309 réponses à ce sujet

[Aggie Punbot]

Halae Dral wrote...There are a lot of people who wouldn't take the 'best, easiest' option even if it is relatively obvious.

And as this thread illustrates, there are also a lot of people that take the third option kicking and screaming, bitterly resenting its very existence.

[upsettingshorts]

That's why I save my righteous indignation for the systemic imbalance in Mass Effect's Paragon/Renegade system!

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 octobre 2010 - 09:52 .

[Aggie Punbot]

Halae Dral wrote...

Going to the Circle of Magi didn't make sense, because of the distances involved if nothing else - even if you had previously completed the quest, it would still take days if not weeks to get there and back.

Teagan states that it's a day's journey, so it would take two days at most.

[Chuvvy]

Screw cop outs.

[silentassassin264]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Seems to me that a few of you seem to resent the fact that you choose to meta-game. Try doing a bit of actual role playing instead of meta-gaming for once. You might find it makes your gaming experience a bit happier. I prefer the third option too but my jerk male Cousland simply says that the Tower is too far and decides who to kill based solely on the information he has. Role playing: not just for sissies.

I still make the choice I feel my character would make in that situation but the problem I have with it is that the game recognizes that there is a better option because there is and treats it like you were being lazy if chose to sacrifice Isolde rather than return to the mage tower even if you wouldn't know that that option was right.

In the Mass Effect rally the crowd example, you know Tali would rather take the fall rather than have her father's name ruined so you know turning over the evidence will end badly for your relationship with Tali and you know if you don't turn it over Tali will be exiled (yes I am ignoring Paragon/Renegade because they are lame).  In DA:O it is like having Reegar die on Haestrom so you can't rally the crowd and then Tali still getting angry with you for some odd reason (even if you do the normal good Tali exiled response) because the game knows that they third option was there and you were just being stupid and not doing it (even though you couldn't have).  That is why I didn't like the third options in DA:O. 

[tmp7704]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Seems to me that a few of you seem to resent the fact that you choose to meta-game. Try doing a bit of actual role playing instead of meta-gaming for once. You might find it makes your gaming experience a bit happier. I prefer the third option too but my jerk male Cousland simply says that the Tower is too far and decides who to kill based solely on the information he has. Role playing: not just for sissies.

In typical cases that's hardly useful for someone who isn't roleplaying lazy **** or a masochist. Presuming people are meta-gaming rather than maybe roleplay a sensible character who tries to make the best out of tough situations is... well presumptuous.

[In Exile]

[quote]Village Idiot wrote...

While I can certainly see your point of view, I think we are given some hints as to the nature of that decision and the danger it represents.[/quote]

That is not what I said, however. My criticism was not that it was poorly designed because it was hard to forsee consequences from it. I argue that it is poorly designed because it springs a series of traps on the player: (i) that Flemeth only saved the Grey Wardens for the purpose of trapping the archdemon; (ii) that Morrigan was in fact in on this scheme from the start, and that she was acting at least as early as post-Ostagar, if not pre-Ostagar at the ruins; (iii) that the player will have no opportunity to chase Morrigan, Flemeth or the child to receive an in-game resolution to this plot; and (iv) that the true conflict of the blight is much greater than stoping it, which makes the task of the PC in a broader sense irrelevant to the true underlying conflict.

[quote]This happens through other characters,  (at least that's what I think).  In particular I think Wynne speaks to the nature of a grey warden.  Regardless of what you think you of her preachiness, her words can be taken as a sort of context clue.  There is no doubt about it, you are endangering the world by going through with the dark ritual and for purely selfish reasons.  If we place this in contrast to Wynne's "love is selfish speech" and "grey warden's shielding man" allegory, then I'd argue that the whole game alludes toward that decision.[/quote]

A contextual cue of what? You can certainly argue that this foreshadows the ultimate fate of the warden (i.e. the US) but how does the notion of sacrifice foreshadow a blood magic ritual to preserve the soul of an archdemon in the original state of as an untainted old god?

[quote]I don't see it as "gotcha" more "aha."  This is the moment that Wynne has been describing.  Morrigan herself makes a similar assertion when she asks a similar question though not in the same vein if the Warden is in a relationship with Alistair. Again, we see that sacrifice versus selfishness can be gleaned as a prominent theme.  At least, that's how I see it.[/quote]

Again, how does this foreshadow the ritual itself? The fact that the Warden is a tool in a web designed by Flemeth, an enemy that cannot be fought or addressed? 

[quote[How you see that importance is in relation to your point of view.  For me, the Warden is one prominent figure in Ferelden's history, but she is not the be all end all.  For me this makes the game unique.[/quote]

The Warden is an irrelevant puppet. Simply put, there is nothing special in what you do. You do not meaningfully change or alter the world.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And yet I managed to play a coward
with social anxiety problems.[/quote]

We've had this debate
before. I insist that you in fact have not; that for you to assert this
is to make a fundamental category error in misconstruing what the game
allows as possible.

It is, in essence, equivalent to my saying that I managed to play a qunari. In fact, I can prove that by your standard of justifiable evidence in-game as centered on the exclusive experience of the player, it is perfectly appropriate for me to play as a RPG as a qunari, and this is a viable in-game origin.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
This is one of the rare times when I disagree with you, I guess. Are you sure you mean "unimportant" there?

Yes, but with an important qualification.

Traditionally, the role of the hero is often to restore the world to some status quo ante, which is simply presumed to be good. It's an important role for him, but he doesn't have a lot of choice about his role precisely because he is a hero. Don't confuse being important with having agency.

And here we have it. I essentially do not think restoring the world to a status quo ante is meaningful when there is a more fundamental underlying conflict that is introduced.

Put another way, let's suppose that during KoTOR, instead of playing the story of your PC, you are in fact playing the role of Trask. What Trask does is in a sense important; if the PC died on the Endar Spire, the conflict with Malak likely reaches a much worse conclusion. But at the same time, Trask's personal story and struggle is comparatively unimportant with what the PC and the crew of the Ebon Hawke do.

My contention is that by introducing the DR, the issue of the nature of the blight, the Xanatos Gamble of Flemeth to capture the soul of an archdemon, we essentially change the driving conflict of the story; the blight becomes an irrelevant backdrop to something much greater, and the Warden is effectively reduced to Trask.

Besides that, the Warden does have some effect on the world beyond stopping the Blight. At the end of the game there are new monarchs in Ferelden and Orzammar, whom the Warden essentially chooses from what's admittedly a very limited menu. And a few other things.

Ozammar would have had a new monarch regardless, since Bhelen murdered his family with no impentus from the Blight. Who would have been King is obviously up in the air, but a new King would have been chosen.

The only change the Warden makes to any part of Ferelden is (i) potentially lifting the curse of a few humans in the Brecillian forest; and (ii) choosing a new Monarch in Ferelden (which may have happened anyway, if Anora was put aside for the Orlesian Empress; we might even have had a revolt by Loghain regardless).

None of this is particularly far-reaching.

Brockololly wrote...
I think the issue is that for all of the
"big" decisions like the who you sided with or the result of the DR- you
never see any consequences to those actions outside of the epilogue
slides- and even there you get nothing with respect to the DR choice. If
you go through with the DR, the Old God Baby may change the world, but
who the hell knows when we'll see that or if that will just be swept
under the rug as a dinky cameo in the future like most consequences to
branching choices seem to.

I just think it changes
the nature of the game. It takes focus away from your entire struggle
throughout the story and focuses on a deep subplot your isolated from.
If there was some kind of strong attachment to the blight itself perhaps
I would be more lenient, but essentially the blight is like a force of
nature you stop, and isn't even featured in 85% of the game. You see it
once at Ostagar and then you kill the archdemon 50 hours (or like a few
month gamewise) at Denerim.

[Sherbet Lemon]

In Exile wrote...
That is not what I said, however. My criticism was not that it was poorly designed because it was hard to forsee consequences from it. I argue that it is poorly designed because it springs a series of traps on the player: (i) that Flemeth only saved the Grey Wardens for the purpose of trapping the archdemon; (ii) that Morrigan was in fact in on this scheme from the start, and that she was acting at least as early as post-Ostagar, if not pre-Ostagar at the ruins; (iii) that the player will have no opportunity to chase Morrigan, Flemeth or the child to receive an in-game resolution to this plot; and (iv) that the true conflict of the blight is much greater than stoping it, which makes the task of the PC in a broader sense irrelevant to the true underlying conflict.

I apologize, I misunderstood.  I think I'm starting to see that we are coming at this from two completely different perspectives.  Your concern arises from what you as a player desire to do in so far as freedom and choice.  I believe that I am looking at this from the persepective how the narrative plays out.  Still, you were/are a puppet from the start.  In most instances, you had to be conscripted by Duncan in order to become a Grey Warden and there was nothing you can do about it in any case.  I'm not being facetious when I ask this, merely curious, but does it bother you that you couldn't choose to not be a Grey Warden?  In the narrative, the written story of the game, it makes sense for Flemeth's machinations to come to a head as they did.  This makes the writing more compelling and establishes depth.  Your character was outsmarted and powerless to an older, craftier demon/witch thing, an entity that has navigated the world for a very long time.  As far as believable storytelling goes, this makes sense.

A contextual cue of what? You can certainly argue that this foreshadows
the ultimate fate of the warden (i.e. the US) but how does the notion of
sacrifice foreshadow a blood magic ritual to preserve the soul of an
archdemon in the original state of as an untainted old god?

That you will eventually have to make a choice which speaks to the Ultimate Sacrifice or the Dark Ritual.  Choosing between selfishness and sacrifice.  You are told that repeatedly.  I guess I don't understand what you don't see.  If you mean the specifics of the DR, no there is nothing that hints at Flemeth's and Morrigan's true purpose, but it is implied that Morrigan is untrustworthy, and furthermore, that  your character will have come to point where you will be making the world subject to your own selfish desires if you wish which you are if you chose the godbaby.  Surely your character in the game will take Wynne's advice and consider it (or not depending on your character), but you at home playing the game, will know that a time will come where you have to make this choice.  Of course you will make the choice in character, but the narrative itself foreshadows the possibility of such a decision.  Books do this all of the time, and while I don't want to discuss the nature of video game as text, I'd argue (at least in my opinion) the writers were perhaps using this device to alert the player of a potential possible choice.  That is what I meant.

The Warden is an irrelevant puppet. Simply put, there is nothing special
in what you do. You do not meaningfully change or alter the world.

But you were always a puppet.  You were conscripted.  You didn't freely run out and join the Grey Wardens.  To take that even further, Ferelden would have been overrun and everything destroyed.  The blight would have probably been stopped by the Orlesians, but many more would have died and that's important enough for me.  I guess we just disagree on the nature of what is meaningful and relevent.

Modifié par Village Idiot, 08 octobre 2010 - 03:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

But then why would any rational being not pick the 3rd choice?

Because there's no valid in-character reason to do so.

Just because the third choice is available doesn't mean it will be apparent to the player, and even if it is apparent the the player it might no be an in-character thing for the PC to do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And yet I managed to play a coward with social anxiety problems.

We've had this debate before. I insist that you in fact have not; that for you to assert this is to make a fundamental category error in misconstruing what the game allows as possible.

It is, in essence, equivalent to my saying that I managed to play a qunari. In fact, I can prove that by your standard of justifiable evidence in-game as centered on the exclusive experience of the player, it is perfectly appropriate for me to play as a RPG as a qunari, and this is a viable in-game origin.

It would have to have been an especially small Qunari, given that your character is represented on screen.

And the game wouldn't accommodate it well, given that you're not permitted to assert any familiarity with the Qun when talking to Sten.

Whereas, it was very easy to defer to your companions when decisions needed to be made (I recall this is one of your complaints with a silent protagonist generally).  My cripplingly shy elf was basically the anti-Virgil.  He had ambition, but no follow-though.  He avoided apeaking to people if at all possible (so no side-quests for him).  He refused to make decisions.  He feared conflict, and had no conflict resolution skills, always choosing instead to avoid conflict (which he was bad at doing, so things went wrong a lot).

The only way this wasn't possible (this thinkg I did for dozens of hours) is if you make multiple entirely unnecessary assumptions about the game.  These categorical errors you describe are limitations of your own making.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It would have to have been an especially small Qunari, given that your character is represented on screen.

A clever disguise for a midget qunari. Your character, you see, knows the truth. That the others see you as non-qunari is merely failure of their perception.

This all follows from your thesis that the final authority on what is authentic in the game is the experience and internal mental state of your character. It makes it possible to literally fit any theory to the game (including, as I argued in the other thread, that Duncan is alive and well - and even in your party! - and all other characters are suffering from a mass delusion at Ostagar). In fact, I could plausibly argue that you are a philosopher teaching introducton to ethics at Standford while playing Dragon Age by this making the only acceptable standard of in-game evidence the internal experience of the player, and taking all other characters in the game as unreliable.

And the game wouldn't accommodate it well, given that you're not permitted to assert any familiarity with the Qun when talking to Sten.

But you are the one who says that the dialogue choices do not represent what you say. So you in fact may be doing just that. Or you may be choosing not to.

The game accomodates it beautifully, because the only final arbiter of what is real is your character. Sten is simply insane. Your character clearly speaks to him and even reveals he is a qunari; but Sten for whatever reason does not comprehend this and acts as if you are from Ferelden. Like Trask, he may well be insane or lying. What matters is that your character knows the truth, which is that she is a qunari on a very important mission.

Whereas, it was very easy to defer to your companions when decisions needed to be made (I recall this is one of your complaints with a silent protagonist generally). 

Yes, but RPGs are unstable in the sense that they both require the PC to be a dominant alpha type personality in leading the party as well as a shy follower in cut-scenes.

Put another way, I would argue that it is impossible (supposing that you do use an external as opposed to internal standard of evidence in-game) to have a character that does not at certain points take dominant charge of a scene.

The only way this wasn't possible (this thinkg I did for dozens of hours) is if you make multiple entirely unnecessary assumptions about the game.  These categorical errors you describe are limitations of your own making.

No; the issue is that you assume that the mere fact that the game allows something to occur justifies your presupositions about why that thing occurs. Put another way, this is Hume's critique of constant conjuctions as causality.

Put another way: the game is designed so that the plot advances through the killing of enemies. It is not in fact neccesary to roleplay to beat the game. Merely advancing through the game, as a consequence, does not justify that a particular personality could, if actually put in that situation, actually allow for the neccesary series of events leading to the resolution of the game to happen.

For example: my character concept is (for one) not even a living being but rather an artificial construct. It does not speak. It merely loudly screetches whenever it opens its mouth. For whatever reason, the other characters respond to this artifical automaton as if it was not screetching but rather speaking (since I am using your theory of non-literal dialogue). They are perhaps insane, or have some other motivation. My mindless screetching automaton can complete the game. Would you take this as evidence that, in fact, mindless screetching automatons are a valid character concept

One last shot: right now I can imagine myself floating over my desk. Yet it is true by the laws of physics that such a thing is in fact impossible, as an empirical question. My criticism of your approach is that you are taking the thought experiment as proof of the physical possibility.

[In Exile]

[quote]Village Idiot wrote...
I apologize, I misunderstood.  I think I'm starting to see that we are coming at this from two completely different perspectives.  Your concern arises from what you as a player desire to do in so far as freedom and choice.  I believe that I am looking at this from the persepective how the narrative plays out. [/quote]

The issue with that is that the narrative, up to that point, was exclusively about empowering you as superior. Had the story been designed around a falible hero, or a flawed hero, or even a hero who was caught up in a web far beyond his control (take, for example, Alpha Protocol from a narrative standpoint) I would not have an issue with it.

From a purely narrative standpoint, my complaint is that the DR essentially flipped the narrative around on you, and you went from all powerful hero to having been absolutely manipulated for the course of the story. And the game did not set you up for this.

[quote]Still, you were/are a puppet from the start.  In most instances, you had to be conscripted by Duncan in order to become a Grey Warden and there was nothing you can do about it in any case. [/quote]

I do have one significant criticism of how the Grey Warden identity was carried out, but not in regard to the conscription. That part is reasonable. After all, it was the result of forces acting outside the control of the player. And these are well established in each Origin. For the Noble dwarf, it is go with Duncan or die. For the city elf, execution or Duncan. For the Cousland, the same. For the Dalish, doubly so. The only weak spot (IMO, at least) is the Mage, if you do conspire with the First Enchanter.

Nevertheless - there is nothing wrong with being a victim of circumstances outside your control so long as the game conveys the fact that you are in a very real sense at the mercy of these forces.

[quote[I'm not being facetious when I ask this, merely curious, but does it bother you that you couldn't choose to not be a Grey Warden?[/quote]

I have two answers to this question. In regard to the conscription, as I said above, no. It was either that, or death.

In regard tio the identity, however, once you get past Ostagar the game essentially assumes you are a Grey Warden in the more profoujnd sense that you have accepted the mission of a Grey Warden and made that a primary part of who you are.

And that was something I hated. The game absolutely failed to hook me on the identity of a Grey Warden. I would not have had an issue with this had you started the game as a Grey Warden, but essentially the assumption was that every origin would simply throw away their past life and fully adopt the role of Warden (whether selfish or no) and I had a tremendous issue with that.

Take the Wynne dialogue, for instance. You have the option of saying that being a Warden means you are owed obedience, or you are a hero, or something inbetween. But you do not have the option of saying that you do not consider yourself a Warden, despite the Joining, and that once you defeat the blight you will return to your old life, everyone else be damned.

[quote]In the narrative, the written story of the game, it makes sense for Flemeth's machinations to come to a head as they did. [/quote]

I disagree entirely. In the narrative, we have absolutely no indication that Flemeth is anything more than a bit character until 2 hours prior to the end of the game. It makes very little sense for Flemeth to even have such manchinations. For one, there is no reason to even believe such a thing as the DR could even be possible. There is no reason to believe there would be any reason to preserve an old god, and not even a reason neccesarily to assume that archdemon is an old god to begin with.

This was a development that made very little sense, since as far as we knew prior to that point Flemeth was an ancient abomination that lived isolated within a swamp and extended her (its?) life by swapping bodies with a young girl that she (it?) raised.

[quote]This makes the writing more compelling and establishes depth.  Your character was outsmarted and powerless to an older, craftier demon/witch thing, an entity that has navigated the world for a very long time.  As far as believable storytelling goes, this makes sense.[/quote]

Your character was not outsmarted. You just had a plot shift thrown at you. When you think about it, Flemeth's entire plan is absolutely insane. Take two rookie Grey Wardens, alone and isolated, hope that these two alone can bring toghether an entire army to fight the darkspawn, that these two alone somehow survive to reach the archedemon, are willing to perform who knows what sort of unknown ritual, and then somehow manage to land the final blow on the archdemon to make everything work.

This is a trap; but it is not a trap in the sense that it introduces a major unresovable plot point seconds away from the finale and absolutely robs it of any meaning and steam.

[quote]That you will eventually have to make a choice which speaks to the Ultimate Sacrifice or the Dark Ritual.  Choosing between selfishness and sacrifice.[/quote]

It is very hard to qualify the dark ritual as selfish. At first, I believed that it would free you from the taint, so I saw it as an incredible kind of temptaton. A chance to push the reset button, to walk away from everything with no strings attached. All at the cost of doing what some ancient abomination wants.

But it isn't even that. It just is a chance to avoid you or Alistair/Loghain or Riordan from dying. Essentially, you win one extra arrow for your quiver. That's it. It's not particualrly tempting at all.

[quote]You are told that repeatedly.  I guess I don't understand what you don't see.[/quote]

For one, I think the DR choice as constructed is stupid with very little potential payoff. It essentially covers a contigency that is so unlikely that it borders on the absurd. 

[quote]If you mean the specifics of the DR, no there is nothing that hints at Flemeth's and Morrigan's true purpose, but it is implied that Morrigan is untrustworthy, [/quote]

Right, because Morrigan being a liar absolutely makes the DR reasonable. Except that it absolutely doesn't. And I am not refering to the specifics of the DR at all; I am refering to the dramatic shift in focus on the antagonist and the potential plot string of DA:O.

Suddenly the entire blight becomes an irrelevant backdrop to the machinations of some ancient abomination, who beside making a far more interesting antagonist, is absolutely out of your reach as the player. Poor, poor execution.

[quote]and furthermore, that  your character will have come to point where you will be making the world subject to your own selfish desires if you wish which you are if you chose the godbaby.  Surely your character in the game will take Wynne's advice and consider it (or not depending on your character), but you at home playing the game, will know that a time will come where you have to make this choice. [/quote]

You keep trying to make this about selfish v unselfish, but it really isn't. For one, you can tell Morrigan to stuff it and have Alistair/Loghain take one for the team, so you can be perfectly selfish that way. For another, like I said before, the DR is about as temping as iceberg insurance, since all that it protects you is from the very unlikely case that every other Grey Warden but you is dead. Putting aside how blindly stupid Riordan's plan to attack the archdemon with 3 Grey Wardens instead of hundreds is, given that only a Grey Warden can actually stop a blight is.

[quote]Of course you will make the choice in character, but the narrative itself foreshadows the possibility of such a decision.  Books do this all of the time, and while I don't want to discuss the nature of video game as text, I'd argue (at least in my opinion) the writers were perhaps using this device to alert the player of a potential possible choice.  That is what I meant.[/quote]

But if a book is a political thriller, and then book ends with the main character discovering his lying girlfriend had magic powers that could just zap the antagonist away, something went wrong in your narrative.

This is my charge against DA:O, with the execution of the DR. It is not just a plot switch with no prior justification; it is such a dramatic shift in the overall narrative that it effectively invalides the game and the narrative techinque used to tell the story up to that point.

[quote]But you were always a puppet.  You were conscripted.  You didn't freely run out and join the Grey Wardens. [/quote]

Not at all. There is a distinction between being a victim of circumstance, circumstance that you directly experience and can actively see how it would lead to conscription being your salvation, and simply being let to believe one thing is reality and seconds from the finale having it revealed to you that quite another thing is in fact reality.

[quote] To take that even further, Ferelden would have been overrun and everything destroyed.  The blight would have probably been stopped by the Orlesians, but many more would have died and that's important enough for me.  I guess we just disagree on the nature of what is meaningful and relevent.
[/quote]

Well, for one, if you stopped a blight that was raging that would have felt more meaningful. But just as with the Trask example - the blight is not the real conflict. Stoping it just makes you the footnote in the real conflict. And to me, that is not meaningful at all.

[Wyndham711]

I saw the narrative as more a personal story of growth and development for my Warden. The question whether or not he made any meaningful difference was actually part of the charm of the game. Many of the superficially heroic or important deeds in the game can be analyzed and it becomes clear that actually the Warden's influence might not have been at all necessary.

I think my Warden even realized this himself, and towards the end of the game and especially during Awakening and all the later DLC quests, he really started to doubt if anything he does actually matters. He had the distinct feeling of living on borrowed time (both because of being a Warden and because of the Dark Ritual) and not making any good use of it.

When time went by, he became more and more obsessed about his child. All his other achievements gradually started loosing meaning in his mind, and all he could think about was the baby, since in it he saw some permanence and importance that helped him deal with the ideas of living on as a person who really should already be dead.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

A clever disguise for a midget qunari. Your character, you see, knows the truth. That the others see you as non-qunari is merely failure of their perception.[/quote]
Yes, that would work fine.
[quote]This all follows from your thesis that the final authority on what is authentic in the game is the experience and internal mental state of your character. It makes it possible to literally fit any theory to the game (including, as I argued in the other thread, that Duncan is alive and well - and even in your party! - and all other characters are suffering from a mass delusion at Ostagar). In fact, I could plausibly argue that you are a philosopher teaching introducton to ethics at Standford while playing Dragon Age by this making the only acceptable standard of in-game evidence the internal experience of the player, and taking all other characters in the game as unreliable. [/quote]
I'm glad you understand.  I agree entirely.
[quote]But you are the one who says that the dialogue choices do not represent what you say.[/quote]
They do not represent exactly what you say.  I allow only some wiggle room, not infinite capacity to rewrite the lines.

An abstraction needs to have some relation to the thin it is abstracting.  Otherwise is ceases to be an abstraction.  I've never claimed the lines uttered and the lines writtern were entirely unrelated.

As I conceded earlier, DAO can and does fail to allow certain types of characters to say anything that suits their character.  I'm still surprised that you recognise this (in fact, you were the one who pointed it out to me), and yet when ME does so much more restrictively you find that acceptable simply because it doesn't suprise you (even though it does surprise others).
[quote]

The game accomodates it beautifully, because the only final arbiter of what is real is your character. Sten is simply insane. Your character clearly speaks to him and even reveals he is a qunari; but Sten for whatever reason does not comprehend this and acts as if you are from Ferelden. Like Trask, he may well be insane or lying. What matters is that your character knows the truth, which is that she is a qunari on a very important mission. [/quote]
With Trask, I never suggested that the game allowed you to tell him that you were a squid alien in disguise.  Only that he may have had the opportunity to learn that off-screen.  That he may be insane or lying doesn't change, but what you can say within the game does.
[quote]Yes, but RPGs are unstable in the sense that they both require the PC to be a dominant alpha type personality in leading the party as well as a shy follower in cut-scenes. [/quote]
I believe you're aware that I dispute that the games require the PC to lead the party.  The party goes where the player directs, but that it's the PC making those decisions is by no means necessary.

My socially anxious character went where he was told.  And when there was a dispute among his companions he deferred to whomeveer got the last word (the failure of the others to argue further was taken as defeat).

I found it quite amusing that Alistair thought my PC was in charge, while my PC was convinced Alistair was in charge.  In that playthrough somehow both Alistair and the PC were socially inept.  it was hilarious.
[quote]Put another way, I would argue that it is impossible (supposing that you do use an external as opposed to internal standard of evidence in-game) to have a character that does not at certain points take dominant charge of a scene. [/quote]
Give me an example.  Outside of the Fade (where my character was alone, so social anxiety wouldn't be relevant), I can't think of any.
[quote]No; the issue is that you assume that the mere fact that the game allows something to occur justifies your presupositions about why that thing occurs.[/quote]
No.  The fact that the game allows something justifies the belief that it is allowed by the game.

And those presuppositions fall within that group.
[quote]Put another way: the game is designed so that the plot advances through the killing of enemies. It is not in fact neccesary to roleplay to beat the game.[/quote]
I don't agree that you've accurately described the game, here.

The game consists of a setting, wherein events take place.  Within that setting and among those events, you are given a character to control, and subsequently multiple other characters.

That's where I'd stop.  I see no reason to believe that the game includes any intended path or objective.
[quote]Merely advancing through the game, as a consequence, does not justify that a particular personality could, if actually put in that situation, actually allow for the neccesary series of events leading to the resolution of the game to happen.[/quote]
Right.  You've said this before.  You're effectively saying that the occurence of some event is not evidence that it is possible for that event to occur.
[quote]For example: my character concept is (for one) not even a living being but rather an artificial construct. It does not speak. It merely loudly screetches whenever it opens its mouth. For whatever reason, the other characters respond to this artifical automaton as if it was not screetching but rather speaking (since I am using your theory of non-literal dialogue).[/quote]
I'll stop you right there, as I don't allow that much freedom of expression.

I think the confusion has arisen because I don't view expression as at all important to personality.  Personality exists within, not without.  There's a conscious filter between those two things.
[quote]One last shot: right now I can imagine myself floating over my desk. Yet it is true by the laws of physics that such a thing is in fact impossible, as an empirical question. My criticism of your approach is that you are taking the thought experiment as proof of the physical possibility.[/quote]
Actually, there I'll agree with you.  Since I deem knowledge largely unattainable, and further since anything remains possible until it has been proven otherwise, I will absolutely allow that it's possible you're floating over your desk.

It's the classic brain-in-a-vat problem.  You can't actually trust that the laws of physics as you know them represent the true universe, or even the one you perceive.

[Alyka]

I say keep them, but only have a few quests that give you the third option.While it's true that not everything should end in a fairytale/perfect way, it's not illogical to actually have something work out the way you want it.Otherwise it would wind up being a series of unfortunate events, and the outcome would be predictable in-that, everything ends badly.So what would be the point in even trying to help other's in the first place if there's no hope that there's a chance that a win/win situation could arise?

[Patchwork]

I'm not against having a happy ending available for most quests but some like Redcliffe feel like they should be no win situations. My options were kill the mother, kill the child or leave and get the mages all should all have carried the same emotional weight. By that I mean if I left I should have come back to everyone but Isolde dead in the castle and Jowan's blood magic being the only thing holding the abomination back (I've never been able to rpg a good enough reason to request he go free but I've wanted too). There's no logical reason why going to the Tower had no consequence.



As for the DR, the pitch Morrigan gives is so hallow especially when it's Loghain and not Alistair in the party. So yeah ITA a ritual that would also free me from the taint would have been an incentive to do it because giving Morrigan a godbaby sure wasn't.

The game gave me no reason to feel like a Grey Warden, I was conscripted and everything I learned about them sucked. A short violent life, no kids and companions backseat leadering.

[AllThatJazz]

I have to admit I like 'third options', but with a couple of caveats.



1) I think the player should have to work for the third option. Really dig around in dialogue; or leave the conversation without committing, then go away and talk to others (party members? Relevant NPCs?) who maybe come up with a suggestion, then go back to the quest-giver and say 'well how about this?'. Don't just have this win-win situation on a plate, because obviously most people will go for it. Wasn't there a 'third option' in an Alpha Protocol quest that was only available on veteran difficulty? (sorry if mentioned before, haven't read the entire thread)



2) Even if option 3 seems like a win-win, make it have unforseen consequences. I dunno, Isolde ends up hating you anyway because her son was forced to go the the Circle, so late in the game she sends some assassins after the Warden or something (I know that's a really poor example, but you get my drift).

[Alyka]

AllThatJazz wrote...

I have to admit I like 'third options', but with a couple of caveats.

1) I think the player should have to work for the third option. Really dig around in dialogue; or leave the conversation without committing, then go away and talk to others (party members? Relevant NPCs?) who maybe come up with a suggestion, then go back to the quest-giver and say 'well how about this?'. Don't just have this win-win situation on a plate, because obviously most people will go for it. 

I agree.Choosing the easiest solution might not have the best outcome (although it could be what you're going for) and therefore,doing some detective work and making all that effort should give you the better outcome.

2) Even if option 3 seems like a win-win, make it have unforseen consequences. I dunno, Isolde ends up hating you anyway because her son was forced to go the the Circle, so late in the game she sends some assassins after the Warden or something (I know that's a really poor example, but you get my drift).

Agreed.Any choice you make always has consequences, whether for good or bad,small or big.

Modifié par Alyka, 08 octobre 2010 - 11:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I missed this earlier.

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Traditionally, the role of the hero is often to restore the world to some status quo ante, which is simply presumed to be good.

And here we have it. I essentially do not think restoring the world to a status quo ante is meaningful when there is a more fundamental underlying conflict that is introduced.

Perhaps my greatest complaint with RPGs (and fantasy novels) generally is this tendency for the "hero" to be trying to put everything back the way it was.  The worls was great, and then this bad guy game along threatening to ruin it, so he needs to be stopped.

As an aside, looking at it like this the Lord of the Rings is a tragedy, as Frodo and Sam ultimately fail to protect the Shire from change.

I would very much rather play or read a story about a character who has actual ambition - someone who sees something that needs fixing and sets out to fix it.  But that character in fantasy is almost always the villain.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I would very much rather play or read a story about a character who has actual ambition - someone who sees something that needs fixing and sets out to fix it.  But that character in fantasy is almost always the villain.

Holy heck, we agree completely.  I must chart this in my diary.  If I had one.  

It would be fantastic if the grand finale to the Dragon Age series would be to tear the institutions of Thedas all down and rebuild it in the player's desired image.  Especially since, like in Mass Effect 3, the writers would no longer have to concern themselves with sequel continuity.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would very much rather play or read a story about a character who has actual ambition - someone who sees something that needs fixing and sets out to fix it.  But that character in fantasy is almost always the villain.

Think it could make for interesting game -- putting the player in shoes of someone attempting to break current order (and with world at large kicking, screaming and calling them names for it) except doing it for reasons that could be potentially beneficial to society at large, rather than out of stereotypical villain desires.

[SirOccam]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Perhaps my greatest complaint with RPGs (and fantasy novels) generally is this tendency for the "hero" to be trying to put everything back the way it was.  The worls was great, and then this bad guy game along threatening to ruin it, so he needs to be stopped.

As an aside, looking at it like this the Lord of the Rings is a tragedy, as Frodo and Sam ultimately fail to protect the Shire from change.

I would very much rather play or read a story about a character who has actual ambition - someone who sees something that needs fixing and sets out to fix it.  But that character in fantasy is almost always the villain.

I think at least one reason it's often like that is that it offers more freedom. By subjecting every character to the same stimuli, the roleplaying freedom comes from how they react to it. If they were to say "right...you've made your character, now here's your goal in life" it would take a lot away from the idea of customization of your character's personality.

Alternatively, they could try to anticipate what people would like their characters to set out to do, but that seems like it would be very difficult to pull off. Such desires could vary widely, meaning little of each plot would be reuseable. One person might want to destroy the chantry and another might want to become king and another might want to incite riots and lead a revolution. It seems like the guidance of a plot is all but required, so they are then able to focus on these events that will be common to everyone.

I think that's the main reason why RPG stories tend to be plot-driven instead of character-driven. Interestingly enough, though, I think DA2 is a significant step toward being more character-driven, since there's no "ancient evil" or whatever to save the world from. We know Hawke attains the title of Champion, but how (s)he arrives at it seems to be very open. Exactly how open remains to be seen.

Modifié par SirOccam, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

Interestingly enough, though, I think DA2 is a significant step toward being more character-driven, since there's no "ancient evil" or whatever to save the world from. We know Hawke attains the title of Champion, but how (s)he arrives at it seems to be very open. Exactly how open remains to be seen.

It depends whether there's some pre-determined reason why Kirkwall needs a champion.

What we know so far does leave option the possibility that we're not going to be some sort of reluctant hero.  I hate reluctant heroes.

[Remmirath]

TS2Aggie wrote...
And as this thread illustrates, there are also a lot of people that take the third option kicking and screaming, bitterly resenting its very existence.

Which is very strange of them. If they don't like it, why are they taking it? 

TS2Aggie wrote...
Teagan states that it's a day's journey, so it would take two days at most.

All right. That's a little odd, since I'm fairly sure that Dagna in Orzammar states it takes a week or more to travel to the Tower from there (I don't recall the exact estimate she gives), and Redcliffe appears to be about the same distance.

Nonetheless, I think a lot of people would still believe that, considering the state things were in, a day or two would still be too long to leave the demon alone and free. Now, clearly, since you can go to the Tower and back and complete the quest that way it isn't -  but there's really no way your character would know that.