39 réponses à ce sujet

[dan107]

The way that you recruit those companions was very poorly designed IMO. The problem was that it created a tremendous disconnect between what I wanted to do as a player and what made sense for my character to do. To recruit either one of them your character would have to be nothing short of insane. Sten, at first glance, is a violent, psychotic giant of a man who openely admits to murdering an innocent family on a whim. Zevran is a professional assassin with a contract to kill you and no conceivable reason for you to believe that he won't try again other than his friendly smile. What character in their right mind could possibly think that it's a good idea to bring these people with you and turn your back on them while you sleep?

Conversly, Bioware companions are great. They are the centerpiece of the game, and have some of the most memorable moments. What player in their right mind would not want another compation? Therein lies the disconnect. It's incredibly jarring to be faced with a choice where your character would clearly do one thing, and you as a player want to do the opposite.

IMO this is just poor design. The most meaningful reward for a player is content. The most meaningful punishment is being deprived of content. Creating a decision that is so lopsided is not a good idea. Not only does it force a major disconnect from the character to do what you want as a player, but it also doesn't do the decision justice. Sten and Zevran had some interesting themes of guilt and redemption, but they got lost in the middle of this.

I sincerely hope that we won't see a repeat of this in DA2. Don't load a moral dilemma into a decision that really comes down to a simple binary choce: a) experience great Bioware content or miss out on it.

[filetemo]

have in mind it's not you recruiting Sten, it's your warden, and he's the deadliest sonofa**** in Ferelden.

if they turned against you, you would kill them both, you are not afraid of them.

roleplaying, roleplaying!

Modifié par filetemo, 18 juillet 2010 - 11:53 .

[Lord_Saulot]

Isn't pardoning criminals to get them to fight alongside you a standard thing for Wardens?

[AntiChri5]

You are thinking about this as a person sitting behind a keyboard, safe in the knowledge that the Darkspawn cant ever actually hurt you, that you will only be allowed to have three companions with you anyway, and that none will fall in battle.

[joriandrake]

You can always decide to leave Sten behind and kill Zevran before you get to know them better

[errant_knight]

I had a lot more trouble roleplaying not killing Zevran than Sten. He'd allowed himself to be captured, made no excuses for himself, and was making no attempt to preserve his life. Zevran had a contract to kill the PC, and might easily be trying to get another opportunity, or just trying to preserve his life. I thought the Sten choice was a good one. It was risky, but you could tell that there was more to the situation, and to Sten, than met the eye. I was never really able to find an in character reason to trust Zevran on that first meeting. but had to make the decision as a player.

[kaispan]

my "main" character is able to break Sten free quite easily (poor Tower-raised girl hates the Chantry and hates the idea of anyone being locked up, didn't think twice--that's not even getting into the clues Sten leaves you about his frame of mind and believe me I could ;P). [edit---Errant Knight beat me haha, well said]

I totally understand what you mean, though. I've missed out on a lot of content just because it doesn't fit my typical RP perspective (like I have a hard time playing male characters or evil ones, which both offer a ton of varying experiences)... so I would just suggest... If it doesn't fit with the character you're playing as, save it for the next playthrough with one that does! You'll always have something to look forward to.

Modifié par kaispan, 19 juillet 2010 - 12:21 .

[darkiddd]

I killed Zevran... and when I heard he liked men i killed him quicker on my second playthrough xD. Sten seemed to me a very dull person at first but he ended up winning my sympathy



Sten: Where is the cake?... THE CAKE IS A LIE!!!! xD

[KappaOmicron]

You have to remember, you are a new Grey Warden and Wardens take help wherever they find it. It is up to you as the player character to decide if your Grey Warden is to live up to the expectations of a real Warden, or actually have a moral standing in situations with Zevran and Sten.



A Grey Warden would want to recruit Sten because he is a very powerful ally, and you know this at first glance since he is a Qunari, and Zevran you get to see for yourself how skillful of an Assassin he is, obviously not good enough to match you, however skillful nonetheless and you as a Grey Warden can choose to see the potential of him and recruit him.



Comprare that situation with Daveth and Duncan, Daveth pickpocked Duncan yet when Duncan caught him, instead of gutting him right where he stood like the thief he is, Duncan as a Grey Warden chose to see his potential and make use of it because Grey Wardens take help wherever they can find it.



I hope by reading this you all see the connection to choosing to act like a Grey Warden within Dragon Age: Origins is when discussing about Sten and Zevran.

[Collider]

What I what was disappointed about here was that I could not tell Sten that he deserved to stay in the cage for what he's done. It was either "I'm going to go" (exit conversation) or saying that you'll release him.



As for Zevran, I may have liked an option to spare him but tell him to never show his face again.



Recruiting them would make sense for Wardens who want as much help against the Blight as possible.

[Greenface21]

Dragon Age has always been a world colored in grey. It's absolutely alright for you to believe sten and zevran deserved to die because of their backgrounds and the game allows you to do so. Your other companions make note of the same concerns, ie Allistair and Morrigan. I'd have to disagree that its bad gaming design tho. I felt no disconnect at the decision to spare their lives, but i am a big believer in second chances. If you think I am RP'ing incorrectly... well that is your opinion and i wont argue with that.

Its impossible to give full content in any game that advertises choice and consequence with only one RP perspective. Doing so would take away said choice and consequence. In the end I hope DA2 gives us more morally questionable characters to recruit from.

Modifié par Greenface21, 19 juillet 2010 - 12:52 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Lord_Saulot wrote...

Isn't pardoning criminals to get them to fight alongside you a standard thing for Wardens?

"Come join the Grey Wardens. We'll take anybody! Requirements are that you drink something!"

[dan107]

KappaOmicron wrote...

You have to remember, you are a new Grey Warden and Wardens take help wherever they find it. It is up to you as the player character to decide if your Grey Warden is to live up to the expectations of a real Warden, or actually have a moral standing in situations with Zevran and Sten.

Greenface21 wrote...

Dragon Age has always been a world
colored in grey. It's absolutely alright for you to believe sten and
zevran deserved to die because of their backgrounds and the game allows
you to do so. Your other companions make note of the same concerns, ie
Allistair and Morrigan. I'd have to disagree that its bad gaming design
tho. I felt no disconnect at the decision to spare their lives, but i
am a big believer in second chances. If you think I am RP'ing
incorrectly... well that is your opinion and i wont argue with that.


Its impossible to give full content in
any game that advertises choice and consequence with only one RP
perspective. Doing so would take away said choice and consequence. In
the end I hope DA2 gives us more morally questionable characters to
recruit from.

That makes perfect sense, but my problem is not with the moral dilemma that the decision poses, but with the fact that the moral dilemma that my character faces is trivialized by my desire as a player to see more content. A whole companion is not just some minor sidequest, it's a pretty big part of the game.

Whatever you personally believe is the right thing to do here doesn't really matter; the decision itself is incredibly lobsided from a player perspective. On the one hand it offers a MAJOR reward of getting a ton of new content with a new companion, on the other hand it offers the punishment of not getting that. The morality of the decision gets lost in the process. I'm all for difficult and morally ambiguous decisions, but I just don't think that it's good design where one side of the decision is heavily rewarded and the other is heavily punished from a meta-gaming perspective.

[wildannie]

[/quote]

"That makes perfect sense, but my problem is not with the moral dilemma that the decision poses, but with the fact that the moral dilemma that my character faces is trivialized by my desire as a player to see more content. A whole companion is not just some minor sidequest, it's a pretty big part of the game.

Whatever you personally believe is the right thing to do here doesn't really matter; the decision itself is incredibly lobsided from a player perspective. On the one hand it offers a MAJOR reward of getting a ton of new content with a new companion, on the other hand it offers the punishment of not getting that. The morality of the decision gets lost in the process. I'm all for difficult and morally ambiguous decisions, but I just don't think that it's good design where one side of the decision is heavily rewarded and the other is heavily punished from a meta-gaming perspective."
[/quote]

This was the case for me on my first playthrough  but thereafter I'd make the choices based upon who my PC wanted in the party. 


Between Sten and Zevran, Zevran always gets recruited as his is my favourite story.  Sten is sometimes left in the cage, but usually I recruit him out of mercy.  I rarely use him in my party though - because although leaving him to the darkspawn would be a waste, he is not a respected member of my party because of what he did.  Zevran never had a choice, Sten did and is treated accordingly.  I often only kit Sten out for the final battle.

Modifié par wildannie, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:06 .

[Ooga600]

It depends on your character. Would you recruit a random qunari murderer and an assassin who just tried to kill you just for some extra help in a fight?

[BallaZs]

Sten is just awesome.

[DarthCaine]

Don't like it ? Don't recruit them

[elearon1]

My main character took them both and it made sense for her to do so for rp purposes. She picked up Sten because he was powerful, there seemed to be more to the story, and she believed he'd serve once he gave his word. Besides which, she didn't have particular faith in Alistair, but needed a warrior to watch her back. She figured, if he did get out of control he was the type to do it openly and figured they could always put him down if it came to that.



Zevran was even easier. Being a rogue herself, she understood the concept of assassins being tools, or weapons, and didn't take his attempt to kill her personally. (or, rather, she took it personally but blamed Loghain, not him) Plus, she immediately liked him and considered that aside from Leliana he was the only person she might have around with whom she'd have something in common. (the others were all too uptight for her)



She never did really get to know Sten that well, but he kept his word and fought beside her so that was all she needed. After killing the Archdemon she took Zev and Leliana with her to partake in new adventures.

[Dargus007]

I don't see it as miss content (bad), or get content (good). If I feel that not sparing the life of zev or sten does not fit with my character, then I don't recruit them. I never feel that I've missed out, in doing so.



In fact, I've gained something. I've added authenticity to my character.



True, If I played these games once, and always played the same character type in every RPG, I might feel conflicted as you do. But I know that I'll play again. The Naive Helper McHelperton at some point will pick up "missed" companions on that playthrough, and the Evil McButt will have a chance to "miss out on" all kinds of content.

[The 13th Dark Sheep]

What I think would be great was if your companions could actually turn around and betray the main character in the game, thus forcing the player to make his choices more carefully.In my opinion this would make for a much more interesting story.

[Rm80]

Sten does betray the Warden if he is brougth to the mountains....Sten is not a fan of mountains

[rogueanine]

dan107 wrote...

That makes perfect sense, but my problem is not with the moral dilemma that the decision poses, but with the fact that the moral dilemma that my character faces is trivialized by my desire as a player to see more content. A whole companion is not just some minor sidequest, it's a pretty big part of the game.

Whatever you personally believe is the right thing to do here doesn't really matter; the decision itself is incredibly lobsided from a player perspective. On the one hand it offers a MAJOR reward of getting a ton of new content with a new companion, on the other hand it offers the punishment of not getting that. The morality of the decision gets lost in the process. I'm all for difficult and morally ambiguous decisions, but I just don't think that it's good design where one side of the decision is heavily rewarded and the other is heavily punished from a meta-gaming perspective.

 Well this depends on how you look at it, thinking of a companion as a sidequest is a little incorrect, cause if you think of it, the real quest could be getting to know them better, learning from them and earning their trust, and if you see this as a poor design than i pity you

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

DarthCaine wrote...

Don't like it ? Don't recruit them

How true.

[iTomes]

The 13th Dark Sheep wrote...

What I think would be great was if your companions could actually turn around and betray the main character in the game, thus forcing the player to make his choices more carefully.In my opinion this would make for a much more interesting story.

hmm, that could lead to the problem that bioware wouldve to make more characters. you see, if the player always has to be afraid of treason he propably would only recruit a few characters. and having only one mage in youre party and dont even liking the guy just isn't fun. so bio would have to make more characters, what would propably lead to less dialogue or just a worse game because too many ressources would be taken by the many chars.

[the_one_54321]

I felt that recruiting Sten made a lot of sense, once you talked to him long enough. When you get enough of the story out of him it's clear he's dangerous but not a merciless monster. He'd prove useful and that's all that should matter to the warden.



Similarly, Zevran tries to make it sound as though he'll also be useful. But he has a lot more weighing against him at the start. And, unless you buy him off with gold and silver, he proves to be a mistake. And considering that you have to buy him off with gold and silver, he's a mistake either way. After the first playthrough (in which I thoroughly regretted letting his vile [donkey] live) I always just kill him without listening to a word he offers.