51 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

Dragon Age was actually excellent in having morally complex and difficult choices. Although the game should have done a much better job of actually showing the player their political positions, the Bhelen and Harrowmont decision was great in that the choice was rather balanced.

Bhelen was cruel, power hungry, and untrustworthy. However, he was progressive and wanted to do away with the oppresive traditions of the caste system and Orzammer's self inflicted isolation from the surface. Harrowmont was noticeably kinder and a more noble candidate, however he was in favor of the status quo and wanted to keep the traditions that Orzammar was withering under.

Dragon Age was not perfect, though, in the decisions. The decision on what to do with a certain 2 human characters was a particular example. Instead of having to deliberate over a tough moral dilemma, the player could choose to "save everyone" with absolutely no in-story consequence. I thought this was rather incongrous to the professed "dark fantasy" theme of the game and for lack of better words, was a "cop out."

To relate this, consider:
a) Save the puppy, lose the kitten
Save the kitten, lose the puppy
c) Save both the puppy and kitten with no consequences

Most people are going to choose c, almost rendering the choice between a & b essentially meaningless.

That said, that is just one example and many of the other dilemmas in Dragon Age were fantastic

I would recommend, though, that in DA2 choices like "saving everyone" (as opposed to say saving one person but losing the other) come with their own consequence. The consequences should have a bearing on the story/plot and not just be "the player has to play a part of the game they would play anyways."

Or better yet, that we simply have to choose whether we want to save the puppy or save the kitten.

[Behindyounow]

I agree. The third choice in the redcliffe line was ridiculous. I mean, you leave the castle for a week or two with an abomination inside. Why aren't more people dead when you get back?!

[AlexXIV]

Behindyounow wrote...

I agree. The third choice in the redcliffe line was ridiculous. I mean, you leave the castle for a week or two with an abomination inside. Why aren't more people dead when you get back?!

I agree in DA:O you have often the choice between being good guy and bad guy. But the reason to choose one of these is almost always to be a bad guy or good guy. But nobody is a bad guy just to be a bad guy. Best example is Loghain. He is a traitor and worse. But if you follow all conversations with Anora, Cauthrian and maybe Loghain himself (if you choose to not kill him) then you realize most of his decision were coldhearted but tactical ones. So I personally got the feeling that Loghain was the real person, and the Grey Warden is the fairy tale character who can just go and save everything everytime without having to make hard choices at all.

I hope we get more information on the consequences of the Dark Ritual in DA2 though, since right now not doing it has only bad consequence (Warden dies) while doing it doesn't seem to have any bad consequences I know of.

[iTomes]

Behindyounow wrote...

I agree. The third choice in the redcliffe line was ridiculous. I mean, you leave the castle for a week or two with an abomination inside. Why aren't more people dead when you get back?!

simple. in many countries this game would be forbidden if you couldn't save both.

[Collider]

iTomes wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...

I agree. The third choice in the redcliffe line was ridiculous. I mean, you leave the castle for a week or two with an abomination inside. Why aren't more people dead when you get back?!

simple. in many countries this game would be forbidden if you couldn't save both.

I can understand that if you have to kill the younger person only. But you don't. You can have kill the older person and the younger one would survive.

[Soruve]

I completely agree. It felt almost as if there was no consequence for most of the choices I made. I thought the choice of Ashley or Kaidan in Mass Effect 1 was crazy, but definitely a great plot twist and it actually made you think before you chose, and made you want to play through again just for that one decision. I'd love to see more consequences for my actions this time around.

Modifié par Soruve, 16 juillet 2010 - 09:07 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

iTomes wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...

I agree. The third choice in the redcliffe line was ridiculous. I mean, you leave the castle for a week or two with an abomination inside. Why aren't more people dead when you get back?!

simple. in many countries this game would be forbidden if you couldn't save both.

No it wouldn't.

[iTomes]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

iTomes wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...

I agree. The third choice in the redcliffe line was ridiculous. I mean, you leave the castle for a week or two with an abomination inside. Why aren't more people dead when you get back?!

simple. in many countries this game would be forbidden if you couldn't save both.

No it wouldn't.

differs from country to country i guess.... can only tell you that it most likely would  be in germany, or cause such a heavy public debate that no1 buys the game anymore.

[TheGreatMoustacheo]

I'm a morally-gray person in life but I have to say that a lot of the 'tough' decisions in DA:O weren't tough at all. Like the Redcliffe chain, first time I did the quest, it was before the Circle line, really nice moral choice there. Second time I played through, found out I could get a 'get out of jail free' card...I needn't tell you that I said 'wtf' when I had stepped into the game expecting ASoIF-style Dark Fantasy.



The Circle line was similar, there is no good platform for the Templars to stand on. The abominations they speak of, the kind that singularly pillage the countryside and ruin cities, yeah they were push-overs even on nightmare. If anything, the Templars are shown being oppressive, power-hungry fools and only one of them is shown having the attitude, 'we do it because we must'. On the opposite end, Magi are shown as the repressed. Sure they had a few bad guys under their wing but no banner of any creed is spotless. Magi are dangerous to the world of Thedas but we are never shown that, only a few hints that don't do much to turn heavy-handed morals.



ultimately it shows that the circle decision is 'good guy bad guy' which I despise deeply...



Though I will give credit, Dwarven politics = win for choices.

[Collider]

Really great points, TheGreatMoustacheo. I think more than having tough choices in general, I meant that Dragon Age had tough choices compared to many other games with moral choices - take Bioshock for example.

In the first Bioshock at least, it was quite literally just "save the baby" or "kill the baby" which wasn't morally gray at all.

[TheGreatMoustacheo]

Collider wrote...

Really great points, TheGreatMoustacheo. I think more than having tough choices in general, I meant that Dragon Age had tough choices compared to many other games with moral choices - take Bioshock for example.
In the first Bioshock at least, it was quite literally just "save the baby" or "kill the baby" which wasn't morally gray at all.

Morally gray choices are what define Dark Fantasy. Sure you can have your heroes and villians (I write Dark Fantasy myself) but ultimately there is no true example of full chaotic evil and overly righteous good, just believable men like Loghain or Duncan. That's what made me fall in love with games like the Witcher and DA:O, at first.

As for choices, yep Dragon Age is only beaten by the Witcher in my opinion when it comes to shades of gray. I remember when they announced that fact about Bioshock, it, bad pun intended, shocked gaming blogs and other columnists.

I fully agree that I want to see more 'tough' moral decisions and situations than some of the annoyances I encountered in DA:O.

P.S. I would have loved to see Jack Thompson jump on Bioshock like he did Mass Effect. :happy:

[Tirigon]

iTomes wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

iTomes wrote...

Behindyounow wrote...

I agree. The third choice in the redcliffe line was ridiculous. I mean, you leave the castle for a week or two with an abomination inside. Why aren't more people dead when you get back?!

simple. in many countries this game would be forbidden if you couldn't save both.

No it wouldn't.

differs from country to country i guess.... can only tell you that it most likely would  be in germany, or cause such a heavy public debate that no1 buys the game anymore.

It would be forbidden in Germany, and the public debate would make so many people interested in it that the sales will actually be increased because everyone buys it in Austria or the UK.
Alternatively, it will be released censored and you will be able to download a patch that fixes the censorship within 2 weeks after release.

Such is our German way.

[Collider]

Considering you don't have to kill the younger person, Tirigon, why would the game be forbidden in Germany?

[Tirigon]

Collider wrote...

Considering you don't have to kill the younger person, Tirigon, why would the game be forbidden in Germany?

Because German censorship rules suck. I´m almost surprised it is even possible to kill Connor in the German version. In other games they ere even stricter. In COD MW2 the mission in which you shoot civilians is cut, in spite of the game being available to adults only, and that´s just one example.

I mean, what do you think why DAO got FSK 18? I really don´t see anything cruel about DAO.....

[iTomes]

"It would be forbidden in Germany, and the public debate would make so many people interested in it that the sales will actually be increased because everyone buys it in Austria or the UK.

Alternatively, it will be released censored and you will be able to download a patch that fixes the censorship within 2 weeks after release.



Such is our German way."



yep we indeed are masters of senseless adult protection but hey.. what are you going to do. and luckierwise our "protectors" are as incompetent as stupid, so we wont have to worry about missing loopholes ).

[iTomes]

does any1 remember doom3 addon?? that one was just .. funny. the usk allowed doom3, then some adult-protectors started yellin bout the chainsaw. in the addon there was no chainsaw. it was still forbidden xD^^

[Trooper Guy1]

 In DA:O I forced myself to have to choose the tough choice and I disallowed myself to choose the "everyone is happy in the end choice". Why? Because I like that kind of stuff ( I think it is called Dark Fantasy?).

In DA2 every decision should have some sort of consequence.

Example:

Save your love, lose your friends.
Save your friends, lose your love.
Save your love and friends, sacrificing yourself.

[elearon1]

Redcliffe was one of the greater disappointments of the game for me, when I discovered you could go to the circle and thereby entirely avoid a very tough decision. In none of my playthroughs have I ever even acknowledged that options existence, always choosing one or the other and persuading anyone who disagreed that those were the only ways to go.



It wasn't the only incident like that, however, merely the worst of the lot. I liked Awakening's atmosphere more for the fact that it did have quite a few stories from which there were no happy endings.



Honestly, I think The Witcher was by far and away a much darker game than DA:O, and while I really enjoyed origins, the only reason I would ever list the two in the same sentence is because they are still in the minority of fantasy gaming where they both tried to be dark. (The Witcher was simply more successful)

[iTomes]

Trooper Guy1 wrote...

 In DA:O I forced myself to have to choose the tough choice and I disallowed myself to choose the "everyone is happy in the end choice". Why? Because I like that kind of stuff ( I think it is called Dark Fantasy?).

In DA2 every decision should have some sort of consequence.

Example:

Save your love, lose your friends.
Save your friends, lose your love.
Save your love and friends, sacrificing yourself.

real dark fantasy includes the consequences: for example:
1. youre love is unbelievable mad at you because you pulled her life over the one of so many others and leaves you.
2 you loose yourself in complete sadness and end up drunk in a tavern.
3 your love looses herself in sadness and comittes sujcide.... too bad xD

[KJandrew]

To me personally the Dwarf king decision was the most difficult. This was probably because I played as a dwarf noble for my first two playthroughs. the first time I sided Harrowmont because Bhelen was my enemy but after seeing how harrowmont made everything worse i did a second playthrough were i had to litterley force myself to help him because I just wanted to stab him in the face for everything he did to me

[Tirigon]

I don´t know why there is the Redcliff bashing. I mean, why should you NOT be able to go to the mages and ask them for help?

Is everything you do in Real Life such an utter fail that you can´t imagine NOT sacrificing someone?

Sometimes, things just turn out well. That´s possible, you know.



Also, remember that there ARE consequences to your decision: What do you do if you cleansed the Circle and killed the mages?!!



And to be honest, the Circle isn´t even my favourite result. I find it much better to kill Isolde and leave the demon in Connor. THAT´s my favourite course of action.

[Collider]

Also, remember that there ARE consequences to your decision: What do you do if you cleansed the Circle and killed the mages?!!

That's not a consequence of choosing to save both.

[TheGreatMoustacheo]

Tirigon wrote...

I don´t know why there is the Redcliff bashing. I mean, why should you NOT be able to go to the mages and ask them for help?
Is everything you do in Real Life such an utter fail that you can´t imagine NOT sacrificing someone?
Sometimes, things just turn out well. That´s possible, you know.

Also, remember that there ARE consequences to your decision: What do you do if you cleansed the Circle and killed the mages?!!

And to be honest, the Circle isn´t even my favourite result. I find it much better to kill Isolde and leave the demon in Connor. THAT´s my favourite course of action.

Your opinion is perfectly right, the problem is...DA:O specifically was meant to be Dark Fantasy. Their chief inspiration was the ASoIF novel series, Dark Fantasy which only got more morally clouded and dark as you read on. The problem people have with the Redcliffe's third option is that its a 'Get out of Jail' free card that you receive without any consequences (if you cleanse the Circle, oh well the option isn't available, you can take it as a consequence, but it really just aids to the bad guy image you don or a tragic mistake of character you performed). In fact, that decision is ultimately the best for party approval but comes off as being Deus Ex Machina. I'll quickly explain.

Example:
I arrive in Redcliffe and successfully stay to protect the villagers from their fate. I rallied them without casualities and stepped into the castle expecting anything to happen. But I, as a morally-right person, went out of my way to rescue the blacksmith's daughter, further establishing that I'm that 'hero in the dark'. Then I discover the truth.

Without the Circle option, you are faced with two moral paradoxes that unmines the 'heroic' character in a very intriguing and engaging way. It also gives 'evil' characters a choice of which is the greater of the two evils and just how devilish they are. Finally, 'Gray' Wardens, bad pun meant, are faced with a difficult choice that they have to weight carefully. This is WHAT Dark Fantasy is, shades of gray and the fact that things rarely go off without a price to pay.

The Circle option throws the moral choice out the door. Its not a question of if you cleansed the Circle or not, its the fact that this one offers a consequence-free option to escape something that may be too dark for others. People who regard this with distain see it as a Deus Ex Machina that honestly shouldn't exist in a Dark Fantasy world. Other people appeciate it because they get to save everyone. This stark divide of opinions is why people bash the Redcliffe chain, it's proper Dark Fantasy until you get the Circle option.
------------

Obviously there are consequences to deleting the Circle, but in my opinion, they should mostly stay in the Circle chain. Should they have an effect on Fereden? Yes. Should they give you an 'escape' route to a choice in another chain? I think not as it ultimately feels like lazy writting, no matter how you try to spin it.

Btw, I'm a guy who has gone every route in the Redcliffe chain. I'll tell you (in my opinion) the moral choice at the end is a 100 times better when you have no easy way out of it.

Modifié par TheGreatMoustacheo, 16 juillet 2010 - 11:09 .

[FDrage]

Of course I left the rest of my party in Redcliff castle to keep the demon in check (just because the game doesn't explicitly allows me to do it, it is still what I did as it didn't prevent me from doing it either) and I have to say when I came back the demon was still held in check to a BIG "Well done" to the members of my party that stayed back to watch over a demon ... and by the time I met the demon in the fade it was tame as a puppy, well almost.


Anyway ... consequence are well and nice. However when I read these kind of discussion it always seem to be that people only want consequences for the characters the actually try to do something good and try to find the "best" possible way (aka heroic way) out of a situation and only those should suffer the consequences. Why should I always be punished then in this way? mind you not all of my characters try to be of the good heroic nature, but still ...

On the other side, what consequences does a "ruthless" character suffer, which that character actually cares about. In the Redcliff example, an heroic character might try to save everyone and takes a few weeks to travel back and forth. So there should be consequences for not killing the child or Isolde in the first place. You can still not chose the option if you thing it is not enough consequences for one and chose another options (e.g. killing Izolde) if you character tries to be good but you as a player think the Magi Tower isn't really a realistic option. Which enables one to role-play the loss of the child or Izolde.

My "ruthless" mage on the other side, chose the quick option (of course the mage doesn't actually want to harm the child) of sacrificing Izolde as the journey to the Circle Tower seemed unrealistic long and as the mage later found it the Tower had its own problems to deal with. Upon encountering the demon in the fade my mage (being the ruthless and pragmatic individual) just didn't see any reason why not to accept a specific offer. After all it will serve well in the mission to save Ferelden from the Blight, what does the sacrifice of 2 people matter and the slight heart brokenness of 1 Nobel. So my mage got all the benefits (stronger more capable mage, Redcliff situation resolved, Ally gained, etc.) with non of the consequences (Izolde is actually a strange to my mage, when the demon comes back my warden probably already taken the walk into the Deep Roads).

What consequences would be great enough that my mage would actually care about? Or should only the character that tries to be a good heroic person should suffer consequences? Personally, if one choice suffers consequences then all choices should suffer consequences ... and with consequences I mean events or outcomes a character, who's made these decisions, would actually care about.

Modifié par FDrage, 16 juillet 2010 - 11:23 .

[Merci357]

TheGreatMoustacheo wrote...

Example:
I arrive in Redcliffe and successfully stay to protect the villagers from their fate. I rallied them without casualities and stepped into the castle expecting anything to happen. But I, as a morally-right person, went out of my way to rescue the blacksmith's daughter, further establishing that I'm that 'hero in the dark'. Then I discover the truth.

Without the Circle option, you are faced with two moral paradoxes that unmines the 'heroic' character in a very intriguing and engaging way. It also gives 'evil' characters a choice of which is the greater of the two evils and just how devilish they are. Finally, 'Gray' Wardens, bad pun meant, are faced with a difficult choice that they have to weight carefully. This is WHAT Dark Fantasy is, shades of gray and the fact that things rarely go off without a price to pay.

The Circle option throws the moral choice out the door. Its not a question of if you cleansed the Circle or not, its the fact that this one offers a consequence-free option to escape something that may be too dark for others. People who regard this with distain see it as a Deus Ex Machina that honestly shouldn't exist in a Dark Fantasy world. Other people appeciate it because they get to save everyone. This stark divide of opinions is why people bash the Redcliffe chain, it's proper Dark Fantasy until you get the Circle option.
Btw, I'm a guy who has gone every route in the Redcliffe chain. I'll tell you (in my opinion) the moral choice at the end is a 100 times better when you have no easy way out of it.

Well, like always in my first playthrough I go for the "Hero in Shining Armor" approach, saving kittens and everything. Then there is the Connor decision. Jowan offered his insight, Isolde offered herself to save Connor, and my resoning was like: I can't go to the circle, that would take to long and make things far worse - but I just can't kill the child. So, Isolde is it, then. All went fine - until I arive at camp, later, and Alistair starts yelling at me. I was very tempted to reload and try a different approach...
To be honest, I like tough decisions, that only offer different shades of grey, no simple black/white. And I was disappointed that the Circle tower offered a get out of the jail card, even though this decision seemed very unlikely due to the time constrains to me and my PC.