315 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

Dave of Canada wrote...

RevengeofNewton wrote...

Had they not given you that choice, and the magi council was still intact, then it would make no sense to not have that choice. It'd be the height of stupidity for the game designers to take away that choice simply for the sake of creating a tough situation.

You all talk of realism, it'd be EXTREMELY UNREALISTIC to have a false dichotomy of "save connor or save isolde." Real life situations are never just two options. For those who use their brain, they can sometimes find a good solution.

Oh, but it's told to you many times that the demon might reappear and god knows what would happen. You're leaving on a trip that'll take days. When I picked the mage choice, I expected to arrive to a destroyed Redcliffe because Connor reactivated when I was gone.

BUT NOPE, IT'S THE HAPPY CHOICE. THE DEMON TOOK 3-5 DAYS OFF.

Yea, this too.

[Dr. wonderful]

Dave of Canada wrote...

RevengeofNewton wrote...

Had they not given you that choice, and the magi council was still intact, then it would make no sense to not have that choice. It'd be the height of stupidity for the game designers to take away that choice simply for the sake of creating a tough situation.

You all talk of realism, it'd be EXTREMELY UNREALISTIC to have a false dichotomy of "save connor or save isolde." Real life situations are never just two options. For those who use their brain, they can sometimes find a good solution.

Oh, but it's told to you many times that the demon might reappear and god knows what would happen. You're leaving on a trip that'll take days. When I picked the mage choice, I expected to arrive to a destroyed Redcliffe because Connor reactivated when I was gone.

BUT NOPE, IT'S THE HAPPY CHOICE. THE DEMON TOOK 3-5 DAYS OFF.

I always consider it as Captain Kirk/Picard thinking.

[RevengeofNewton]

Collider wrote...

Had they not given you that choice, and the magi council was still intact, then it would make no sense to not have that choice.

Um, they could easily make it impossible for the mage circle to have recovered enough to be able to help, or have the demon had a protective spell that makes mages unable to confront her in the fade :/ It's their lore, they can figure out how to adapt it to make the decision more morally ambiguous.

Or they can make that choice available to people who want it. You're trying to dictate how others play the game.

[Collider]

RevengeofNewton wrote...

Collider wrote...

Had they not given you that choice, and the magi council was still intact, then it would make no sense to not have that choice.

Um, they could easily make it impossible for the mage circle to have recovered enough to be able to help, or have the demon had a protective spell that makes mages unable to confront her in the fade :/ It's their lore, they can figure out how to adapt it to make the decision more morally ambiguous.

Or they can make that choice available to people who want it. You're trying to dictate how others play the game.

No, that's different. I'm not dictating how they play their game. I'm suggesting to Bioware that they should make choices more morally ambiguous and tough.

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

How is it tough, connor and isolde were annoying, I could care if either or both of them died.

Modifié par Merlin Dawnweaver, 02 septembre 2010 - 03:05 .

[Dave of Canada]

Collider wrote...

No, that's different. I'm not dictating how they play their game. I'm suggesting to Bioware that they should make choices more morally ambiguous and tough.

I found the game had too many "happy endings" for a game that called itself dark.

[Dr. wonderful]

Double post FTF

Modifié par Dr. wonderful, 02 septembre 2010 - 03:05 .

[Lord_Valandil]

Dave of Canada wrote...
BUT NOPE, IT'S THE HAPPY CHOICE. THE DEMON TOOK 3-5 DAYS OFF.

That was pretty lame, in my opinion.

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Collider wrote...

No, that's different. I'm not dictating how they play their game. I'm suggesting to Bioware that they should make choices more morally ambiguous and tough.

I found the game had too many "happy endings" for a game that called itself dark.

A choice over a stack of lyrium potion and a bag of sovereigns would matter more then survival of annoying NPCs - to some.
If a happy solution didn't exist, I think people will just stop caring and pick whichever paid more.

Ultimately a game can only be as serious as any form of entertainment. If there isn't enough light in a setting to make a player care, they will turn into a munchkin. That's why IMHO 100% crapsack worlds are detrimental.

Modifié par Merlin Dawnweaver, 02 septembre 2010 - 03:09 .

[Dave of Canada]

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

A choice over a stack of lyrium potion and a bag of sovereigns would matter more then survival of annoying NPCs - to some.
If a happy solution didn't exist, I think people will just stop caring and pick whichever paid more.

Ultimately a game can only be as serious as any form of entertainment. If there isn't enough light in a setting to make a player care, they will turn into a munchkin. That's why IMHO 100% crapsack worlds are detrimental.

But when you make these choices in character, it's a thousand times more difficult (because you don't know if the mage tower is a good choice) and sit there to think. Another example from Mass Effect 2 that was ruined with an easy way out was the Tali choice, you're given good reasoning on both and none of  them are good or evil but there's a charm / intimidate option that makes the choice meaningless and you get a happy ending where everything is sunshine and lolipops.

[Collider]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

A choice over a stack of lyrium potion and a bag of sovereigns would matter more then survival of annoying NPCs - to some.
If a happy solution didn't exist, I think people will just stop caring and pick whichever paid more.

Ultimately a game can only be as serious as any form of entertainment. If there isn't enough light in a setting to make a player care, they will turn into a munchkin. That's why IMHO 100% crapsack worlds are detrimental.

But when you make these choices in character, it's a thousand times more difficult (because you don't know if the mage tower is a good choice) and sit there to think. Another example from Mass Effect 2 that was ruined with an easy way out was the Tali choice, you're given good reasoning on both and none of  them are good or evil but there's a charm / intimidate option that makes the choice meaningless and you get a happy ending where everything is sunshine and lolipops.

I have to disagree on that one. First of all, you need to lie or otherwise not tell the Admiralty Board the truth. There's no real save everyone with no consequences ending there. The consequence of using charm/rally is that you don't get to tell the truth (which is what Rael and Shala wanted you to do, so not *everyone* is happy) Also, not revealing the evidence means that the Admiralty Board is still 50/50 (revealing the evidence moves them towards peace) on going to war - which would be detrimental if you plan to use the Quarians against the Reapers.

[Dave of Canada]

Collider wrote...

I have to disagree on that one. First of all, you need to lie or otherwise not tell the Admiralty Board the truth. There's no real save everyone with no consequences ending there. The consequence of using charm/rally is that you don't get to tell the truth (which is what Rael and Shala wanted you to do, so not *everyone* is happy) Also, not revealing the evidence means that the Admiralty Board is still 50/50 (revealing the evidence moves them towards peace) on going to war - which would be detrimental if you plan to use the Quarians against the Reapers.

Mm. My memory must be fuzzy, I remember saying the evidence made Tali hate me and made the Quarians divided on continuing the research or going for peace, causing more infighting.

[Arrtis]

I want to be a defiant hawke.*can lead to evil things*

Like if Flemeth asks me to deliver something...I wanna say:

/sure(toss the package later)

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

Dave, those other choices were no more meaningful then the one you have to work for if they both suck. I never have the IC and OOC issue because my character is also a munchkin (He sided with Jowan in Origin because there are shinies in the basement) .
I can see that these choices can be more difficult for those who worry about moral and stuff.
Just remember that if you pose a hard problem, some people will refuse to solve it.

Modifié par Merlin Dawnweaver, 02 septembre 2010 - 03:52 .

[Raltar]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Collider wrote...

No, that's different. I'm not dictating how they play their game. I'm suggesting to Bioware that they should make choices more morally ambiguous and tough.

I found the game had too many "happy endings" for a game that called itself dark.

A thousand times this.  I was quite shocked when I was presented with options that would basically have no negative effects at all when the game was billed as Dark Fantasy.  There was no dark, really.  It was just bloody.  I don't exactly have a problem with the option to save the day, but it was still quite a shock when I was expecting a lot of situations where something bad had to happen no matter what.

They don't seem to be pushing Dragon Age 2 as dark fantasy like they did with Origins, though...so I'm not expecting any real bad chocies that need to be made.

[Collider]

They don't seem to be pushing Dragon Age 2 as dark fantasy like they did with Origins, though...so I'm not expecting any real bad chocies that need to be made.

Actually, given what they've said about the morality in this game, and that Bioware games seem to be becoming more and more morally complex or ambiguous, I am pretty hopeful.

[Reaverwind]

Raltar wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Collider wrote...

No, that's different. I'm not dictating how they play their game. I'm suggesting to Bioware that they should make choices more morally ambiguous and tough.

I found the game had too many "happy endings" for a game that called itself dark.

A thousand times this.  I was quite shocked when I was presented with options that would basically have no negative effects at all when the game was billed as Dark Fantasy.  There was no dark, really.  It was just bloody.  I don't exactly have a problem with the option to save the day, but it was still quite a shock when I was expecting a lot of situations where something bad had to happen no matter what.

Same here. I found myself having to do some meta-gaming to justify taking anything but the "sunshine and rainbows" option.

[Mecha Tengu]

hmm I liked fallout 3's karma system. Being good or evil didnt depend all on choices, but also all the real time actions you took



for example you could murder an entire town of people

[Dave of Canada]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

hmm I liked fallout 3's karma system. Being good or evil didnt depend all on choices, but also all the real time actions you took

The game was rather stupid about it, though.

"Oops, I accidently picked up a wine bottle that didn't belong to me."
"DIE THIEF"
"YOU'RE A MONSTER"
"THREE DOG HERE AND THIS GUY IS A DOUCHE"

[Anarya]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

hmm I liked fallout 3's karma system. Being good or evil didnt depend all on choices, but also all the real time actions you took

The game was rather stupid about it, though.

"Oops, I accidently picked up a wine bottle that didn't belong to me."
"DIE THIEF"
"YOU'RE A MONSTER"
"THREE DOG HERE AND THIS GUY IS A DOUCHE"

That's how Bethesda rolls. NPCs with x-ray vision and loads of worthless objects you can accidentally steal and cause a massive freakout.