244 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

I want options to be less strident overall, not:

A. Save the cat in the tree

B. Ask for some cash, then save the cat in the tree.

C. Use the cat for target practice, why the hell not?

Too often it seems Bioware is offering you the bad option just to feel evil and empowered. There needs to be more grey, and the Geth dilemma from ME2 is the perfect example of grey.

Modifié par slimgrin, 11 novembre 2010 - 04:28 .

[ClonePatrol]

Maybe sometimes there should be an option that only seems like the third option? Suppose either Connor grew up to be terribly evil and you could have ended it, or even after you save him the Templars kill him anyway since they "can't be sure the demon is really gone".

[Soul Reaver]

DarthCaine wrote...

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

This. Make tough choices like in The Witcher

[Withidread]

I'm indifferent about the concept of "the third option" in and of itself. Or rather, I like it, but it isn't a game-breaking decision for me.



What I don't want, is to be chewed out by some whiny NPC no matter what option I pick. If a third option is required to avoid the whining, so be it.

[ErichHartmann]

I think there should be consequences for every action or path you choose. Even if you intend to be good. Taking your sweet time to restore order in the Circle Tower to rescue Connor without blood magic or outright killing him should have negative results regardless of your good intentions.

[slimgrin]

This sort of superficial C&C is something I've thought about a lot after playing Bioware's titles. They have fantastic dialog and plots( for the most part ) but they frequently degrade into superficial choice and consequence.

Every single time I played ME2, I paused for a minute and thought about the Geth dilemma. I was much too invested to rush through it.There needs to be more of that in their games.

Modifié par slimgrin, 11 novembre 2010 - 04:42 .

[silentassassin264]

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 better because there would have still been some cost to the decision.  Jowan was a blood mage maleficar and poisoned the Arl so he was a criminal twice over and would have deserved whatever he had coming to him but he was earnest in trying to repent so it lets you save the Arl's family but it is not a completely get out a jail free card.

[Stick668]

Seconded or possibly thirded on "The Witcher Did Good".

"Let's see, my options are... bastards, plague, cholera, different-flavoured bastards and slight genocide. And genocide might be nicest way."

(The only place I resented my choice - rather than pleasantly agonize over it - was the "Two sensible women go completely irrational with a kid in the picture" dilemma. That did seem forced and more offensive than any amount of *ahem* cards.)

Also, yeah, the Geth dilemma was splendid.

(Decision-making in ME2 only really fell apart for me when they spent the entire game reinforcing "quests will wait" and then suddenly change tacks. Bad, bad form.)

As for the third option(s) in DA:O...

The first time I was faced with "kill brat, let mom sacrifice herself or take a sidetrip of indeterminate length"... I did say "nah, no time". Because not knowing the game's structure meant that was the sensible thing. Got chewed out by Alistair, which: fair enough. Bribed him slightly and moved on. 

Later found out about the nested nature of the "ideal" solution. Which is something I like in principle.

But if I had been running the game as a P&P campaign... You bet your sweet player agency that the party that ran off to the Tower first would've returned to a Redcliffe that was on fire, covered in multiple Fade breeches and full of undead and abominations. With a few huddling survivors muttering "nice job, Warden".

You can adapt to anything in P&P. ("Arl Eamon and Bann Teegan dead? Look, I just made up replacement plot-critical NPCs out of thin air!")

cRPGs can't really do infinite contingencies. And even if they'd spent the time constructing the above scenario and integrating it with the main plot... it would probably come across as a cruel joke on the player.

So, I dunno.

Is the third option good? "It depends."

Modifié par Stick668, 11 novembre 2010 - 05:10 .

[Helena Tylena]

Personally, I often don't like the third option because I can't really think of a way to justify not taking it. I like facing tough choices in an RPG, choices that make you think a moment and consider what you would do, and what your character would do. I liked the Anvil of the Void decision because there is no unjustifiable way. Siding with Caradin is the obvious 'good' choice, but the pragmatist in me leans towards siding with Branka because, hey, there IS a Blight going on and even a few golems could save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands. Adding a third 'hey, I found this way to make golems without binding the soul of a dwarf to them' option would totally ruin it.



Conversely, I don't know how they could've done the werewolf questline without adding an option to cure the werewolves without either group being slaughtered, but the mere fact that that option is there, and so easy to get (honestly, who DOESN'T stack coercion?) feels disappointing. If you can do that, there is no reason, other than your character being a blood-thirsty maniac, to choose any of the other two options.

Same with Connor: Having the Circle as an option removes so much credibility to the other two. I mean, really, how is 'kill the boy, kill his mother, or get some wizards to fix it without killing anyone' a real choice? Again, unless your character is a blood-thirsty maniac.



tl;dr, having a 'perfect' third option removes a lot of depth and tension from a scene by making the choice morally irrelevant.

[Talon_Wu]

Third option all the way. I play games to be the hero, so my PC is going to try to do the right thing, always. I'm simply incapable of playing as an evil character.

That said, I would accept a third option that doesn't give a perfect solution, as getting the Circle to assist in Redcliffe did. If the Warden's party returned to Redcliffe to find that the undead had overrun the place again, or that some villagers had died because of the delay, well, certain roads are paved with good intentions. I simply don't think the choices should be fixed at "kill A" and "kill B" just so we can fulfill the "dark heroic fantasy" mantra.

[Wyndham711]

I don't have any issue with cruel situations where there is no third option - it really puts the character into destructive situation mentally and emotionally, which can add in enormously to roleplaying. And this is supposed to be mature dark fantasy so I wouldn't think it's out of place in any way, if used intelligently and sparingly.

Then again, I have no quarrel with the third option, but I wouldn't like it to be implemented forcefully to every hard decision, and where it is implemented, I'd like it to be truly an effort to achieve correctly, with no insurance of success.

[0x30A88]

The one in Redcliffe Castle is not that easy to find...I killed Isolde twice before noticing I could go to the circle. The werewolf lair can be saved...why shouldn't the curser be able to lift it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't mind the third option as long as choosing it isn't obvious from an in-character perspective. With Connor and Isolde, actually choosing the third option looks pretty dumb, so I think that one worked really well.

But with the werewolves, the only reason not to choose the third option is if you have some other agenda.

[RosaAquafire]

I truly hate the third option. It removes all shades of grey from the equation. I would have loved to have to choose between Isolde and Connor, personally. That would have been a seriously hard choice that made me really think about the value of life.

On the other hand, I realize that I play games for different reasons than most. Games, to me, are not escapism, especially well written ones like DA:O. I want to be challenged. I want to experience a story that makes me think deeply. I want games to be art, not entertainment. And to achieve art, you need to challenge, you need to have unpleasant things. I want them. The reason I got into DA:O in the first place was because of the PROMISE of ethical dilemnas with no right or wrong answer.

But I also know that most people WANT the escapism and I'm outnumbered. And that's cool. I just think it sucks for the "games as art" community when things are happy-go-lucky, Everybody Lives Rose scenarios.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RosaAquafire wrote...

I truly hate the third option. It removes all shades of grey from the equation. I would have loved to have to choose between Isolde and Connor, personally. That would have been a seriously hard choice that made me really think about the value of life.

The only character I had who chose to go to the circle to save both Isolde and Connor was a coward who was afraid to make decisions.

Every other non-mage character chose to kill one or the other based on which made the most sense to him.  None of them considered going to the circle because that was an incredibly dumb thing to do.

[upsettingshorts]

I wonder if we're supposed to assume, in that case, that the town and castle were retaken and "locking Connor up" in a certain section of the castle wouldn't result in the town being put in danger again. Ergo, taking a two day trip to an already cleared Circle Tower - I don't think justifying it with an uncleared Tower is as easy - isn't going to endanger anyone.

Still, if that was the intent it wasn't exactly explicit.  Don't any surviving Templars show up during the showdown with possessed Teagan, though?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 novembre 2010 - 07:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I wonder if we're supposed to assume, in that case, that the town and castle were retaken and "locking Connor up" in a certain section of the castle wouldn't result in the town being put in danger again.

I think some of your companions (Sten?) warn you that leaving Connor would be dangerous.  But I'd need to check that again.

[RosaAquafire]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The only character I had who chose to go to the circle to save both Isolde and Connor was a coward who was afraid to make decisions.

Every other non-mage character chose to kill one or the other based on which made the most sense to him.  None of them considered going to the circle because that was an incredibly dumb thing to do.

I think I'd feel better about it if my main warden, a shy, noble little city elf, weren't so dead set on NO ONE LEFT BEHIND and hadn't looked desperately for every chance. My ****y, human hating dalish sure had no problem letting Connor bite it, nor did my justice obsessed, compassion challenged human noble. But my first playthrough stayed with me strongest -- and let's be honest, most people metagame choices. I wish the choice wasn't presented at all. Feels like a cop-out.

[Vaeliorin]

Hah! I just finished that section. Interestingly, it appears you can actually go and fight the demon/Connor, defeat him, then spare him and go to the Circle (I think...I didn't actually take the option but there's a "You're right, there must be some other way" option when you're talking to Isolde after defeating the demon.)  Regardless, if you released Jowan, he specifically says that he'll stay there to keep an eye on things and warn people if the demon rears it's head again.

Presumably, if you didn't release Jowan (I've always released him...it seems too cruel to leave him there or kill him) you don't get the third option, correct?  If you do, I don't think you should, as there's no one to point out that there might be another way other than simply killing Connor.

Honestly, I think all reasonable options should be available, but they shouldn't necessarily work out well. It just really annoys me when there's a reasonable third option, but you're not given the chance to even attempt it.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 11 novembre 2010 - 08:00 .

[Aermas]

If there were repercussions for going to the Circle it would be better, maybe Teagan & Isolde would both be killed but you can still save Connor, or the Demon finds a way to possess Jowan & turn him in to an abomination

[upsettingshorts]

It seems that Bioware has made the choice to limit "negative" consequences for "good" choices. Mass Effect 1-2's Paragon Shepard basically embodies this. I'm still waiting for one of those things to come back and bite him in the ass. And Renegade Shepard's cold expediency never seems to pay off with some reduction in risk, ultimately just making him some kind of impatient jerk.

But that's just a preview of the huge rants I'll be going on when the ME3 forums go live.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 novembre 2010 - 07:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I gave up trying to understand the paragon/renegade dichotomy about an hour into ME2.

[nightcobra]

to me at least i prefer to able to select an option from the full spectrum, white, shades of grey and black. mostly for roleplaying purposes, i like making characters that reside in those sections of the spectrum.