54 réponses à ce sujet

[Xephyr829]

gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/07/21/good-choice-morality-and-dragon-age-ii.aspx

[Who is that Masked Man]

Heh, Morrigan setting Wynne on fire was a great choice of pictures for this article.

[Lord_Saulot]

Nice article.

[Saibh]

Overly Optimistic Article wrote...

Think back to Origins’ situation with the possessed boy, Connor, in Redcliffe. Only one of the available paths has a pleasant outcome, and it is the hardest to achieve.

PFFT. Yeah, if you think that's why the Circle Tower exists. If you've already done it, you just walk on over to the Tower and go "Time to pay up!"

This is possibly the worst example they could have given.
...Normally I'm pretty :happy: about anything I see new from DA2, but I sort of hated this article. It essentially said "here's the morality system from DAO--they're not changing it!" Nothing new, nothing exciting, and it wasn't exactly objective in terms of the quality of the morality system of the first game. It didn't make me feel worse about the game, but it didn't make me feel better, either.

Modifié par Saibh, 21 juillet 2010 - 08:41 .

[MaxQuartiroli]

mmm.. nothing really new there
We already knew they won't introduce a morality bar..
Anyway I disagree with Mark when he says that Dragon Age had so many grey areas...
I think there was more good/evil choices than "grey" areas.. Or better there was too many "save all" options.. and the example he does of Connor is just one of them..

Modifié par MaxQuartiroli, 21 juillet 2010 - 09:06 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

MaxQuartiroli wrote...

mmm.. nothing really new there
We already knew they won't introduce a morality bar..
Anyway I disagree with Mark when he says that Dragon Age had so many grey areas...
I think there was more good/evil choices than "grey" areas.. Or better there was too much "save all" options.. and the example he does of Connors is just one of them..

I felt the same way.  The thing is that the "less good" ways of resolving Connor, the Dalish vs. werewolves, etc. aren't necessarily evil or wrong.  They can be justified, but a lot of the time in DA:O, there's a "take a better third option" route.  Which is fine, but we're gamers.  We can tell what the so-called best outcome is, even if it doesn't fit with our characters.

Ironically enough, although DA:O had no overall morality meter and ME2 had a black-and-white one, I thought the ME series did a better job of legitimately grey-and-grey morality.  Legion's sidequest, the political implications of Tali's sidequest, working for Cerberus, the Rachni Queen, EDI's AI shackling, and a host of other things all put Shepard into morally dubious positions no matter what the decision.  Hell, at one point it's considered "Paragon" to brainwash an entire geth collective and "Renegade" to kill them all and be done with it   I had a pretty easy time keeping my hands clean through most of DA:O, except arguably at the endgame.  In ME2, I got dumped in situations where there was no right answer, and that was cool.  Hopefully DA2 is more along the lines of that.

[Wishpig]

I loved the line about the villains. My #1 prob with DA:O's story was the darkspawn. Brainless/monstrous enemies just can't hold a torch to more tragic and even relatable villains. Loghain (especially if you read the novel) is a great villain. Archdemons... not so much.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Wishpig wrote...

I loved the line about the villains. My #1 prob with DA:O's story was the darkspawn. Brainless/monstrous enemies just can't hold a torch to more tragic and even relatable villains. Loghain (especially if you read the novel) is a great villain. Archdemons... not so much.

A lot of BioWare games follow this pattern, though--main villain and proxy villain.  Loghain was the proxy villain, and the Archdemon the main villain.  Saren and the Collectors were proxy villains for the Reapers.  The Valsharess was proxy for Mephistopheles.  Generally speaking, the proxy villains are more relatable, and the real Big Bads are complete monsters.

Except for maybe Jade Empire and the BG series...god, such good villains in those series.  If I can mold Hawke in DA2 to become like a younger version of their villains, I will die happy.

[C9316]

Obvious stuff was obvious.

[Saibh]

Great, this was the update of the day. I can't imagine what we would have done if we didn't get absolutely nothing new out of this. Even if you're not on these forums, it's not saying anything new, just saying something's unchanged.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This sounds terrific. Here's why:

“Ultimately, evil comes down to motivation at the moment,” says Darrah. “A lot of games tend to punish or reward you based on outcome as opposed to minute-to-minute motivation. ‘Why are you doing this?’ ‘I’m doing this because I want the money.’ Well, that’s kind of an evil thing. To my mind, it doesn’t really matter if you’re saving the saving the orphanage because you want the money. That’s still an evil decision, even if you saved the orphanage.”

Mark explicitly recognises that it's the motives of the character (or player) that matter.

This suggests we'll having significantly more control over our characters' decision-making processes and motives than we saw in the previous dialogue-wheel games.

[Saibh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This sounds terrific. Here's why:

“Ultimately, evil comes down to motivation at the moment,” says Darrah. “A lot of games tend to punish or reward you based on outcome as opposed to minute-to-minute motivation. ‘Why are you doing this?’ ‘I’m doing this because I want the money.’ Well, that’s kind of an evil thing. To my mind, it doesn’t really matter if you’re saving the saving the orphanage because you want the money. That’s still an evil decision, even if you saved the orphanage.”

Mark explicitly recognises that it's the motives of the character (or player) that matter.
This suggests we'll having significantly more control over our characters' decision-making processes and motives than we saw in the previous dialogue-wheel games.

Personally, I don't see how they can implement something like that. There's no morality meter, and it seems pretty petty for the companions to lose approval over it (but only if the approval bar doesn't get a bit more nuanced).

If at it means is that you can do a good thing for evil reasons...again. Nothing new. Still cool, but nothing new.

[Dick Delaware]

Saibh wrote...
PFFT. Yeah, if you think that's why the Circle Tower exists. If you've already done it, you just walk on over to the Tower and go "Time to pay up!"

This is possibly the worst example they could have given.
...Normally I'm pretty :happy: about anything I see new from DA2, but I sort of hated this article. It essentially said "here's the morality system from DAO--they're not changing it!" Nothing new, nothing exciting, and it wasn't exactly objective in terms of the quality of the morality system of the first game. It didn't make me feel worse about the game, but it didn't make me feel better, either.

It was just another masturbatory hype piece. It's basically a Dragon Age II advertisement. God I hate gaming media.

[Altima Darkspells]

I think the best comparisons in DAO are the Nature of the Beast and A Paragon of Her Kind.

The Nature of the Beast was basically simple and painfully obvious.  You either kill innocents on either side, or you do not.  In the long run, game-wise, it simply doesn't matter.  You either get Dailish archers (who are better) or the other option.  Heck, you even convince the main 'villains' to willingly take themselves out of the picture.  There is an easy to obtain and perfect solution.

Not so with A Paragon of Her Kind.

There are two long standing consequences.  If you side with Bhelen, Orzammar prospers, but he becomes a tyrant and a dictator.  You know, the sort who usually dies and leaves kingdoms in civil war that eventually consumes empires.  Also, he's a bit of a jerk.

Harrowmont, on the other hand, is polite and quite willing to help.  He's also not as big an ass that Bhelen is.  On the other hand, he's reactionary, conservative, and weak.  Luckily, he doesn't live very long after being crowned king.

The other major choice in the quest line has some major long term repurcussions as well, especially at the end game when you fight the Archdemon.  It's a little more cut-and-dry on what counts for evil, but the 'good' act leaves dwarves more or less as they are and the 'evil' act does not.

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Wishpig wrote...

I loved the line about the villains. My #1 prob with DA:O's story was the darkspawn. Brainless/monstrous enemies just can't hold a torch to more tragic and even relatable villains. Loghain (especially if you read the novel) is a great villain. Archdemons... not so much.

A lot of BioWare games follow this pattern, though--main villain and proxy villain.  Loghain was the proxy villain, and the Archdemon the main villain.  Saren and the Collectors were proxy villains for the Reapers.  The Valsharess was proxy for Mephistopheles.  Generally speaking, the proxy villains are more relatable, and the real Big Bads are complete monsters.

Except for maybe Jade Empire and the BG series...god, such good villains in those series.  If I can mold Hawke in DA2 to become like a younger version of their villains, I will die happy.

There was most definitely a proxy villain in Jade Empire.

[Dick Delaware]

The only problem with the Bhelen / Harrowmont choice is that the game didn't provide you with much context. I would have liked to be able to talk to Bhelen or Harrowmont about what he plans to do once he obtains power before I start doing errands for him. Likewise, I wish that you could talk to some people in Dust Town praising Bhelen as some kind of savior and visionary to offset some of the bad stuff you hear about him. All you really get is one merchant who likes Bhelen because of his economic policies and a Dwarven Noble who sees Bhelen as devious.

[StreetlightEagle]

Wishpig wrote...

I loved the line about the villains. My #1 prob with DA:O's story was the darkspawn. Brainless/monstrous enemies just can't hold a torch to more tragic and even relatable villains. Loghain (especially if you read the novel) is a great villain. Archdemons... not so much.

I totally agree here. At least DA did have Loghain... That was ME2's most fatal flaw, Saren was a brilliant villain but the collectors? Not so much. To be honest, after reading The Stolen Throne I'm not even gonna call Loghain a villain. Plus, Cailan was a fool.

[fchopin]

Thanks for the link, did not see anything interesting really.



I did not find any decisions difficult in dao so they need to do better for da2.

[the_one_54321]

TLDR of article:

Nothing new. We're keeping it like DA:O, and also trying to market.

Awesome. 

Modifié par the_one_54321, 21 juillet 2010 - 10:46 .

[Saibh]

StreetlightEagle wrote...

Wishpig wrote...

I loved the line about the villains. My #1 prob with DA:O's story was the darkspawn. Brainless/monstrous enemies just can't hold a torch to more tragic and even relatable villains. Loghain (especially if you read the novel) is a great villain. Archdemons... not so much.

I totally agree here. At least DA did have Loghain... That was ME2's most fatal flaw, Saren was a brilliant villain but the collectors? Not so much. To be honest, after reading The Stolen Throne I'm not even gonna call Loghain a villain. Plus, Cailan was a fool.

As much as I hate Loghain, I loved how morally ambiguous he was--generally when you have characters like him, they tend to be evil just because they attack the player, and the evil things they do aren't really all that evil. He does some pretty damn evil things, so I would call him a villain, most certainly. Just a really, really good villain.

And Cailan was no more at fault than Loghain.

[Ladybright]

Nothing new, really. Mostly marketing, but game companies do have to market their stuff. No skin off my nose. We have months until release, plenty enough time for cool information.

[Dick Delaware]

Ladybright wrote...
Nothing new, really. Mostly marketing, but game companies do have to market their stuff. No skin off my nose. We have months until release, plenty enough time for cool information.

Yeah, marketing's part of the game, but from a site that I expect some concrete information on, I expect more actual information and less knob-slobbering.

[Sable Rhapsody]

JoePinasi1989 wrote...
Damn... that's what I wanted in Mass Effect... if I'm understanding the fragment correctly.

I thought Mass Effect 2 did a fairly good job of this, even if it was a bit weak in ME1.  Better than Dragon Age, actually, though that may have to do with the kinds of PCs I was playing.  In DA, the only decisions that I felt did not have a very clear "best" option were the endgame, since there were twenty frillion ways that could turn out, and A Paragon of Her Kind.  I hated Orzammar's endless Deep Roads, but the ending of A Paragon of Her Kind was one of my favorites in DA:O.

Arguably, even in the endgame, the "best" ending for Ferelden in general could be one where you harden Alistair, marry him to Anora, spare Loghain, turn down Morrigan's ritual, and have Loghain take the final blow.  You end up with a highly competent king and queen on the throne, no loose god-baby ends from Morrigan esp. if you didn't ever romance her, and Loghain paying for his crimes.

Altima Darkspells wrote...
There was most definitely a proxy villain in Jade Empire.

And yeah, I guess there were a few proxy villains in Jade Empire.  They never felt like proxy villains so much to me as puppets on strings, though, because the main villain just played EVERYONE, including the proxies and the PC, for fools.  And left me gaping with stunned admiration.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 21 juillet 2010 - 10:51 .

[Dick Delaware]

I'd say that the villain was probably the only good part of Jade Empire. Just a total badass.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Dick Delaware wrote...

I'd say that the villain was probably the only good part of Jade Empire. Just a total badass.

I liked the combat and the art style--very clean and pretty.  The NPCs, though, party and otherwise, were decidedly meh.  Except Zu, he was cool too.  And the villain, oh the villain.  *grovels at his feet*