244 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Did you really need Legion to point out to you that reprogramming a geth is akin to brainwashing a human?

He also says that applying organic logic to their situation is basically "racist" and implies that such comparisons are unreliable at best, prejudicial and inaccurate at worst.  That decision is only, in my view, superficially simple.

I've gone back and forth with that one in my "me" games.  Finally settling on blowing them up for a specific reason unrelated to the question of the morality of "brainwashing."

Edit: I'll only go into it further in this thread if asked.

Right! And that's a perfectly valid viewpoint. I'm not arguing that one take on the situation is better than another. Everyone has their own thoughts on the situation, which is fine.

All I'm saying is that by the time BioWare offers me a decision, I probably already know what my current character would do. And after my first playthrough, I know exactly what my current character will do before I even start the game.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 12 novembre 2010 - 09:30 .

[Zjarcal]

In Exile wrote...

The odds of that are so low, the offer is stupid. It only works in the scenario where you have survived to the archdemon instead of Alistar/Loghain and Riordan (and either of you could die on the way) and haven't suffered any fatal injuries fighting the thing.

Killing the archdemon with only three Grey Wardens is already such an insane longshot, that when you start accounting only for this one super special eventuality where you can die...

Well, I don't see it.

Zjarcal wrote...

Oh I know, but from an RP perspective,
you couldn't know if Alistair or Loghain would even make it to the AD.
Sort of like Riordan also offering to make the final blow but failing at
it. So for my PCs doing the DR is the only way to make sure that they
really have a chance of surviving the battle

From an RP perspective, there is no way of knowing you won't die.

Here are the things you need to do:

1) Survive initial darkspawn assault
2) Fight throughout Denerim
3) Not die during all of this
4) Somehow corner a flying dragon
5) Injure and cripple flying dragon (if someone steals your kill, everyone is screwed)
6) Not die or get mortally wounded during all of this
7) Get final blow

The odds of surviving to the end are so insane, that if you are actually willing to go through with this stupid half-cocked plan of Riordan's instead of abandoning Ferelden and waiting for 400 Grey Wardens from Orlais.

Seriously, the endgame plot is so stupid.

Well, if we go by that logic, EVERYTHING in the game is stupid.

A party of four defeating the mini army Ser Cauthrien brings at Howe's estate.  A party of four cleansing an tower filled with abominations that even Templars couldn't kill. A party of four making it through the Deep Roads unscathed. Two elves killing dozens of guards in the CE origin. A single warden making her (his) way out of the Fade. A single warden making it out of Ford Drakon. Surviving fireballs and blizzards. Easily killing a High Dragon. Etc, etc, etc.

If anything, I find the final battle the most believable scenario because you have large armies at your disposal.

[Ziggeh]

Maria Caliban wrote...

What are the drawbacks?....What are the benefits?....How does my PC feel about this?

That's incredibly reductive! Not that that's bad, I just see them far more abstractly, that the drawbacks and benefits aren't something that can be balanced or equated. X murder dwarves != Y saved humans, etc, Are you making that kind of calculation? Do you find it tends to be one part of the puzzle (I don't see any of it as irrelevant) that becomes the deciding factor?

Maybe I'm just indecisive.

Maria Caliban wrote...

1) She saved them both. I see no reason for Eamon tobe upset about the
PC saving his wife, son, city, and life.

Indeed, the tower rather circumnavigates the issue. Sidetracking a little: aren't you told that it's not an option (even though it is)? What made you take the risk of losing the lot?

Maria Caliban wrote...

Why did you wait until BioWare gave you the option to kill the rachni queen before you decided how your PC felt about genocide vs possibly endangering the galaxy?

Hard to say, I do remember I was running lines from Aliens through my head for much of that mission. Honestly though, I can't remember if I saw it coming (I actively try not to guess, I ruin a lot of films doing that), up until you talk to "her" it's never mentioned that they might not be the purely monsterous creators you're pumping rounds into. That would have been a pretty clear cut decision, one that you could equate (even if I'd have probably gotten a little "Doctor Who" before doing so), one genocide < many genocides.

Maria Caliban wrote...

Why didn't you ask yourself if you/your PC considered geth 'people' in the original Mass Effect while you were blowing thousands of them away? I mean, you saw them praying, and that strange recording the geth kept of the singing.

Well that ones a bit more complex, as 'shorts said, I don't think applying human analogies works very well. I very much consider (and considered them) sentient entities with all the rights that should entitle, even before Legion outlined the collective angle. (I have fairly wierd ideas about what constitutes a human, let alone an AI). Again in that one the decision isn't something that I remember being forseeable, Legion asks you to do it this way, and you've got the mission to spend thinking about it (and learn more about what it is you're effecting. Again, this one has a huge list of consequences, from basic warfare morality to the potential shape of the galactic tactical position you leave them in.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 12 novembre 2010 - 10:20 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

TJPags wrote...
The whole concept that Connor sits in his room having a 'timeout' while I run off the the Tower to spend who knows how long killing abominations there, then coming back with mages . . . .well, as I said before, it suspends reason.  SOMETHING should have happened over the course of 2-3 days.

Don't forget - Connor was inside a CASTLE (you know, the thing designed to withsdanrd sieges by armies) with an army of undead. Let's also not forget he took the castle by surprise (from the inside) at the time when most of Redcliffe's forces and knights were away.

Once you got to the point of that decision, you know control the castle and many of the knights of Redcliffe returned (and more are on their way). Which means you go a decent force watching over Connor.
Realisticly, 3 people more or less won't make a big difference security-wise.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 12 novembre 2010 - 11:19 .

[thegreateski]

I'd like more then 3 options to be honest.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Piecake wrote...
Exactly, this is what so annoyed me about Redcliffe.  It simply wasnt sensible.  Failing spectacularly is not a bad thing!  Well, it is for you, but not for the story.  Believability and dramatic tension baby!  Frankly, I'd like some unexpected or unintended consequences thrown into the mix.  Choosing the good and holy option shouldnt automatically result in a good and holy outcome (I'm looking at you, Redcliffe).  Spice it up a bit!   

Refer to my previous post. It was a calculated risk, and no less sensible than other choices. The problem with it is that it's a better outcome that ALWAYS works. It's a interesting choice only on the first playtrough. Resisting metagaming after that is damn hard. A bit chance and randomization would spice things up, while still making the good ending possible.

[Ensgnblack]

I want more choices that are not so clear cut on the morality scale. I hate Evil/Good choices because its not really a choice. How are you playing your char? Good or bad? Pick that one. Its really not that fun.



COnversely choices should be much more about picking what the "better". I do not mean in a morality scale, but rather that neither choice is optimal, yet you pick one and make the best of it.



In addition there should be real consequences to these choices. Example: Connor in Redcliffe.

Kill Connor: You lose some points with Alistair and Wynne etc, but nothing really happens. The Arl still helps you, there is no real plot consequence.

Sacrifice Isolde: Same as before, lose influence, Arl helps you. Who cares.

Go into fade with mages: Better influence, Arl helps you. Ugh.



Why even give me a choice? Just ask me who I want influence with since thats the ONLY effect on the game. Why not have a choice where the Arl doesnt help me get to the Landsmeet or only helps once I kill loghain and force him to help against the Blight? Why not have a choice that causes a companion to leave but nets me some sort of benefit like a companion with special skills or an item or a new talent line or something? Give me a real choice that has game consequences.



I loved DAO, but no matter what choice you make, often there was little effect. You may lose a companion, but that was it, otherwise you worked through the same way, only getting different dialogue. COmpanion influence didnt matter AT ALL since you could make up for everything with the plethora of gifts available. Who cares if you lose 15 points if you can fix that in 3 seconds?

[Lotion Soronarr]

ziggehunderslash wrote...
 Can you trust the dwarven political system to never produce a leader who wouldn't just start chopping up "dusters" in order to field the military machine?

Could be completely irrelevant, depending how you look at it.
You can give a man a sword to defend himself, but you are nto responsible for what he (or his son) later does with it.
If some crazy dwarf king starts forcibly converting dusters to golems, it's not blood on my hands.
Once can only be held responsible for ones own actions, not actions of others.


EDIT:

I'd argue that killing off certain NPC's ARE consequences, as their deaths shape the world around you. You are influencing peoele and events.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 12 novembre 2010 - 11:54 .

[Piecake]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Piecake wrote...
Exactly, this is what so annoyed me about Redcliffe.  It simply wasnt sensible.  Failing spectacularly is not a bad thing!  Well, it is for you, but not for the story.  Believability and dramatic tension baby!  Frankly, I'd like some unexpected or unintended consequences thrown into the mix.  Choosing the good and holy option shouldnt automatically result in a good and holy outcome (I'm looking at you, Redcliffe).  Spice it up a bit!   

Refer to my previous post. It was a calculated risk, and no less sensible than other choices. The problem with it is that it's a better outcome that ALWAYS works. It's a interesting choice only on the first playtrough. Resisting metagaming after that is damn hard. A bit chance and randomization would spice things up, while still making the good ending possible.

that definitely would spice things up.  I think after participating in this topic though I'm to the point where I would like to see a situation where we experience failure just because i think that would be interesting, and i think the redcliffe would have been the perfect opportunity to do just that in DAO.  I guess I'm starting to feel that if you choose the i will save everyone option, that is exactly what you will do (perhaps that is not the case and my perception is just colored by this convo).  Im not saying that failure is simply one failure, there can be different and varying degrees of failure depending on what choice you pick, good guy, bad guy, sensible/practical option, etc included.  Has any bioware game done something like that?  dont remeber DAO or the ME games having something like that.  Its been too long since i played their other games for me to remember. 

I guess I'd like to see something different than the choices we typically have, such as choose this one for good result, choose this for evil, choose this one for practical reasons/lesser evil, etc.  Chance/randomization, unintended/unexpected, and failure thrown into that mix would spice things up a bit.  I think that is probably the thing we agree on.

[Zjarcal]

You know what could've also been an option in the Redcliffe issue, if you go for the mages solution, when you return the demon has gone loose and a HUGE fight is taking place with Teagan and all the important people from the Village (assuming they survived of course). The fight itself would be crazy hard (harder than the fight defending the village), especially if you intend to keep everyone alive.

You'd have a chance at a happy ending if you manage to survive the fight with everyone alive (which should be extremely difficult), or you could end up losing some important characters due to the risk you took. Nothing set in stone, the final outcome is still in your hands and the situation ends up making more sense.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 13 novembre 2010 - 12:23 .

[Ziggeh]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Could be completely irrelevant, depending how you look at it.
You can give a man a sword to defend himself, but you are nto responsible for what he (or his son) later does with it.
If some crazy dwarf king starts forcibly converting dusters to golems, it's not blood on my hands.
Once can only be held responsible for ones own actions, not actions of others.

True, it's more that it precludes any thoughts one might have about responsible use.

[Xewaka]

You know,I'd love to see a third option go absolutely, completely wrong.

The player punch would be delicious. The outrage and mouse/gamepad flinging, the thought of "well played, you sick devs".

[Ryzaki]

Piecake wrote...

that definitely would spice things up.  I think after participating in this topic though I'm to the point where I would like to see a situation where we experience failure just because i think that would be interesting, and i think the redcliffe would have been the perfect opportunity to do just that in DAO.  I guess I'm starting to feel that if you choose the i will save everyone option, that is exactly what you will do (perhaps that is not the case and my perception is just colored by this convo).  Im not saying that failure is simply one failure, there can be different and varying degrees of failure depending on what choice you pick, good guy, bad guy, sensible/practical option, etc included.  Has any bioware game done something like that?  dont remeber DAO or the ME games having something like that.  Its been too long since i played their other games for me to remember. 

I guess I'd like to see something different than the choices we typically have, such as choose this one for good result, choose this for evil, choose this one for practical reasons/lesser evil, etc.  Chance/randomization, unintended/unexpected, and failure thrown into that mix would spice things up a bit.  I think that is probably the thing we agree on.

Your right your perception is colored. No matter if I'm playing a good character or an darker one I don't leave redcliffe (I did it once and it was so stupid I never did it again). I always stick to killing Conner/Sacrificing Isolde. Killing Conner is the sensible and practical option though.

Though I agree on the having such decisions blow up in your face once in a while. (Like in FO3 you try to get the humans and ghouls to live together and you go back and whoops. All the humans are dead. )

[Piecake]

Ryzaki wrote...

Piecake wrote...

that definitely would spice things up.  I think after participating in this topic though I'm to the point where I would like to see a situation where we experience failure just because i think that would be interesting, and i think the redcliffe would have been the perfect opportunity to do just that in DAO.  I guess I'm starting to feel that if you choose the i will save everyone option, that is exactly what you will do (perhaps that is not the case and my perception is just colored by this convo).  Im not saying that failure is simply one failure, there can be different and varying degrees of failure depending on what choice you pick, good guy, bad guy, sensible/practical option, etc included.  Has any bioware game done something like that?  dont remeber DAO or the ME games having something like that.  Its been too long since i played their other games for me to remember. 

I guess I'd like to see something different than the choices we typically have, such as choose this one for good result, choose this for evil, choose this one for practical reasons/lesser evil, etc.  Chance/randomization, unintended/unexpected, and failure thrown into that mix would spice things up a bit.  I think that is probably the thing we agree on.

Your right your perception is colored. No matter if I'm playing a good character or an darker one I don't leave redcliffe (I did it once and it was so stupid I never did it again). I always stick to killing Conner/Sacrificing Isolde. Killing Conner is the sensible and practical option though.

Though I agree on the having such decisions blow up in your face once in a while. (Like in FO3 you try to get the humans and ghouls to live together and you go back and whoops. All the humans are dead. )

Perhaps im misunderstanding you, but the truly good option, the 'I will save everyone' option, at redcliffe is going to the mage tower.  So picking that one, you save everyone, just like picking every 'third option' gets you.  First time i did it i sacrificed isolde since i thought everyone at redcliffe would be dead if i took a 2-3 day trip to the circle tower.  So, give me the third option, i just want it to have the chance of failure occasionaly or have it blow up it my face once in a while.  I think it would be a bit too cruel/evil on bioware's part if you decided to sacrifice Isolde to kill the demon in the fade, yet you failed so you sacrificed isolde for nothing, lol.  So, perhaps im looking for one swift kick in the nuts, not two, if you get my meaning.

[Maria Caliban]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

What are the drawbacks?....What are the benefits?....How does my PC feel about this?

That's incredibly reductive! Not that that's bad, I just see them far more abstractly, that the drawbacks and benefits aren't something that can be balanced or equated. X murder dwarves != Y saved humans, etc, Are you making that kind of calculation? Do you find it tends to be one part of the puzzle (I don't see any of it as irrelevant) that becomes the deciding factor?

Maybe I'm just indecisive.

I'm not sure why you removed one of my questions.

Reductive

No, it's not reductive. Saying that some questions are more important than others is not saying that other questions don't exist.

For example, when it comes to Dragon Age 2, a person could ask themselves, "Does a human protagonist interest me? Do I like or dislike frames narratives? How do I feel about the RPG genre? Do I like BioWare games? Does the gameplay look fun?"

Nevertheless, I'd say the important question is "Does this game look good enough for me to buy and play it?"

The last question isn't 'reductive,' it's 'fundamental,' because it's the one you act on.

Calculating

Yes, and no. It's no more calculating than every action that every person takes. My first character was in a relationship with Leliana, but she was a human noble and had the chance to marry Alistar and become the queen of Ferelden.

She didn't do so, even though being 'queen' certainly has more benefits than not being queen. Why? Because none of those benefits appealed to her as much as continuing on as a Warden and staying with Leliana.

Unless you're arguing that "I'm in love with Leliana and my Warden vow is important to me" is a calculating line of thought, I can't agree with you.

Likewise, "This **** is insane and needs to die" and "There's no way in Oblivion I'm giving the dwarves a blood magic artifact that lets them sacrifice people to create an unstoppable golem army" don't strike me as calculating.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 13 novembre 2010 - 12:45 .

[Ryzaki]

Piecake wrote...



Perhaps im misunderstanding you, but the truly good option, the 'I will save everyone' option, at redcliffe is going to the mage tower.  So picking that one, you save everyone, just like picking every 'third option' gets you.  First time i did it i sacrificed isolde since i thought everyone at redcliffe would be dead if i took a 2-3 day trip to the circle tower.  So, give me the third option, i just want it to have the chance of failure occasionaly or have it blow up it my face once in a while.  I think it would be a bit too cruel/evil on bioware's part if you decided to sacrifice Isolde to kill the demon in the fade, yet you failed so you sacrificed isolde for nothing, lol.  So, perhaps im looking for one swift kick in the nuts, not two, if you get my meaning.

There is no "truly good option" there is a Save everyone option but whether that is good or not is left to you. Frankly I felt Isolde needed to be punished for her hand in the manner. Many people died because of her actions.

So...no you didn't sacrifice Isolde for nothing. You sacrificed herself to kill the demon lurking in Conner.

That said I agree with you on the blowing up in someone's face. I'd rather you get there and everyone except Conner is dead.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 novembre 2010 - 12:43 .

[Absafraginlootly]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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?

Yes but not always.

The third option to lift the curse in the brecillian forest seemed really appropriete to me and I liked that there was an option aside from killing one group or the other over one mans hatred.

But the third option in redcliffe was... wierd, and somehow seemed cheap. If going to the circle, while still letting you save both isolde and conner also resulted in say, more villages dying. That would have made sense, you left a powerful demon to it's own devices for what a month? more? It's what I expected to happen as a consequence when I took that option on my second playthrough, instead everything is all happy and cheery and nothing went wrong...

So yeah I think there should be a third option, but sometimes it should have consequences. Not all the time cause then it would be too predictable but an unforseen badness happing sometimes would be interesting and make more sense.

[Ziggeh]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'm not sure why you removed one of my questions.

Apologies, they were the only three in both sets. (and I figure it was covered within those three)

Maria Caliban wrote...
The last question isn't 'reductive,' it's 'fundamental,' because it's the one you act on.

True, all of them can be reduced to a single, fundamental question, my point is that answering that one question involved answering them all, intentionally or not.

I'd also add the point: Why would you not try to answer them? I consider it the fun part! All that combat and talking is just padding in between the memorable bits for me. Though I totally appreciate that is the very definition of subjective.

This is why I don't like "the third option" if it releases you from the conundrum. It robs me of this process.

Maria Caliban wrote...
Calculating

Yes, and no. It's no more calculating than every action that every person takes. My first character was in a relationship with Leliana, but she was a human noble and had the chance to marry Alistar and become the queen of Ferelden.

She didn't do so, even though being 'queen' certainly has more benefits than not being queen. Why? Because none of those benefits appealed to her as much as continuing on as a Warden and staying with Leliana.

Unless you're arguing that "I'm in love with Leliana and my Warden vow is important to me" is a calculating line of thought, I can't agree with you.

When I say calculation, I mean as a verb and not an adjective. sorry if that was unclear. I'm interested in the process you go through, whether you weight one side against the other. To use your example (which it doesn't really hold well to, so this is going to be pretty clumsy): Is X Love_For_Leilana greater than Y Enjoyment_Of_Shiny_Hats?

I'm not suggesting you do, it's just the only way I can see it being a simple decision (despite the obvious problems with it).

Maria Caliban wrote...
Likewise, "This **** is insane and needs to die" and "There's no way in Oblivion I'm giving the dwarves a blood magic artifact that lets them sacrifice people to create an unstoppable golem army" don't strike me as calculating.

Right, right, that I can understand. Focusing on one point. My decisions on the dwarf king, dark ritual and the sacrifice were made in that way. And if I'm honest I enjoyed that process too, but in a different way. The cogitation coming after the event.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 13 novembre 2010 - 04:33 .

[AlanC9]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Again, you've asked a series of questions I can easily answer in a matter of seconds. 

The important questions are: What are the drawbacks of releasing the rachni? (already answered) What is the benefit? (unknown) How does my character feel about this? (Even easier to guess than the anvil)

It took me all of three seconds make the Rachni decision. Do I think it's interesting? Sure. Did I have to spend time thinking about it? No, I already had all the meaningful information.

OK... but under what circumstances would you actually need or want to take time making a decision, as opposed to taking time gathering more information? Or are there no such circumstances; if you've got all the information you can get the decision is simply instantaneous?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Piecake wrote...

that definitely would spice things up.  I think after participating in this topic though I'm to the point where I would like to see a situation where we experience failure just because i think that would be interesting, and i think the redcliffe would have been the perfect opportunity to do just that in DAO.  I guess I'm starting to feel that if you choose the i will save everyone option, that is exactly what you will do (perhaps that is not the case and my perception is just colored by this convo).  Im not saying that failure is simply one failure, there can be different and varying degrees of failure depending on what choice you pick, good guy, bad guy, sensible/practical option, etc included.  Has any bioware game done something like that?  dont remeber DAO or the ME games having something like that.  Its been too long since i played their other games for me to remember. 

I guess I'd like to see something different than the choices we typically have, such as choose this one for good result, choose this for evil, choose this one for practical reasons/lesser evil, etc.  Chance/randomization, unintended/unexpected, and failure thrown into that mix would spice things up a bit.  I think that is probably the thing we agree on.

Note there there shouldn't be too much chance. That would just suck. If the player does everything right (minimal losses during defense/castel attack), there should be a 99% chance of full sucess (no damage to Redcliffe).

For example, if you clear the mage tower first, and after storming hte castle you go directly to the tower for help and back, 90% chance of nothing bad happening.

Same scenario, but you didn't do the Broken Circle yet. That costs you time. Chance of full success is now 70%, 20% chance that a a few NPC's will die, 10% chance of a bigger body count

Same scenario, but now you got sidetrakced just a bit...chance of full sucess is now 50%. Other chances of bad things happening increase.

At the far end of hte spectrum you have complete disaster.


So, in this case, the variables for determening what happens are as follows:
1) Forces you left at Redcliffe to watch over Connor - the more the better
2) Time it takes for you to get the mages - the less the better, getting sidetracked is really bad
3) Any extra precautions - you might leave a few party npcs there, cast wards or protective spells, discuss contingency plans before you leave, etc..
4) a small chance modifier