there's that pesky little third option. You break the curse, the werewolves live, the elves live, everyone goes home happy. Well, except Zathrien and Witherfang, but she was happy to die, and he had it coming.

Option A: Elves die, Option B: Werewolves die, Option C: No one dies except the aforementioned, who have a pleasant and semi-heroic end each ... not a complex moral dilemna.

In my opinion, this choice should have come down to the lives of the werewolves, ultimately mostly victims unless you believe that evil truly is passed down, or the sick elves, definitely victims, but a much smaller death toll, lacking in the whole "genocide" thing.


Orzammar - Two choices here, neither that impressed me. Now, the decision between Behlen and Harrowman wasn't as bad as it could have been. My character, who is a naive, trusting little thing who tries to avoid conflict and always wants to do the right thing, had a genuinely hard time choosing who to support -- she ultimately went with Behlen simply because she happened to have talked to his second first and that biased her. Of course, I've heard if you've played the dwarf origins, that choice is exceedingly obvious, too, and it started becoming clear once I declared for Behlen that he was a complete jerk and Harrowman was nearly a saint. I'm not even sure those papers weren't forged ...

I really don't know enough about either of them to make a call on this, but my supposition is that this is as obvious as the others. Behlen is a bad dude, Harrowman is a teddy bear. Obviously, the way to solve this one would be to make neither teddy bears.

RE: The anvil and Branka, this one was SLIGHTLY less unbalanced than the others, but still, it wasn't very hard for me to turn around and put an arrow in Branka. The story established that Caradin was a sinner, but a repenting one wracked with guilt who wished to atone. Branka, on the other hand, was a madwoman, completely unsympathetic, who cheerfully gave her family away to be twisted into darkspawn just so she could get through those traps. The only thing that made this choice even slightly better than the others was the fact that the golems WOULD be very useful in the defense of Orzammar and the surface both. 

Option A: kill the repenting sinner who wants to make right, gain the anvil for the defense of the city, Option B: kill the twisted madwoman, destroy the evil artifact, lose the firepower of the golems. There's at least some consequence to this one -- maybe, I don't know if the dwarves get golems if you side with Branka -- but still, complex moral decisions? It wouldn't take anyone who's taken an Ethics class more than five minutes to decide who's in the right, here.

In my opinion, this one could have been solved by making Branka sympathetic, desperate, harried, rather than borderline detestable. Orzammar isn't as bad as the others -- at least there's no dumb third compromise option, and you do lose something tangible and obvious for making the right choice, but it's still nowhere near a complex moral dilemna.



We've heard over and over that this game will strip the concepts of good and evil from interactive storytelling, but it seems to me it's only stripped the little bar telling you how good or evil you are. A step in the right direction, maybe, but a small one. Maybe it gets better from here on ... maybe it doesn't. I'm curious, but I'm not holding my breath at this point.

Now, I can understand the appeal of wanting there to be a possible compromise, but doesn't it dilude the themes of the game? As a fan of George Martin's writing, myself, I'm personally in love with REAL moral ambiguity, a story where no matter what angle you look at the question, there's no right or wrong way to answer it, like the questions that I've suggested could have been asked rather than the ones that have been.

In the end, this isn't a criticism of the game so much as a question for Bioware with a big, long thesis statement leading up to it. I'd love to hear David Gaider's thoughts on this, especially, as tl;dr as possible, because I consider you a writer with a lot of potential for greatness. The question is, or rather, are ...

1) Was this a concious choice, eliminating the ambiguity from these scenarios?
2) If so, what was the mentality behind it? Making it more palatable to players is my best bet ...
3) As you've said that Dragon Age was intended to BE morally ambiguous, do you consider these "compromises" or weak questions something that you'll be working towards eliminating in the future, if you try this again? A neccessary evil? Or was this what you meant all along by moral ambiguity?

Or you know, just any thoughts at all. As a writer myself, I am legimiately curious and eager to hear a reply

[Mordern]

Well there is some ambiguity in whether or not the 'right' choice is truly the best one. For example, freeing the werewolves of their curse kills off the Elven Cheiften, which left me (maybe it was just me) with the distinct impression that the elves were lacking a solid leader and would thus remain on the fringe of society instead of moving up.



And electing the 'Teddy Bear' Harrowmont to the throne gives you an ending in which he cannot play politics well enough to unite Orzimmar, and the city eventually falls back into chaos and infighting.



The first two I agree with, though. Sort of stupid how there was an 'obvious fix' solution instead of an actual choice.

[RosaAquafire]

You think so? The incumbent keeper seemed like a very intelligent and well-spoken girl, to me. In fact, she seemed like a better leader than Zathrien -- he was willing to let his people DIE just because he couldn't bear to let revenge go after hundreds of years. Say what you will about whether or not he had the right -- that is not good leadership.

[Mordern]

True enough, but the Orzimmar ending is still there.



Not to mention that there are interesting choices within each major questline. The demon's offer in the Fade, for example. Or the Tevantir Mage's offer in the Alienage warehouses.

[Jakia]

At first, I did not know there was a third option in Redcliff. I'd bet most players, upon arriving in Redcliff, would have no idea there is a third option. I never even thought to leave and go to the Circle for help. For me, it seemed like a decision that had to be made then and there. Leaving would have allowed demon-crazed Connor to absolutely destroy Redcliff. Therefore, I chose what I felt was the lesser of the two evils, and allowed the mother to sacrifice herself to save her son.



Did most people know about the third option there? Or was I the only one who missed it entirely?

[Fenris54]

I can't say that I really agree with you. In fact I found myself often stopping to think over my actions.. (Even from the very beginning as I was a mage, and was forced to question betraying a friend or betraying the circle of magi.)

I think the reason it seems to be so NOT morally ambiguous is because you are so certain of your moral beliefs.

I often found myself questioning if perhaps I had made the "right" decision by saving everyone. Sometimes people need to take responsibility for their actions, and it was for this reason I said that Jowan should be executed. I don't think it was "evil," by any means. Guess, I am not the merciful type... even though I did spare Connor and his Mother.

[Mordern]

Jowan told me about the choice because I freed him. I suppose if you didn't, no one would tell you the option existed.

[RosaAquafire]

Yeah, you're right about Orzammar, and I'll concede that it's the best scenario in the game from what I know. I think that's very far. The good person, or the good King?



Jakia: All of my friends knew about it. Some from reading others talking about the game, but I've been very careful to avoid almost all spoilers, and I found it easily. My character, sweet as she is, just asked -- isn't there another way? And then there was.

[RosaAquafire]

Fenris: Haha, sure of my morals? Don't be so sure about that As I said, I love a good morally ambiguous question, as a fan of Ethics in general and morally grey fiction/characters in particular, and I love to really be challenged -- I find myself in that position quite often, and enjoy it very much.



But in this game, I haven't felt challenged once, really, aside from picking a candidate for the throne. There doesn't really seem like a moral debate between the death of innocents and no death of innocents, does there? And if you'd argue that there is, wouldn't you also concede that the alternative scenarios I outlined are far more challenging?



Jowan's fate was fairly ambiguous, too, that I'll concede -- I could see a character very focused on justice having him killed. But I'm focusing mainly on the main quests here, which are the really SHAPING areas of the game.

[Trelow-LMG]

Funny thing about good and evil, they exist even if you want everything to be gray.

[Mordern]

Well the choices you mentioned aren't the only ones which shape the game. For example, my first character was an elf and because I helped out so much with the Alienages and was adamant about elven rights, one of my favorite parts of the ending was mentioning how Elves were moving up in the world and were becoming accepted in the cities.



Not really a tough moral choice there, but something unconnected to the main quest which shaped the world.



There's also the practicality of the choices. Sure, it's 'nicer' to help the mages, but the Templars are much more useful (in my opinion) for the final fights, so it'd be more practical to side with them instead. Sometimes it's an issue of balancing morality against practicality.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I somewhat agree with the op. Somewhat.

If each scenario is taken individually, regardless of the larger context, then yes, you would be right. However what makes them morally complicated is that they are part of a much larger context. Basically, you are confronted with the classical question of "Does the end justifies the means?". For me, some of them were perfectly justified, others were not.

For instance.
About the dwarven King. In my playthrough, I side with Harrowmont, but I have to say I did so a bit blindly. I only did it because most dwarves seemingly like him and that he has experience. I didn't do the Dawrven origin story, but I suspect it sheds Behlen in more negative light. But when I red Behlen's letter to his castless love, after I killed him, I have to say that I was a bit regretful.
The ending epilogue confirmed it. Harrowmont represents stagnation. The Dwarves would cut themselves from the world more with him, which isn't good. I suspect Behlen would be more open, but more authoritarian.
I am going to try to support Behlen next time, just to see. I suspect both have something good and bad about them.

About the anvil. To be honest with you, I didn't find it difficult at all to help Branka and kill Caridin. We know that the Dawrves used the golems to keep the darkspawn at bay. It is only logical that the dwarves seek to rediscover the source of their power. In addition, the dwarven empire would be rebuilt, so it's a long term gain.
Although I do agree, that Branka was detestable as a person. Really hated her. Not because she sacrificed her own house, but because her personality sucks. Regardless, I didn't find it hard to support her, nor did I find it hard to kill Shayle. But, and I think this is where Bioware shines, the epilogue made me see that I underestimated her madness. I am curious now to know what would it say if I help Caridin destroy the anvil. I hope it will have something negative in it, like the darkspawn ravaging the deep roads.

The Templar vs Mage issue is also complicated. Mages want to be free. But we have seen what this freedom POTENTIALLY does. I purged the circle of Magi. For me, it was clear. They had to be destroyed for the greater good. Plus Templars are badass. But I do admit that I still felt pity on the mages. I am goign to try the other option next.

Loghain, one of my favorite characters, represents the moral ambiguity well. Now I would suspect that most killed him. But I was really overjoyed that I could make him join us. Bioware really nailed it on this one. I did have some regret kicking Alistair out, but he proved to be too immature and stupid to be king, so no real moral regret.

The really ambigious thing is Morrigan's plan. I really don't know what to make of it. Especially since my character loved her and she loved him (eh, I kind of loved her myself lol). The finale epilogue nearly made me cry, when it talked about the ring and the bond we have....sheesh Ima going to cry just thinking about it lol.

[Kemor]

KnightofPhoenix is quite right I think: the context matters.



In my first play through as a human noble, I wanted him as a true Grey Warden, which means: the end of the Blight justifies anything and everything.



Following that role:

- I didn't have time figure out whatever was happening in Redcliffe and just killed Jowan, killed Connor and saved the Arl. I needed his army, not his familly.

- In the mage area, the mages were nearly wiped out and led by some old man while the Templars were there and still very powerful. It's not a "personal choice", just a logical one at the time.

- I sided with Behlen for the dwarves because he was obviously more focused on destroying the Blight and didn't care about silly talk talk politics that much. Turns out I was right.

- For the Dalish thing, what do you want with you on the battlefield? Some half-assed hunters with bows and arrows or rage-driven werewolves and an insanely powerful spirit? The Dalish were already a dying breed anyway, unable to change and look ahead.

- When Zevran tried to kill me, I killed him on the spot.

- When Leliana started complaining, I told her to get off my lawn.

- When Morrigan came to me with some insane plan about her mother and whatnot, I told her to get lost as well.

- Loghain understood what was needed while Allistair was still complaining about personal stuff. Choice was easy.



All these choices are logical on a character basis but not very "moral" in a heroic way. Grey Wardens, for that character, are not heroes, they are just here to do what needs to be done but others can't because they are bound by their moral codes and society rules....Grey Wardens are not.





On my second play through however, I'm playing as a bit naive Dwarven noble female who's a bit overwhelmed by all of it and unsecure so I'm gonna play it accordingly.

[Krenmu]

Its not about right and wrong...sure if you simplify it all the way down it is black and white...but what are the motivations..why are the two groups or whoever going at eachother, What will happen if one group wins...These are the choices you have to consider..not "Well either I kill them, or I don't"

[mrmoneda]

There was a third option in Redcliffe? Go figure...

[kaispan]

JOWAN.
I did the mage origin, which basically just gave him a couple more times to pull one on me.  I helped him run away in the beginning, I set him free in Redcliffe and believed him and stood up for him, asked the arl to turn him over to the mages...where he apparently killed a bunch of templars and escaped.  So if I play a mage again Ima be a tattletale or try and kill him myself. Hindsight works well with replayability.


I agree a lot with KnightofPhoenix, who had some good examples... I think the game does a great job showing the consequences of your actions/decisions, and you really end up feeling the weight of that responsibility.  Especially for me was the scene at Landsmeet: between killing Loghain and then choosing Alistair or Alora, I seriously felt sooo much pressure to make the 'right' decision ---agonizing over it, in fact--- usually with RPing good or evil it's pretty clear point and click responses but I had to think.  And it hurt.  

Modifié par kaispan, 09 novembre 2009 - 08:40 .

[Nakhra]

Jakia wrote...

At first, I did not know there was a third option in Redcliff. I'd bet most players, upon arriving in Redcliff, would have no idea there is a third option. I never even thought to leave and go to the Circle for help. For me, it seemed like a decision that had to be made then and there. Leaving would have allowed demon-crazed Connor to absolutely destroy Redcliff. Therefore, I chose what I felt was the lesser of the two evils, and allowed the mother to sacrifice herself to save her son.

Did most people know about the third option there? Or was I the only one who missed it entirely?

You weren't the only one. I knew about the third way of going to the Circle, but in my opinion they made it sound like that wasn't an option. I swear someone said 'it would be too late by then', and after saying 'that leaves me no choice', I apparently had already picked the whole Isolde sacrifice thing. Needless to say, Allistair didn't like it, but I made up for that later on, teehee ^^

[Quesandras]

RosaAquafire wrote...


Redcliffe - The decision between Isolde or Connor would have been exactly what was promised, but the inclusion of a happy third option where nobody suffers takes all the bite out of the dilemna. Even an dark character would never roleplay to off either an arless or a future arl who could instead be eating out of their hand. Plus, it costs you a world of support from Alistair to choose either of these.

Option A: Isolde dies, Option B: Connor dies, Option C: Nobody dies, and there isn't even any penalty for choosing it ... not a complex moral dilemna.

In my opinion, the third option shouldn't have been there. That would have been a moral dilemna. Does the child deserve to be spared, at the cost of his mother's life? Or is he too far gone?

i will only reply to this one because, frankly, i didnt realy all of it. yes, this is rather "easy" to pick off because of the consequinces of it, but there are a ton of things they cant put in the game, a ton of complications. i chose to kill her and send morrigan in. complications as in, oh say, you have to take care of the problem NOW, not go to the mages and wait till they come and possibly help. all the time you waste by trecking to the mages, appealing to them, then to the templars who will no doubt get involved, and then mabey requisition the help you need, innocent people of redcliff could die, and wiped out completely. and even at that, what would the mages do when they see the bloodmage? do to her when they find out she employed a bloodmage and brought this upon themselves? and even at that, whos to say the mage wouldnt just kill the kid because hes an abomanation anyways?

also with the occult vs ashes part, i truely truely wanted to serve a dragon, i love dragon. but i knew leliana would freak out of i destroyed them, so i passed. that was not easy to make... dragon vs loving companion.

if you only see the choices at what they are, yes its rather easy to see. but sense the deeper meanings, put reason to your choice and stick with it, dont choose it simply because its right... choose it because thats what it is. the viewpoints will change based on your frame of mind also, your own likes and dislikes.... and some of the decisions i really was confused on what i "should" be doing.

[jayheld90]

Mordern wrote...

Jowan told me about the choice because I freed him. I suppose if you didn't, no one would tell you the option existed.

actually, it does let you know the option (because i picked it)...i cant remember who suggested it, but i had left jowan locked up. so i know it wasnt him. it might have been...wynne or morrigan.

Modifié par jayheld90, 09 novembre 2009 - 11:49 .

[RazorrX]

RosaAquafire wrote...

Redcliffe - The decision between Isolde or Connor would have been exactly what was promised, but the inclusion of a happy third option where nobody suffers takes all the bite out of the dilemna. Even an dark character would never roleplay to off either an arless or a future arl who could instead be eating out of their hand. Plus, it costs you a world of support from Alistair to choose either of these.

Okay, stepping back from the whole its a game and time does not really concern itself so you can take MONTHS to do every single side quest first then come back to Redcliff and it is 5 minutes later . . .

Assuming you look at the choices from the characters POV vs the players:

Option A.  Use Blood Magic to save the boy, at the cost of his mother.

Option B. Kill the possessed child.

Option C. Travel days (weeks) away to try and get the circles help (assuming someone in your party tells you the option), during which time the boy creates yet ANOTHER undead plague on the now almost dead town, Kills even More in the castle and possibly kills the Arl and his family.

Which is the best option?

Broken Circle - This one is laughable. Do you want to kill a bunch of innocent mages, or not? If one doesn't kill the mages, you lose nothing and you were right and Cullen was wrong about them. If you don't, you lose their alliance and Wynne won't stay with your party. Plus, you just feel like a douche.

Option A: A bunch of innocent people live and one templar is annoyed. Option B: A bunch of innocent people die, and you lose the support of the most morally concious character in the game ... not a complex moral dilemna.

Again, step back and look at it from Characters POV:

to the general world Mages are the CAUSE of the blight.  The Cult of the Maker has spread this belief far and wide.  They even took the Dales away from the Elves because they would not convert.  Everyone is told from day 1 that mages are an abomination.  There is even a mage in the Mage origin story that thinks that being lobotomized is a better solution for her than to be CURSED with magic.  The Templars are gods right hand, protecting the world from another blight.

SO Option A:  There is NO way to know who is infected/possessed.  There is NO way to know who was invloved in the blood magic that created the problem.  There is no way to know if ANY of the survivors are actually not Blood Mages.  There is the very likely outcome that ALL of the survivors are alive BECAUSE they were in on it.  So if you choose that option you have potentially unleashed a circle of Magi into the world that is practising dark /evil/forbidden lore - the very thing that eventually led to the first blight.

Option B: You follow the Templars and purge the Heritics from the circle.  Making sure that the next group will be more closely monitored and will be much more wary.  It also gives you time to go through the circle and destroy all the books on Blood Magic (Which in the Mage origin story Irving has on his desk).  SO you save the world from the potential of a entire circle of Malificars, get the templars to help you, and give them time to clean house in the cirlce before the next group of mages shows up.

Which is right now?

Brecilian Forest - Once again, this one has a flawless concept. Do you kill the werewolves to save the ailing elves, or do you spare the werewolves at the cost of the eleven lives? But once again, there's that pesky little third option. You break the curse, the werewolves live, the elves live, everyone goes home happy. Well, except Zathrien and Witherfang, but she was happy to die, and he had it coming.

Option A: Elves die, Option B: Werewolves die, Option C: No one dies except the aforementioned, who have a pleasant and semi-heroic end each ... not a complex moral dilemna.

Think this one is more:

Option A: A cure is found for the elves who have been bitten (or not) but the Werewolf curse continues.

Option B: Elves die and Werewolf curse continues.

There never was an option to kill the werewolves and end the curse.  Zathrien just wanted the heart to find a cure for his people, it would not have ended the curse. 

Orzammar - Two choices here, neither that impressed me. Now, the decision between Behlen and Harrowman wasn't as bad as it could have been. My character, who is a naive, trusting little thing who tries to avoid conflict and always wants to do the right thing, had a genuinely hard time choosing who to support -- she ultimately went with Behlen simply because she happened to have talked to his second first and that biased her. Of course, I've heard if you've played the dwarf origins, that choice is exceedingly obvious, too, and it started becoming clear once I declared for Behlen that he was a complete jerk and Harrowman was nearly a saint. I'm not even sure those papers weren't forged ...

There was no real right choice.  That was the most ambiguous of them all. 

RE: The anvil and Branka, this one was SLIGHTLY less unbalanced than the others, but still, it wasn't very hard for me to turn around and put an arrow in Branka. The story established that Caradin was a sinner, but a repenting one wracked with guilt who wished to atone. Branka, on the other hand, was a madwoman, completely unsympathetic, who cheerfully gave her family away to be twisted into darkspawn just so she could get through those traps. The only thing that made this choice even slightly better than the others was the fact that the golems WOULD be very useful in the defense of Orzammar and the surface both. 

Option A: kill the repenting sinner who wants to make right, gain the anvil for the defense of the city, Option B: kill the twisted madwoman, destroy the evil artifact, lose the firepower of the golems. There's at least some consequence to this one -- maybe, I don't know if the dwarves get golems if you side with Branka -- but still, complex moral decisions? It wouldn't take anyone who's taken an Ethics class more than five minutes to decide who's in the right, here.

Okay so look at it from this perspective:

Do you destroy probably the most significant force you can muster against the blight?  A force that the dwarves of old used to maintain an empire.  A force that can help defend the dwarves when the blight is over and the darkspawn retreat underground again.  A force that just takes a sacrifice of life to make work.  A sacrifice that in a way you were forced to make in order to become a Grey Warden.  Grey Wardens have sacrificed entire Cities to end the blight (Per the Calling). 

Do you side with a woman driven mad by being 2 years in the Deep Caves or the Golum who wants his work destroyed?   IF you pay attention, after he was made into a golum the forge stopped.  After the forge stopped, the city fell to the blight.  Is it not your job to defend all from the blight? 

[MBirkhofer]

The options for nearly perfect results only work if you are playing as a truly perceptive, and highly cunning orator/leader/mediator.

Stacking the stats, and putting points into coercion. In the end, it is a role-playing game. If you want to play mr awesome, and find the best solution to every problem. The chance is there.

Most likely you had to save/reload to do it. Many situations, I doubt you were able to make the right choices the first time. Kitty for example?

[Nodrak]

The mages are not so innocent! They took serious offense to Morrigan's presence and attacked us after I was talking to them about helping their situation. Wrynn and her mages died without offering a truce or surrendering.

[Wissenschaft]

A lot of options player would not know about. The make everyone happy endings take more work and most people will have no idea they exist.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

While not as morally ambiguous as something like The Witcher I thought Dragon Age had some more interesting decisions than past Bioware games, and there really wasn't a Good/Bad decision, particularly concerning some important decisions at the end of the game. (I'll denote the paragraph quite heavily as UBER SPOILERS before I say anything else as I don't want to ruin the ending for anyone who hasn't seen it, even if this is the spoiler section)



Redcliffe:

While I personally don't know of the third "compromise" option I won't speak of it, but the decision to use blood magic or not was in of itself pretty controversial. However I feel that you can't take the decisions out of context and have to look at the bigger picture. There's Jowan who poisoned a great leader but seeks atonement: Do you kill him for his crimes or give him a chance?



Forest:

While you're correct that there is indeed a "everyone is happy" solution I found that there was some interesting choices to come out of it. The werewolves weren't exactly innocent, they killed ruthlessly even after Witherfang tamed them and then there was the Arthas side quest. Do you kill his wife who is now a werewolf at her request and then lie to her husband like she ask or do you tell the truth? Not only that but if you do cure the werewolves you discover that this woman died in vein.



Orzammar:

The matter of who to choose is interesting for certain, when I first came to Orzammar I thought Behlin who was the rightful heir should be king but I later decided to put Harrowmont on the throne and I'm glad I did because Behlin was a scoundrel. Concerning Branka while she was clearly the "evil" option the golems could have saved many lives and perhaps it's possible that if Harrowmont were king he may have not abused the anvil like Carridin thought. (This could already be in the game for all I know)



Circle Tower:

I agree this area of the game was very black and white, however there were some smaller choices in this area that were quite interesting. For example the demon that was manipulating the templar: do you allow her to keep him to fulfill the mans desires or do you slay the demon solely because she is a demon.



UBER SPOILERS UBER SPOILERS DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT FINISHED THE GAME





Landsmeet:

At the landsmeet you can choose to either execute Loghain or make him undergoe the Joining, and Loghain himself isn't an obviously evil man and he actually turns out to be quite likable. He's xenophobic and ruthless but in the end he loves his country and he is truly sorry for Cailins death. In fact I've come to believe that Loghain may have been right and that if he had supported Cailin at Ostagar they would not have won.



The Throne:

You could give it to Alistair who was a goodman but not a true leader or Anora who was manipulative but a proven leader. This impacts much of the game as supporting Alistair means Loghain will be executed. Supporting Anora allows Loghain to undergoe the joining and possibly atone for his crimes by slaying the archdemon himself.



Morrigan's baby:

This decision was perhaps one of the most interesting. You could save the life of the Grey Warden's (Atleast yourself and Alistair, possibly Loghain) or you could drive off Morrigan and accept that one of you is going to die to save Ferelden.









END OF UBER SPOILERS END OF UBER SPOILERS



But yeah, while you are correct that some of the major plot decisions in the game weren't as ambiguous as Bioware hyped them up to be I found that there were some very interesting choices to be made in the game that extended beyond the traditional Good/Bad system in Kotor and Mass Effect. So many in fact that I'm still playing the game after beating it because I want to experience as many of the different endings as possible. (Of which there appear to be many, considering how the epilogue is structured)

[SageGaspar]

Even recruiting the companions is pretty sketchy, Wynne seems pretty moral but she tried to kill me for discussing things with an apostate. Sten murdered an innocent family because he was sad about losing his sword. Leliana is an ex-spy who approaches you with insane sounding visions. There are a billion ways that Morrigan is questionable. Zevran is a hedonist assassin. Shale wouldn't give a crap if he accidentally crushed your head into a bloody pulp. Alistair is probably the most morally centered of them by our values system but when he's not deflecting reality with humor he's whining about daddy issues or necessary decisions. Haven't met Oghren yet unfortunately.

The circle of magi wasn't clear cut at all to me, yeah the first enchanter is a nice old man but the shenanigans he pulls in the mage origin are just plain stupid and the circle itself is creepy as hell as an establishment. They need a serious restructuring at the very least, and the templars pledged their support in lieu of the magi if you sided with them. The first enchanter actually agrees with this decision if you pick it because he recognizes it's out of control. Because I ended up with the first enchanter submitting to the will of the templars, the circle was disbanded and I was unable to use the "third option" in Redcliffe.

Going to the Circle for Redcliffe is sort of crazy in the context of the game world. The village has been under siege by a possessed demon child killing them indiscriminately for weeks and after you finally hack your way to the castle, you're supposed to turn around and head out for a couple days leaving the kid there so one of your party members can risk their lives in the Fade for the woman and child that were responsible for it all? In the meantime there's a growing army of demonspawn getting ready to flood the land. Jowan is a terrible option too, he might believe he wants to atone but as soon as that gets difficult you can be damn sure he's going to go back on his word, if you've seen the mage intro this is fairly clear. The option that really makes sense in the game world to me is just slaying the demon there. You can get the mother to come to her senses and kill the kid herself and a persuade check makes Alistair realize it was the smart move.

I think part of the problem with the weight of some decisions is that there is no real representation of the time factor. It might be hokey but I think it'd be cool having some Battlestar Galactica-esque countdown of how many families are getting murdered by blight beasts while you choose to take your time helping one demon child. It'd add some weight to Sten and Morrigan's constant assertions that you ought to be taking direct approaches instead of solving everyone's problems.

I also agree that some of the "third options" work out far too conveniently in that the risk you're taking always seems to end up okay. It would be nice if silver-tongued neutrality ended up failing sometimes. I have to admit digging on some of the happy endings though, I really liked the ending I got to the werewolf scenario.

Modifié par SageGaspar, 09 novembre 2009 - 05:53 .