244 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

I'm interested in learning how people feel about 'the third option.' You know what I mean, you can 1) kill the werewolves, 2) kill the dalish, or 3) lift the curse and make everything better. You can 1) kill Isodole, 2) kill Conner, or 3) not kill anyone.

The third option is one that, usually, is best for all involved and leads to the least loss of life. It's usually a bit harder than options 1 and 2, but rarely a struggle to achieve.

I've heard arguments for and against the third option, and I tend to be ambivalent.

On one hand, I'm playing Dragon Age to be a hero. A situation where my only option is to murder a child or his mother does not make me feel like a hero. It makes me feel like a player in a game where the developer decided to put an 'ethical dilemma,' and a nasty one at that.

As the protagonist, I want to solve problems, big problems. And I want something more satisfying than saving group A by destroying group B.

On the other hand, this is dark fantasy. You shouldn't be able to solve every problem perfectly and sometimes you ought to have to make tough choices. Actually, my favorite BioWare 'ethical dilemma' is from ME 2 in A House Divided. You can choose to destroy a group of heretic geth or you can reprogram their brains so they believe what Shepard believes.

You don't have to be a *horrible person* (which is what killing a kid makes me feel like) but it's still a very thorny ethical issue in which neither outcome can be considered inherently more moral than another.


What do you think of The Third Option?

Should all difficult situations have one? Should the Champion of Kirkwall sometimes have to face problems for which there is no easy out? When do you think a Third Option should be available?

[tmp7704]

Dave of Canada made quite similar thread about month ago or so, so linking to it here for reference.

[Onyx Jaguar]

You know, I always did want a third option in some cases, but in the case of the Elves I always wanted to leave them in their plight. But I digress I felt that way about a couple of the quests in DA:O and none of them give you the apathy option.



Of the ones offered in the game, the make everyone happy one I can see it ok as a reward for actions but they are usually offered right away. In fact in the Dalish quest the reward is actually siding with the Werewolves if you can pass that check.



In the case of just two options I would rather have a risk/reward thing rather than a choose who lives or dies because that never has felt genuine to me.

[andar91]

I think it depends on the nugget of story at hand, but I, too, am ambivalent on this. While I think hard decisions are great, I don't want to feel like I'm being forced to make decisions I don't like.

[Darthnemesis2]

A lot of times I find that I am forced to make one stupid choice or another. I can't think of any examples right now, but I hate when the game is like "you have to do this or that!" and I'm like "but what about...?" but never given the option.

[jackkel dragon]

I'd like a third option, but not the "easy way out" option. More like:

a) kill/hurt person/group A
kill/hurt person/group B
c) sacrifice of self (money/resources/stats) to help A and B (perhaps not completely)

or even:

a) kill/hurt person/group A
kill/hurt person/group B
c) screw you guys

[Fortlowe]

I'd like an option involving personal, tangible sacrifice. Not a family member, or a party memeber, or an innocent, or even a belief, but actually having to decide whether to sacrifice something that will change Hawkes life and how you as the player, navigates it forever. A power, or specialty, or his home (which I'm thinking will be where Hawke will have a lot of encounters as well as being a storage space). Something that will definitely change how you will have to play the game from then on.

[fairandbalancedfan]

It is simple, in the dark world of Dragon Age where every thing is under a diktat to be all gloom and doom, your third option is all flowers and rainbows.

[silentassassin264]

As tmp noted, there is another thread but for the sake of reiterating my position. I do not like it when you have gray and gray morality and then have a deus ex machina make everything better option like Redcliffe. It removes all the grey from the choices and instead makes it, if you are a good heroic person, choose deus ex machina, if you are a heartless bastard pick one of those evil options. You can't really have grey choices if one of them is obviously right.

[Malanek]

Generally I want as many challenging choices as possible. The third option you are talking about removes the challenge, so no. Consequences become much more interesting if there are pros and cons to the decision. Sometimes having a third option when you complete a quest in a special way is OK though.

[Spartansfan8888]

I'd rather have options that aren't one way or the other strongly; or even have what you call the "third" option fail sometimes. Taking the Dalish/werewolf conflict for example: if you defeated Zathrian in the fight you would have to pass a persuade check to get him to end the curse. On the flip side the third option could involve convincing both factions that the Blight is a bigger threat than their conflict causing them both to join.

[SirOccam]

I go back and forth on the issue as well.

Take, for example, the recent speculation about having to choose between Carver and Bethany or Carver and MamaHawke, or whoever it ends up being. I can appreciate the dramatic impact a death can have, but...damn. I want my family to survive with me! My whole family!

I didn't particularly like the Ashley/Kaidan choice in ME1 either. What made that one especially bad was that it was barely followed up on afterward. Having romanced Ashley, and heard her views on why inter-squad romances were bad (it might affect your judgement), and then having made the exact kind of decision she was warning me about...I would have thought it would be something to talk about at least.

Fable III actually had some great moral quandaries, a couple with third options (though they never felt like get-out-of-jail-free cards), but most without.

Like Fortlowe mentions, I think one good way of offering these third options is to make it be a personal sacrifice. Obviously this isn't feasible when we're talking about choosing who is going to die (the game is going to be over if you chose yourself), but in other cases, I'd rather give up something of my own. I think maybe the crucial point is that *someone* has to pay. In the Connor/Mage tower dilemma, the third choice meant no one paid. But if you can pay that price yourself (whether in time, effort, or more literally, money), then it will be more meaningful.

Modifié par SirOccam, 11 novembre 2010 - 04:15 .

[Maria Caliban]

silentassassin264 wrote...

As tmp noted, there is another thread but for the sake of reiterating my position. I do not like it when you have gray and gray morality and then have a deus ex machina make everything better option like Redcliffe. It removes all the grey from the choices and instead makes it, if you are a good heroic person, choose deus ex machina, if you are a heartless bastard pick one of those evil options. You can't really have grey choices if one of them is obviously right.

For Redcliffe, how would you feel if instead of Isidole or Conner dying, you could convince the demon to go into Jowan instead of Conner and then either kill him, imprison him, or let him go?

[Ortaya Alevli]

Depends. Certainly not if it's a cheap one. Cheap as in "let's go to the Tower and save everyone, thus throwing the dramatic value out the window."

[Hamb0t]

I think the third "save everyone" option is important when your character is supposed to be some kind of champion, but I think that choosing that option should involve the most difficult following gameplay in order to make it happen. Not necessarily sacrificing game stats or anything like that. Just having to earn the "everyone is happy" outcome.



and I think a fourth option letting you choose to be ambivalent or even hostile against all groups involved should always be included to allow those wanting to play "evil" characters the option to.

[Rockworm503]

The third option usually makes me feel like I took the easy way out. Lets be honest here how often do you see it in real life where everyones satisfied? Even the best option will leave some people calling foul. The OP talks about feeling like being a hero but having to chose one side over the other makes them feel like their playing a game but its the total opposite for me. Nothing takes me out of the moment than a "yay everyone lives and nothing bad ever happens option"

The biggest problem is that I feel stupid for not taking that option because why would your character not do the best option? So personally I don't want it most of the time but sometimes its not too bad.

In mass effect its there but you have to work for it (leveling up Renegade or paragon for example) thats where I don't have much of a problem with it.

[Malanek]

Maria Caliban wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

As tmp noted, there is another thread but for the sake of reiterating my position. I do not like it when you have gray and gray morality and then have a deus ex machina make everything better option like Redcliffe. It removes all the grey from the choices and instead makes it, if you are a good heroic person, choose deus ex machina, if you are a heartless bastard pick one of those evil options. You can't really have grey choices if one of them is obviously right.

For Redcliffe, how would you feel if instead of Isidole or Conner dying, you could convince the demon to go into Jowan instead of Conner and then either kill him, imprison him, or let him go?

That would have been much more interesting. A good moral debate could have opened up about that.

[Darthnemesis2]

I think that if there is a third "everything's better" option, its gotta be something you have to actively work for. Not just a pursuade check or whatever. Its got to be something you have a real chance of failing to accomplish or else its simply an "I win!" button, which is bs - especially in a game that claims to be dark. The Redcliffe one is kinda close to this, in that you have to go and complete the Mage Tower quest to get the third option, but that's something you would have to do anyway and there's no consequence for waiting to deal with the situation. If there was some sort of repercussion for taking that third option I would like it a lot more.

[AtreiyaN7]

I generally take the third option if possible because I like helping people, but I would like to see at least a few situations where you're forced to make hard choices. I suspect that who lives or dies in the opening chapter of DA2 will be one of those dilemmas where the third option doesn't exist, so we will probably be faced with at least one (potentially) difficult decision to make. However, if I can save the whole Hawke family I will (sorry, I can't help it - *points at full paragon points on her alignment meter*).

[Mariquis]

I love third options, and I'll admit, I pretty much always choose them. I do however think there should be a significant challenging element to them. (or at the very least, an additional element, see: Kill Cauthrien/Reveal Anora (and then Kill Cauthrien)/Surrender and be taken prisoner). That was probably my favourite quest in the game. There wasn't necessarily an easy out, although I certainly couldn't call the Fort Drakon Quest difficult, and it 'punished' the character by making them complete additional tasks to get what they wanted. I love third options, but I think there should be an extra challenge ( a puzzle, or a dungeon, an appropriate series of choices to be made) in order to obtain them, so they aren't quite so 'magical' and convenient.

[maxernst]

I like to have as many options as possible, but they should all have their pluses and minuses.

[Mallissin]

Third option; Harrowmont, Bhelen or ME!

MUAHAHA! Orzammar is MINE!

All your thaigs are belong to us!

But I digress, it's nice to have a neutral option like sometimes presented in ME and a few of the DO:A quests. But for the sake of story, you really only have the choice of supporting the protagonists or antagonists but at least you can decide which is which.

A lot of people would probably bring up the Witcher in this kind of discussion, where the core of his profession's beliefs are neutrality yet you're faced with situations where you can choose sides. You're of course rewarded for your neutrality in the end (hmmm...nurse threesome), but the decisions don't amount to a lot in the story.

Modifié par Mallissin, 11 novembre 2010 - 04:23 .

[Maria Caliban]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I generally take the third option if possible because I like helping people, but I would like to see at least a few situations where you're forced to make hard choices.

I'm the same. If a third option exists, I'll always take it. I like playing a good character, and I'm only going to make those hard decisions if there isn't an alternative that's obviously better.

At the same time, I don't mind working hard to get that 'better than any other' outcome. I just didn't see finishing a quest the PC *has to do* as being that difficult.

[DarthCaine]

I think they should replace the third option with "Everybody dies".

Anyway, if a "happily ever after" option is present I always take it, though I prefer it when choices are tough, so no I wouldn't like a third option. I might even think of DA as dark fantasy if there wasn't a third option

Modifié par DarthCaine, 11 novembre 2010 - 04:27 .