64 réponses à ce sujet

[XX55XX]

It's a recurring problem in BioWare games. The dichotomy between good and evil in their games is so distinctly clear that it is quite easy for anyone to play as a purely "evil" or "good" character. There is little room for morally unclear choices. And, if anyone has lived life for long enough, he/she understands that a majority of decisions involving morality rarely offer choices which are so clearly split down the middle like BioWare's choices are in their games. 

Luckily, BioWare can rectify this problem very easily. Get rid of the internal morality meters and give these choices consequences which do not directly correspond with either side of this dichotomy. 

For example, let's say that in DA2, you are given the option of killing an evil ruler who has brutalized his people. Instead of giving instant feedback via a morality meter, party members should immediately comment from both sides of the dichotomy. Some party members may support execution, others may not. Hence, through the removal of things like morality meters, the player can get feedback on his/her actions from both sides of the good/evil dichotomy. 

And let's say that the player kills this evil ruler. Since DA2 is taking place over a ten year span, it would be quite easy to create consequences which would correspond with a player's choice. A few years later, a new ruler has come to power, and while he is far less brutal than the old ruler was, he is far less efficient in governing his realm. 

You guys get what I am saying? Instead of splitting moral decisions down the middle cleanly, the morality of each choice must be blurred to the point where any action can be construed as either good or evil, depending on the consequences. 

I am rambling again, but I hope every understands the basic idea behind my ideas for DA2's morality. Thanks and good day. 

[David Gaider]

If you believe the lines between good and evil were too distinct in DAO, then I can safely say you're going to feel the same in DA2. I disagree on that perception, but if that's how you feel I doubt it will change.

[javierabegazo]

I think DAO did an excellent job, but more gray choices are always welcome

[rolson00]

XX55XX wrote...

It's a recurring problem in BioWare games. The dichotomy between good and evil in their games is so distinctly clear that it is quite easy for anyone to play as a purely "evil" or "good" character. There is little room for morally unclear choices. And, if anyone has lived life for long enough, he/she understands that a majority of decisions involving morality rarely offer choices which are so clearly split down the middle like BioWare's choices are in their games. 

they are addressing this in DA2 follow the links from the DA2 site to the gamer maq

[Irthir]

It would be really cool if we had more situations like the decision of Orzammar ruler. That's a really good example of your work on grey decisions.

[Lord Gremlin]

David Gaider wrote...

If you believe the lines between good and evil were too distinct in DAO, then I can safely say you're going to feel the same in DA2. I disagree on that perception, but if that's how you feel I doubt it will change.

Does this mean we shouldn't expect any improvements in this department? Personally, I love playing as evil, chaotic characters, but even I find it depressing how easy it was to determine the most evil option. Anvil of the Void, enslaving living souls, dwarfs boiled alive in hot melted lirium... Preserve or not? It wasn't even a question. 

[Mythrael]

I found that the decision on who to put on the dwarven throne pretty grey. Harrowmont seemed good but wasn't and Belin seemed bad but wasn't. And it gets even stranger depending how you handled the Anvil. I think DAO did a great job.

[YohkoOhno]

AFAIK, there were no "morality meters" in DA:O, just reactions of other people.
Keep in mind though, this is meant to be an entertaining game. Can you have agonizing choices, yes. But should the game be angst filled and always make people feel bad after playing? If you get too grim and gritty it's not that fun to experience.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 23 juillet 2010 - 06:19 .

[B3taMaxxx]

XX55XX wrote...
For example, let's say that in DA2, you are given the option of killing an evil ruler who has brutalized his people. Instead of giving instant feedback via a morality meter, party members should immediately comment from both sides of the dichotomy. Some party members may support execution, others may not. Hence, through the removal of things like morality meters, the player can get feedback on his/her actions from both sides of the good/evil dichotomy. 

 Maybe it was only availible on my copy, but my party members did often comment on both sides of a given topic. To, I believe I usually was given a persuasive response option to convince discouraging party members.

[In Exile]

The choices in DA were arguably justifiable by non-evil, and that was what was important. For example, the Anvil of the Void gave you golems. Golems could defeat the blight, or more efficiently destroy it. It wasn't about torturing dwarves - it was about the ends justifying the means to an extreme. So too with the Bhelen choice. This is what DA is about,mostly.

[JamieCOTC]

I have to agree somewhat w/ the OP. With very few exceptions, I didn't find myself wrestling w/ the moral challenges w/in the game as much as I would have liked. Oddly enough, ME2, w/ its distinctive paragon/renegade system, offered me more moral challenges than DA:O. That's not to say the world Of DA isn't built of shades of gray. It certainly is, but there always seemed to be a "way out" for the good guys. There's nothing inherently wrong w/ that and I certainly don't want to play a game mired in despair, but a game billed as a dark fantasy, well, I would have liked more moral challenges. As it is, DA is still a great game and I'm fine w/ DA2 being more of the same. it's just nice to know what to expect. Thanks!

[CarlSpackler]

  I like the way DAO handled its morality "system."  I'm unsure what OP is referring to in one sense as there was no morality meter in DAO, and your companions often piped in on their opinion of your actions.  

  On a side note though, I'm not of the mind that the more complicated morally a story is the better it is.  Morally complex fiction can be excellent, but so can traditional heroic fiction with clear lines drawn.  While living in the age of irony, there is this presuposition that the more "gray" or conflicted our heroes are, the better it serves the story.  I don't agree with this premise.  There are certainly times I want a hero like Batman - who can be conflicted and dark, but there are other times when frankly, I want Superman to sweep in with his unwaivering sense of goodness and save the day!  LOTR remains my favorite work of fiction, and with a few exceptions the lines between good and evil are pretty stark, that said I also love GRRM's ASOFAI where the shades of gray are cast across his fictional landscape.  A time and place for all things I say. 

  I'm not arguing that I want a DA game that is more simplistic in its morality approach, only that I dislike the notion that morally gray = better.  That and I liked the world of DA, thought it had a good mix without being overly dour.  The Witcher I thought was a darker world, the morality in that game was probably blurred a little more than DA, but for a variety of reasons I'd rather run around in the DA setting even though I am looking forward to playing the Witcher 2.

Modifié par CarlSpackler, 23 juillet 2010 - 07:20 .

[NugWrangler]

I think at face value a lot of the DAO choices did seem black and white. But even some of the most "evil" decisions you can make are justifiable if viewed in a certain light. For example killing Conner or his mother vs. going to the mage's tower. Saving them both is the "good" choice, but how many people could the demon kill before you got back? Dispatching the demon quickly rather than risking many lives for one is also a morally justifiable decision.



I think they did a good job the first time around so I'm not too worried about how they handle it in DA2.

[bzombo]

XX55XX wrote...

It's a recurring problem in BioWare games. The dichotomy between good and evil in their games is so distinctly clear that it is quite easy for anyone to play as a purely "evil" or "good" character. There is little room for morally unclear choices. And, if anyone has lived life for long enough, he/she understands that a majority of decisions involving morality rarely offer choices which are so clearly split down the middle like BioWare's choices are in their games. 

Luckily, BioWare can rectify this problem very easily. Get rid of the internal morality meters and give these choices consequences which do not directly correspond with either side of this dichotomy. 

For example, let's say that in DA2, you are given the option of killing an evil ruler who has brutalized his people. Instead of giving instant feedback via a morality meter, party members should immediately comment from both sides of the dichotomy. Some party members may support execution, others may not. Hence, through the removal of things like morality meters, the player can get feedback on his/her actions from both sides of the good/evil dichotomy. 

And let's say that the player kills this evil ruler. Since DA2 is taking place over a ten year span, it would be quite easy to create consequences which would correspond with a player's choice. A few years later, a new ruler has come to power, and while he is far less brutal than the old ruler was, he is far less efficient in governing his realm. 

You guys get what I am saying? Instead of splitting moral decisions down the middle cleanly, the morality of each choice must be blurred to the point where any action can be construed as either good or evil, depending on the consequences. 

I am rambling again, but I hope every understands the basic idea behind my ideas for DA2's morality. Thanks and good day. 

ummmm.....no? dao spoilers ahead!!!!!

in the deep roads, side with branka, shale gets mad, side with caridin, oghren gets mad. no "morality" there. each side had consequences. shale's were more severe, imo.

redcliffe, kill the boy, let the mother die, or go to the circle for help. not sure how any of these are "evil". going to the circle is better as far as being good, but clear cut evil? where?

in the woods, how is siding with the elves or the werewolves good or evil? one side cursed generations of humans for the acts of their ancestors and the werewolves go around killing elves that have nothing to do with this feud. i don't see how siding with either side is good or evil. both have their good and evil side. nothing is clear cut.

not really sure what game you're playing. awakening has similar things to the above as well.

[bzombo]

PilotJoe wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If you believe the lines between good and evil were too distinct in DAO, then I can safely say you're going to feel the same in DA2. I disagree on that perception, but if that's how you feel I doubt it will change.

I have to admit, that's refreshingly frank and honest!!

But I would really like Bioware to spice things up with a few more gray areas.  Killing certain characters in DAO was a no-brainer, as they were patently, irredeemably evil, but maybe it would be interesting to get to choose whether or not to kill in future games someone who may have had good intentions yet choose the wrong path, or vice versa. 

It would be a hard choice, and would spark some animated conversations!

the bold part describes loghain perfectly. and the dalish keeper to a lesser extent. eamon's wife (forget her name right now) as well.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Why is it that when someone asks for "morally grey" options all they really want is unforseen consequences to their choices?

[In Exile]

bzombo wrote...

in the woods, how is siding with the elves or the werewolves good or evil? one side cursed generations of humans for the acts of their ancestors and the werewolves go around killing elves that have nothing to do with this feud. i don't see how siding with either side is good or evil. both have their good and evil side. nothing is clear cut.

not really sure what game you're playing. awakening has similar things to the above as well.

Well, this is a little more complicated. You really had murder werewolves, murder elves, or remove curse, which is the non-evil option. Murder elves is probably the most genocidal.

[bzombo]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If you believe the lines between good and evil were too distinct in DAO, then I can safely say you're going to feel the same in DA2. I disagree on that perception, but if that's how you feel I doubt it will change.

Does this mean we shouldn't expect any improvements in this department? Personally, I love playing as evil, chaotic characters, but even I find it depressing how easy it was to determine the most evil option. Anvil of the Void, enslaving living souls, dwarfs boiled alive in hot melted lirium... Preserve or not? It wasn't even a question. 

but keeping the anvil could also save more lives than are lost and ultimately help push back the darkspawn. it is not so clear cut. do you prefer the greater good or do you think each human life is precious just as much? all of awakening is like this. architect or broodmother? or none?

[Saibh]

The way I saw it, it had less to do with not having "good" and "evil" choices presented, but more to do with you were given grey reasons to do so. Without a morality meter, the game didn't tell you that you had done something wrong when you had justified it to yourself.



That being said, if you wanted to play a Lawful Good or a Neutral-Chaotic Evil character, you most certainly had those options. I think what people wanted to see was choices that didn't clean everything up nicely, like convincing Zathrian to sacrifice himself, or to go to the Circle Tower to cure Connor.



I wouldn't change the way DAO presented its morality...perhaps at times, things were a little too easy to figure out, but I guess the real pleasure came from playing a grey character.

[BlackyBlack]

javierabegazo wrote...

I think DAO did an excellent job, but more gray choices are always welcome

No, The Witcher did an excellent job. DAO's choices were very black and white IMO

[bzombo]

JamieCOTC wrote...

I have to agree somewhat w/ the OP. With very few exceptions, I didn't find myself wrestling w/ the moral challenges w/in the game as much as I would have liked. Oddly enough, ME2, w/ its distinctive paragon/renegade system, offered me more moral challenges than DA:O. That's not to say the world Of DA isn't built of shades of gray. It certainly is, but there always seemed to be a "way out" for the good guys. There's nothing inherently wrong w/ that and I certainly don't want to play a game mired in despair, but a game billed as a dark fantasy, well, I would have liked more moral challenges. As it is, DA is still a great game and I'm fine w/ DA2 being more of the same. it's just nice to know what to expect. Thanks!

life often has "good" choices. sometimes, though, it's harder to pick the "good" choice because it makes things harder or impossible. with the anvil, destroying the anvil may seem good, but then how do you get branka to help you? she won't. you have to kill her. how do you know caridin will step in and help? you risk losing the dwarves' support over a choice that might seem more humane, but not better for your goal. sometimes gray simply means the nice choice will hurt and the bad choice will be justified by the end result.

[CarlSpackler]

bzombo wrote...

life often has "good" choices. sometimes, though, it's harder to pick the "good" choice because it makes things harder or impossible. with the anvil, destroying the anvil may seem good, but then how do you get branka to help you? she won't. you have to kill her. how do you know caridin will step in and help? you risk losing the dwarves' support over a choice that might seem more humane, but not better for your goal. sometimes gray simply means the nice choice will hurt and the bad choice will be justified by the end result.

This is a good example, I think some of the folks who found the choices in DAO very black and white may want to take a deeper look at the choices that were available.  I do think that the conner resolution using the circle was a little more black and white than it could have been, as was the solution with the elves - but those aside I thought the choices were fairly complex.  Also one of the nice things about playing an RPG is you can ultimately play a genuinely good guy and make the "good" choices if you want and truly say consequences be damned!

That said, I'll repeat in short form what I said in my post above, morally gray doesn't neccessarily mean better.

Modifié par CarlSpackler, 23 juillet 2010 - 07:34 .