Modifié par Shiroukai, 20 juillet 2010 - 12:33 .
Randy1083 wrote...
The Assembly also abused their positions of power and forced the Common Dwarves to endure brutal lives of poverty, disease, and squalor. Maybe Bhelen was the Julius Caesar to the Assembly's Roman Senate.Captain Jazz wrote...
He dissolves the assembly and rules Orzammar alone... with Lord Blader by his side to do his bidding! (Second part may be fabrication.)youjik33 wrote...
They DIDN'T call Bhelen a tyrant. They said that some dwarves thought he was a tyrant... while others thought he was amazingly progressive.
Guest_SirShreK_*
Modifié par Gaxhung, 20 juillet 2010 - 03:31 .
Guest_SirShreK_*
Gaxhung wrote...
@OP
Bioshock was not an rpg but there is a twist like that, you were lead to believe doing something bad is actually good, so you do it, then you feel really really guilty at the end.
I'm not saying that all "Good" decisions should have consequences. That's just as unrealistic as the good decisions always having advantages/good consequences.FDrage wrote...
The problem I have is the people wanting some sort of true "Dark Fantasy" is that the sort of good choice should result in consequences that the good character should suffer. After all we are in a dark fantasy setting.
However:
1) If it is an RPG you can always decided, as a player, not to chose a certain response because it wouldn't fit with your characters nature and not let outside information (meta gaming) decide on your in-game choices.
2) What consequence (in-game) would be appropriate for a character that is either "evil" or "self-interested" or "ruthless" to achieve the overall goal of saving Thedas from the Blight. Consequences that such a character actually cares about?
If someone wants to be a "good" hero shouldn't there be, at least on some occasions, a "good" outcome possible even if you don't realise it. Or should the only outcomes are "dark" and "darker", even if you don't realize that in the first place?
Modifié par Arrtis, 20 juillet 2010 - 03:10 .
Captain Jazz wrote...
How else do you interpret the dissolution of a democractic, if flawed, government in favour of the rule of a single person? Every time that has been done in human history it has been called tyranny, why would it not be so when the tyrant is a dwarf?
Wyndham711 wrote...
For example, the Ferelden society is very much akin to a modern society with modern values in the way genders are considered equal. Female warriors are commonplace, the Chantry is lead by women etc. To me these kinds of modern values feel out of place for anything that could be considered dark fantasy, even if they are very much appreciated by many modern gamers.
filaminstrel wrote...
Hm, that's weird, I figured the village being destroyed would have destroyed his army as well. I suppose he draws from the surrounding lands... makes sense, I guess. I'd prefer that if you left them to fend for themselves, his arling would be destroyed and you would lose his support in any meaningful form resultantly, even if you do end up curing him. Rather than having his support either way and getting penalized for helping them out.
Modifié par Riona45, 20 juillet 2010 - 05:48 .
Captain Jazz wrote...
Every decision has a clear good or evil choice?
Kill the werewolves who suffer from a curse cast by the elven elder in response to a crime that none of the werewolves committed or kill the elves who have done no wrong as revenge for the curse?
Risk abominations loose in the world or slaughter innocent mages?
Leave Orzammar to wither and die in isolation in the hands of a good king or allow it a chance to flourish in the hands of a brutal dicatator?
Is it really so clear cut?
You want a choice that seems good but gives an evil outcome? Introducing the chantry into Orzammar resulting in an exalted march doesn't count? Granted, introducing anyone to religion is evil, but not everyone thinks so...
Chairon de Celeste wrote...
It is not really clear if funding caravan passages to Denerim (good deed)
is without negative consequences, just like in real life.
Who can tell if Kathlyn, Bevin and Bella ever made it to Denerim alive...
Shiroukai wrote...
Bioware should be aware of the Wizard's Second Rule: The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.
And I would really like to see some of it in DA2 as well, which would make it a dark fantasy game and not a fairy tale. Everything has consequences, and good deeds don't always lead to a good aftermath.
Modifié par David Gaider, 20 juillet 2010 - 05:48 .
Shiroukai wrote...
Bioware should be aware of the Wizard's Second Rule: The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.
And I would really like to see some of it in DA2 as well, which would make it a dark fantasy game and not a fairy tale.
Modifié par Riona45, 20 juillet 2010 - 05:55 .
David Gaider wrote...
Shiroukai wrote...
Bioware should be aware of the Wizard's Second Rule: The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.
And I would really like to see some of it in DA2 as well, which would make it a dark fantasy game and not a fairy tale. Everything has consequences, and good deeds don't always lead to a good aftermath.
I don't disagree. From a game perspective, however, you do want to avoid the "gotcha!" situation-- if you present a situation to the player where they have no way of knowing that the solution they're offered will have an unintended effect you run the risk of having the player feel like they're being punished rather than rewarded with an interesting story.
And by "no way of knowing" I don't necessarily mean they need to be told-- just "is it reasonable to assume that this might happen?" It's the events that come out of left field, that pull the rug out from under the player, that you need to be careful of. In small doses it might work, or perhaps even in a situation where the player can at least do something to address their reversal of fortune, but otherwise I consider it to be something that sounds good in theory but doesn't work well in practice-- at least, not in a game where the player and the designer are working under an implied understanding that a degree of agency is required even though the designer is the one calling all the shots.
But thematically? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" could make for a great part of a story or a quest.
David Gaider wrote...
And by "no way of knowing" I don't necessarily mean they need to be told-- just "is it reasonable to assume that this might happen?" It's the events that come out of left field, that pull the rug out from under the player, that you need to be careful of. In small doses it might work, or perhaps even in a situation where the player can at least do something to address their reversal of fortune, but otherwise I consider it to be something that sounds good in theory but doesn't work well in practice-- at least, not in a game where the player and the designer are working under an implied understanding that a degree of agency is required even though the designer is the one calling all the shots.
MoSa09 wrote...
David Gaider wrote...
And by "no way of knowing" I don't necessarily mean they need to be told-- just "is it reasonable to assume that this might happen?" It's the events that come out of left field, that pull the rug out from under the player, that you need to be careful of. In small doses it might work, or perhaps even in a situation where the player can at least do something to address their reversal of fortune, but otherwise I consider it to be something that sounds good in theory but doesn't work well in practice-- at least, not in a game where the player and the designer are working under an implied understanding that a degree of agency is required even though the designer is the one calling all the shots.
Now when i think about a situation where something like that has happened, why does the Dark Ritual almost instantly comes to mind?
Modifié par tybbiesniffer, 20 juillet 2010 - 06:17 .
tybbiesniffer wrote...
I think they gave us some forewarning that this wasn't necessarily a "good" choice. Morrigan tells you herself that it's blood magic, I believe. Don't get me wrong, I like Morrigan and her cynicsim. She's a good moral compass; if she disapproves I know I've done something right. But would I trust her? Never.
MoSa09 wrote...
tybbiesniffer wrote...
I think they gave us some forewarning that this wasn't necessarily a "good" choice. Morrigan tells you herself that it's blood magic, I believe. Don't get me wrong, I like Morrigan and her cynicsim. She's a good moral compass; if she disapproves I know I've done something right. But would I trust her? Never.
That was not what i had in mind, i wasn't talking about the consequences. The whole ritual itself just came out of nowhere, and there was nothing you could do about it, she would leave either way.
MoSa09 wrote...
Now when i think about a situation where something like that has happened, why does the Dark Ritual almost instantly comes to mind?
Modifié par David Gaider, 20 juillet 2010 - 06:22 .
I'll have to assume you don't understand what I'm referring to by the "gotcha!".
A "gotcha!" would be everything in the game telling you the results of your action will be X but then Y happens instead. It could be an interesting plot twist or a frustrating one depending on how involved in the outcome the player feels. If they don't feel involved in what happened, they've lost agency.
The Dark Ritual was offered to your character and you made a decision-- and the outcome of your decision was exactly as advertised. Not a "gotcha!" moment in the slightest, unless you intend to extend the definition to "I didn't like it."
Retour en haut