51 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerevar-as]

Well, I was thankful for the Circle choice or I would have stopped playing, in fact I did and went to a walkthrough. And it´s still possible to have negative consequences. After all, is just the GW (some at least) who was deleted from the ongoing story.

About the Witcher, it didn´t feel so dark. For me most of the dark moments were learning so many characters from the book were dead (reading "The Lady of the Lake" is going to be bad), but maybe that´s the reason I was expecting the no win situations. But other than being a jerk there was no reason to pick "bad" options in most quests. It was clear which one was the lesser evil.

[Tirigon]

Moustacheo, I think I see what you mean.



I agree, it would have been best if going to the Circle results in the Demon breaking free again or something like that. On the other hand, the advisors say that this course of action works, so it´s just for once being lucky. I think even in Dark Fantasy a hero can be lucky. Otherwise it would seem more ridiculous than dark, especially since you have to defeat the Blight in the end (or sequels are impossible)



And personally, I prefer an easy way out over being forced to choose one evil instead of the good choice even when playing a Lawful good guy.

[OriginsIsBest]

I love tough choices!

[TheGreatMoustacheo]

Tirigon wrote...

Moustacheo, I think I see what you mean.

I agree, it would have been best if going to the Circle results in the Demon breaking free again or something like that. On the other hand, the advisors say that this course of action works, so it´s just for once being lucky. I think even in Dark Fantasy a hero can be lucky. Otherwise it would seem more ridiculous than dark, especially since you have to defeat the Blight in the end (or sequels are impossible)

And personally, I prefer an easy way out over being forced to choose one evil instead of the good choice even when playing a Lawful good guy.

Every hero is a hero, that's why we call them that. My example was me doing quite impossible things (to the joys of everyone) only to be backhanded by a choice that was difficult and engaging. This isn't a bad thing, it in fact kept me locked into the game until I finished the gruesome task. My guy was still heroic, I even got Alistar to semi-understand that I was faced with a choice I had to do. He was still pissed...but that's what turns a cardboard cutout into a human.

I'll never say we should remove 'heroic' options, but in a Dark Fantasy they have to be believable and carry a gothic sense to them.

Oh and if you want ridiculous darkness, seek out the Warhammer 40K franchise and read their tagline

[Tirigon]

TheGreatMoustacheo wrote...

Oh and if you want ridiculous darkness, seek out the Warhammer 40K franchise and read their tagline

That´s the game with the Space marines and Chaos Blood gods and necros right?

If yes, I played it once and found it boring:?

[TheGreatMoustacheo]

Tirigon wrote...

TheGreatMoustacheo wrote...

Oh and if you want ridiculous darkness, seek out the Warhammer 40K franchise and read their tagline

That´s the game with the Space marines and Chaos Blood gods and necros right?

If yes, I played it once and found it boring:?

Yes, if it was the DoW series, meh it's nowhere close to the tabletop.

But yeah...that's dark, like dark dark, like I can't even find a frickening shade of gray dark.

[TheGreatMoustacheo]

FDrage wrote...

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.

I myself do not preach against 'good' guys (I am one myself;)). The reason I speak of such dark consequences and 'no-ways' out for players is because I've always seen DA:O as Dark Fantasy. I needn't explain that good guys are already highly discriminated against in such worlds while evil guys are let off the hook.

The problem between punishing good and evil is that. Evil is always the quickest route, unless you just plain want to be sadistic, and good is forever the one where temptation lays at every turn. Your ruthless mage demostrates a callous attitude for the Redcliffe situation, which is justified. The heroic individual is faced with a moral choice that wrecks any sort of foundation they formed. The hero is punished but if truly a hero they press on wounded but alive, the mage walks free all the stronger with a clear conscious. If you put yourself in the person's shoes you just sacrificed, it opens a new prospective that provides at least a moment of contemplation, similar to the hero's while he is making his choice. You outweighed the needs of the few for the needs of the many (Isode meant nothing to you, the Blight's end did), in a way, that was a heroic choice, though one that is dubious when seen from all angles.

My point is that the hero shouldn't be continuously punished but needs to be faced with moral delimmas that not only add to your character, but assert your beliefs. The ruthless character should encounter delimmas which actively make them believe that their cruelty is unwarranted and is difficult to justify either way. The gray character should met events where they have to decide what is best for 'everyone'. Unforturnately, that requires a skill of writing I have only seen in novels, never once in movies, and only twice in games.

[JoltDealer]

 Every decision has a consequence, no matter how insignificant.  In a lot of video games, consequences are thrown aside for various reasons.  If the player feels like they lost even when they've won, what point is there to playing the game anymore?  A vast majority of video game players are naive teenagers who don't fully understand the world yet and to them it feels wrong that there was a consequence to defending the small village instead of the city.  Whereas for people like me, it feels wrong that there is no consequence for me waiting for the Circle of Magi to arrive to exorcise Connor instead of me killing him on the spot.

Dragon Age: Origins does a better job than most in terms of presenting consequences, but it sometimes falls short.  I must say though, I find it ironic that a "dark fantasy", when you really look at it, is really just a more realistic fantasy.  Ironic in both a sad and funny sort of way, especially when we call it "dark."

[BlackyBlack]

Collider wrote...

Dragon Age was actually excellent in having morally complex and difficult choices.

No it didn't, neither did ME. There was always a right choice which sucked

Now, The Witcher THAT game had hard choices

Modifié par BlackyBlack, 16 juillet 2010 - 12:47 .

[Collider]

Sounds like I should pick The Witcher up.

[TheGreatMoustacheo]

Crimson Sound wrote...

 Every decision has a consequence, no matter how insignificant.  In a lot of video games, consequences are thrown aside for various reasons.  If the player feels like they lost even when they've won, what point is there to playing the game anymore?  A vast majority of video game players are naive teenagers who don't fully understand the world yet and to them it feels wrong that there was a consequence to defending the small village instead of the city.  Whereas for people like me, it feels wrong that there is no consequence for me waiting for the Circle of Magi to arrive to exorcise Connor instead of me killing him on the spot.

Dragon Age: Origins does a better job than most in terms of presenting consequences, but it sometimes falls short.  I must say though, I find it ironic that a "dark fantasy", when you really look at it, is really just a more realistic fantasy.  Ironic in both a sad and funny sort of way, especially when we call it "dark."

Well a certain High Fantasy involved a midget with his best friend tossing a little piece of jewerly in lava and everything was fine after that. Countering that...well we need the opposite of High to make this more realistic...

Low?  No it sounds oddly unattracting.

Realism Fantasy? Now that is a paradox that invokes exploding heads. <_<

Dark? Yes...dark will do.

It doesn't really have a dose of realism to be honest, just more like a soap opera with swords and a lot of blood than an epic.

[BlackyBlack]

Collider wrote...

Sounds like I should pick The Witcher up.

I enjoyed it more than DAO. The best thing is there is no right choice and there's much bigger consequences for your actions. It's also much more dark and mature. I found it much more atmospheric than DAO

Modifié par BlackyBlack, 16 juillet 2010 - 12:51 .

[TheGreatMoustacheo]

Collider wrote...

Sounds like I should pick The Witcher up.

Check out videos of it first. The combat is...unique but dated. The dialog system is the mid-point between DA:O and ME2. If you buy it, get the extended edition or whatever its called (it fixes thousands of translation errors).

The story is nothing you haven't seen before but the world itself is astoundingly balanced on moral gray. The choices are great as they hold very long term consequences, I did something in the first act that finally hit me on the second to last act of the game. Also, the characters are all memorable in their own right and are quite faithful to the novels.

[Hulk Hsieh]

Your choice in the Circle affects the options available in Redcliff. I kind of like such double layered structure.

[highcastle]

My first time through the Redcliffe storyline, I didn't know about the third option. I remember playing through the quest and being absolutely blown away by the finale. Only on my second play did I learn you could go to the circle.

I'm not saying third options shouldn't be included. They should. But just like the first two options, there should be consequences to them. If you're leaving the abomination behind, then you should have to leave a party member or two behind with it. And there should be some threat of harm or death to whomever you leave behind.

[WingsandRings]

I agree to a point about having hard choices, however one of the things I really liked about DA:O were the "hidden" third options...at Redcliffe and with the Elves/Werewolves. Some people may see them as a cop-out (and I think if such hidden happy choices existed for every dilemma, they would be) but I think done as they were done it made the game MORE interesting, because you go in thinking you HAVE to do A or B. You plan for A or B. And then more is revealed during the plot, if you're paying attention, and suddenly options C and D are there as well. Because that's often how options really do work in life. You think you've got it all worked out, but as more information comes to you, you have to rework your plan.

[Collider]

My issue was not that there was a third option (which wasn't actually "hidden" in redcliffe's case), it was that that third option was no consequences whatsoever.

[Tirigon]

The main problem is that saving Connor makes no sense in its consequences. According to all we know, the templars would make Connor a Tranquil or even kill him outright.

Unfortunately, he becomes a famous and powerful mage.........

Modifié par Tirigon, 17 juillet 2010 - 01:39 .

[Collider]

Maybe he escaped?

[elearon1]

Collider wrote...

Sounds like I should pick The Witcher up.

Absolutely do.  But be sure to pick up the Enhanced Edition, or the Director's Cut version.  Also, the game has a bit of a memory leak - after playing it for a few hours the frame rate will start slowing down, once it gets to the point where it is a problem, shut the game down and restart your computer; the game will reset and you'll be fine for another few hours. (rinse and repeat)  Also, for some reason they didn't make it so auto or quick saves overwrote the old saves, so they will pile up on you quickly.  Every so often (no less than once an hour I'd say, if you're moving through zones or in and out of houses)  be sure to go in and trim down your saved games to about 5 or fewer, otherwise the save and load times will slow way down - like into the minutes.  

So long as you keep those two points in mind it is an excellent game, well worth the money you'll spend on it. 

As for DA2, if they make it closer to Awakening, which was darker, I will be pleased.

[fchopin]

elearon1 wrote...

Collider wrote...

Sounds like I should pick The Witcher up.

Absolutely do.  But be sure to pick up the Enhanced Edition, or the Director's Cut version.  Also, the game has a bit of a memory leak - after playing it for a few hours the frame rate will start slowing down, once it gets to the point where it is a problem, shut the game down and restart your computer; the game will reset and you'll be fine for another few hours. (rinse and repeat)  Also, for some reason they didn't make it so auto or quick saves overwrote the old saves, so they will pile up on you quickly.  Every so often (no less than once an hour I'd say, if you're moving through zones or in and out of houses)  be sure to go in and trim down your saved games to about 5 or fewer, otherwise the save and load times will slow way down - like into the minutes.  

So long as you keep those two points in mind it is an excellent game, well worth the money you'll spend on it. 

As for DA2, if they make it closer to Awakening, which was darker, I will be pleased.

I don’t use autosave for the witcher so never had that problem.
 
Did not get awakening so no idea how it works but was happy with DA:O.

[Utoryo]

Regarding Redcliffe, the only thing they needed to do was add a 'Defend the Denerim Gates'-like sequence where you leave some of your party behind and Connor attacks, and in the cut-scene he kills a guard (and might kill more during the fight depending on how quickly you make him flee back into his room). That would easily have satisfied everyone, and it's the kind of thing you'd expect them to have considered implementing but skipped for lack of time.

[Collider]

Thanks for the tips on the The Witcher guys! I appreciate it

[Collider]

Utoryo wrote...

Regarding Redcliffe, the only thing they needed to do was add a 'Defend the Denerim Gates'-like sequence where you leave some of your party behind and Connor attacks, and in the cut-scene he kills a guard (and might kill more during the fight depending on how quickly you make him flee back into his room). That would easily have satisfied everyone, and it's the kind of thing you'd expect them to have considered implementing but skipped for lack of time.

But that's only a minor NPC. No one is going to miss a random guard.

[AlexXIV]

What I would have liked to see are actual consequences. Like the mentioned Connor affair. Or saving the alienage and the market at the end of the game. Riordan said it would cost ressources to go look for the generals but obviously he was a liar, just like he lied with the necessary sacrifice of a GW. I mean you go save the alienage, get cheered by Shianni and her elves, get loot and go on, win-win. So why wouldn't you do it? If they had made it in the way that one of your companions died it would be different.

If they ask us to make selfish/selfless decissions then it makes only sense that you lose something if you are selfless and win if you are selfish. Same with the ritual too. I mean honesty, in my first playthrough I chose ultimate sacrifice and thought it would be the only honorable thing to do for a long time. But with Awakening the bubble burst. Who am I kidding, sex with Morrigan isn't evil and whether something bad comes from it or not nobody knows. And even if we will learn it some day, there was no way to know it back then. So sacrifice a GW for um ... tradition? Or try trust one of your best friends (and lover) and live.

The decision Bhelen/Harrowmont was pretty easy for me too. Bhelen basically only asks dirty jobs from you while Harrowmont asks you to fight in a honorable tournament. And I didn't care for the dwarves enough to be bothered if they prosper or seclude. The elven thing was pretty obvious too, there is one perfect ending the rest is rather stupid than anything else.

So in short all the evil or selfish actions have neither bad nor good consequence, as if people are just evil for the sake of it like 'Look I am the evil badass because ... umm ... the world needs more evil badasses.' Reason please.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 25 août 2010 - 09:33 .