199 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

I don't think that Star Wars Universe sucks at all. I think it suffers mostly from thorough over-development, and also suffers from a distinct lack of skill with regard to explain (through exposition and dialog) why one side is in the right and the other in the wrong.

And I should add that DA:O did not suffer from this same lack of skil in explanation and exposition, which was much to it's credit. What it did to get it right was that it never tried to tell you want was good or evil. It just gave you conflict and methods of resolution and mostly let you make up your own mind about it. I think this is the method that will lave you with the least amount of "I don't agree with my character" situations.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 22 novembre 2010 - 09:24 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The PC will always stop the Blight if you play. The PC has no failure option. Your only option is to play or not to play when it comes to whether the Blight is stopped.

But you do have that option.  If the party is defeated, you're welcome to declare that that particular Warden failed to stop the Blight.

And then you can try again with a different Warden.

I want to see how DA2 will handle this.  Is it just a reload screen (which would be fine - good even), or does Varric explain away the death thus robbing you of the ability to fail.

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The PC will always stop the Blight if you play. The PC has no failure option. Your only option is to play or not to play when it comes to whether the Blight is stopped.

But you do have that option.  If the party is defeated, you're welcome to declare that that particular Warden failed to stop the Blight.

And then you can try again with a different Warden.

Hmmmm... I agree.

I want to see how DA2 will handle this.  Is it just a reload screen (which would be fine - good even), or does Varric explain away the death thus robbing you of the ability to fail.

I suppose it depends on how heavily they draw from the Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. That game had the Prince himself narrate the events and when he died, he said that was wrong and he needed to tell that part again.

[Shepard Lives]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Yeah, there's nothing like getting worked up over a discussion about a video game on an Internet forum.  And yes, I compared KOTOR to DAO. Oh the humanity! Someone break out the defibrillators! shepard_lives may have to consider having his name changed soon!

Uh, ok. I'm saying that while DAO has considerable amounts of black and grey morality, KOTOR has two paths: Light Side and Dark Side. Which is good, don't get me wrong, but the fact that the game had a very black-white morality is what allowed BW to give us two completely different endings. It wouldn't work in Dragon Age.
Also, I liked the bit about my username. Made me laugh. Mind if I use it from time to time?

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Maria Caliban wrote...


Except you don't have to stop the Blight in DAO, or Saren in ME1, or the Collectors in ME2.

You can die.

I wonder how DAO handles death, given that the story is being told as if we succeeded.  Does that mean we can't fail?

The PC will always stop the Blight if you play. The PC has no failure option. Your only option is to play or not to play when it comes to whether the Blight is stopped.

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
Cassandra wants Hawke's help, but it wouldn't make sense to want the help of the kind of champion I'm suggesting the possibility of.

The way I see it, there are an infinite number of parallel realities. In some realities, Shepard and the Warden succeed and/or only get so far in their mission to a certain point where they are ultimately killed. In others, the Warden dies of throat cancer and Shepard goes to jail for hitting that reporter on TV.

The Allies wanted the help of Stalin in World War II. Would you characterize him as a 'goody-two shoes?'

No, I consider the Allies as a group of nations (well, mostly the USA) who are good at making good use of the media and keeping the common man ignorant on how government works or the fact that wars mean profit for the FED (an institution which is unconstitutional btw). As for Stalin, he had his own interests in operating in the war. I'm sure most Americans (at the time) didn't realize that he was just as (if not, then more) corrupt at Hitler.

Power, not morality, is what determines whether you can influence events.

Perhaps and perhaps not, but what does that have to do with this discussion?

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 22 novembre 2010 - 09:27 .

[tmp7704]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Perhaps and perhaps not, but what does that have to do with this discussion?

It provides explanation why Cassandra could still want help from Hawke who isn't goody two-shoes person -- because he's person with power and position to help, and she doesn't have other options. Beggars can't be choosers.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

----9----- wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

As far as I'm concerned, the Free Marches is no different. If you ask me, they should get what's coming to them. Why should I (Hawke) stick my neck out for a bunch of stupid, self righteous, racist, malevolent and/or ungrateful scumbags like the people I mentioned above? Let the Darkspawn/Qunari/Flemeth have their fun I say. Thedas is definately not worth saving.

You don't know that the Free Marches is any different, better or worse than any other part of Thedas.

We know the destination is being Champion; we don't know the journey. We don't know much about Hawke. Sometimes in redeeming or saving or championing anything is a process that also redeems, saves or champions the self. The urge and desire to survive could take a person down paths that are otherwise not readily chosen.

But basically, the journey of becoming the Champion is a lot better than cleaning the house or shovelling snow.

True, I don't know. Perhaps the characters and the culture in general (does the Free Marches have such a backwards view on Mages?) will be more likeable and perhaps I shall have no desire to let loose my wrath on these fools. If it's anything like Fereldan though, I'm likely going to do a "bad guy" playthrough first.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I don't think that Star Wars Universe sucks at all. I think it suffers mostly from thorough over-development, and also suffers from a distinct lack of skill with regard to explain (through exposition and dialog) why one side is in the right and the other in the wrong.

And I should add that DA:O did not suffer from this same lack of skil in explanation and exposition, which was much to it's credit. What it did to get it right was that it never tried to tell you want was good or evil. It just gave you conflict and methods of resolution and mostly let you make up your own mind about it. I think this is the method that will lave you with the least amount of "I don't agree with my character" situations.

Lucas adds far too much and keeps changing things. Have you played The Force Unleashed? It really screws with continuity and makes Darth Vader (the villain who is supposed to be the most iconic villain ever) look like a wimp. Don't even get me started on the Expanded Universe. It's like Lucasarts will let just about anybody write StarWars. The whole issue of the Light side is also one which has rarely been explored. KOTOR does the best job at doing this, but no one really bothers. 

I agree with DAO's exposition only to an extent. It wasn't explicit, but it was still rather subtle as to what actions were good and bad. I mean, lets face it. We all know that Allistair, Leliana and Wynne are the 'good guys' 95% of the time and that doing something which pleases them is almost always the "good" course of action. Whereas doing what Morrigan or Sten wanted was the "evil" course of action most of the time. I think Bioware mix it up a little more. Don't get me wrong; there were some big exceptions (such as choosing to make Harrowmont king), but there were far and few.

Have siding with the so-called good guys come back to bite the goody goody players half of the time.
As another poster pointed out, morality and decision making shouldn't be so black and white, especially in BIoware games. I should actually have to think about decisions more often rather than just at the end of the game or everyone once in a while for a major quest.

[the_one_54321]

I tend to disagree with "morality choices shouldn't be black-and-white" because I tend to believe rather strongly that morality actually is always black-and-white and that "gray areas" are a self-defense mental construct that people use to lend themselves justification in their actions.

That relates to the game in that, I think the "good characters vs bad characters" was apparent not in the presentation in DA:O but in that they presented you with mostly universally understood concepts of right and wrong. No one in DA:O ever told you that you were being a hero or a villain except with regard to the Blight and the gratitude from those who you helped along the way. And a lot of those instances didn't even involve lauding along with the standard gratitude.

I dislike the idea of punishing a player character for doing the right thing, but I am perfectly fine with the idea of making doing the right thing very difficult and involving sacrifice. Such is often the way of things. If doing the right thing was easy all the time, well the world would be a much much better place than it is right now.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 22 novembre 2010 - 09:55 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

shepard_lives wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Yeah, there's nothing like getting worked up over a discussion about a video game on an Internet forum.  And yes, I compared KOTOR to DAO. Oh the humanity! Someone break out the defibrillators! shepard_lives may have to consider having his name changed soon!

Uh, ok. I'm saying that while DAO has considerable amounts of black and grey morality, KOTOR has two paths: Light Side and Dark Side. Which is good, don't get me wrong, but the fact that the game had a very black-white morality is what allowed BW to give us two completely different endings. It wouldn't work in Dragon Age.
Also, I liked the bit about my username. Made me laugh. Mind if I use it from time to time?

Ah, I misunderstood then. I thought you were just another poster who takes the Internet too seriously, but it seems I was mistaken. And yeah, use it to your hearts content.

I don't agree with you on KOTOR being restricted (specifically due to the many instances in the game where it's advocated that the light side isn't necessarily the 'right' side), but will agree that having a LS and DS bar made the morality seem pretty simple. That most certainly doesn't work in DAO and I'm glad there are no good/evil bars/

That said, I think that even without making it so clear as to what is moral and what isn't, DEVs could strive for a little more flexibility with a character's decisions as well as how it affects the world. Of course, there is the argument of budgets which the DEVS could bringing up, so that could very well be the case.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I suppose it depends on how heavily they draw from the Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. That game had the Prince himself narrate the events and when he died, he said that was wrong and he needed to tell that part again.

And I recall thinking that was a terrible mechanic.

The first game I can recall that eliminated any game over screen other than victory was Pitfall II.  Pitfall was a merciless game where failure meant you had to start over.  But Pitfall II eliminated that as a possible outcome - instead, failure just meant you'd finish with a lower score.

[Shepard Lives]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I dislike the idea of punishing a player character for doing the right thing, but I am perfectly fine with the idea of making doing the right thing very difficult and involving sacrifice. Such is often the way of things. If doing the right thing was easy all the time, well the world would be a much much better place than it is right now.

Quoted for great truth. I want a game where it's often true that Being Good Sucks, not one where No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I tend to disagree with "morality choices shouldn't be black-and-white" because I tend to believe rather strongly that morality actually is always black-and-white and that "gray areas" are a self-defense mental construct that people use to lend themselves justification in their actions.

May I ask you a question then? Lets say you're put in a position where you know that by killing a man (who to your knowledge, has never committed any crimes), you'll save hundreds of people. However, in not killing him, these people shall be tortured with the worst pain imagineable.  This entire situation having been a result of your own actions, blame rests with you and you alone. Tell me: Would you immediately know what do in this situation?

I dislike the idea of punishing a player character for doing the right thing, but I am perfectly fine with the idea of making doing the right thing very difficult and involving sacrifice. Such is often the way of things. If doing the right thing was easy all the time, well the world would be a much much better place than it is right now.

Isn't it the same in life though? Are we not often punished for striving to do what we believe is right? Are our beliefs not worth paying the piper for? But yes, this is in essence the process of making decisions very difficult, therefore making the gameplay more intriguing beyond the level of simply bashing other peopel's heads in, but rather giving players something to think about it when they put down the controller and go do something else.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 22 novembre 2010 - 10:09 .

[Maria Caliban]

If you need utterly absurd hypothetical situations to show that real life morality is not black-and-white, you've already failed.

[Eveangaline]

The point is so you can set up your own harem. Scantily clad elf men being rubbed down by banana-hamock wearing humans, with some dwarves and qunaris sweatily wrestling to the side-



What? Being champion doesn't give us the power to do that?



Damn, guess there is no reason.

[the_one_54321]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I tend to disagree with "morality choices shouldn't be black-and-white" because I tend to believe rather strongly that morality actually is always black-and-white and that "gray areas" are a self-defense mental construct that people use to lend themselves justification in their actions.

May I ask you a question then? Lets say you're put in a position where you know that by killing a man (who to your knowledge, has never committed any crimes), you'll save hundreds of people. However, in not killing him, these people shall be tortured with the worst pain imagineable.  This entire situation having been a result of your own actions, blame rests with you and you alone. Tell me: Would you immediately know what do in this situation?

Some values (talking more along the lines of numeric or logical value, not moral values) are absolute despite the context. Nothing I did, or can do gives me the right to kill this man. (unless there are some kind of very specific extenuating circumstances that would render his life strictly forfeit, but you said that he is completely innocent) I cannot kill him and also be justified. I may be forgiven by the people that this saves. That doesn't make it right. Murder is murder is murder. Perhaps I could offer my own head in exchange for his? Otherwise he would have to volunteer to die.

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I dislike the idea of punishing a player character for doing the right thing, but I am perfectly fine with the idea of making doing the right thing very difficult and involving sacrifice. Such is often the way of things. If doing the right thing was easy all the time, well the world would be a much much better place than it is right now.

Isn't it the same in life though? Are we not often punished for striving to do what we believe is right? Are our beliefs not worth paying the piper for? But yes, this is in essence the process of making decisions very difficult, therefore making the gameplay more intriguing beyond the level of simply bashing other peopel's heads in, but rather giving players something to think about it when they put down the controller and go do something else.

It's not the same thing. Punishment and natural difficulties can be the same, but they are not mutually inclusive. A lot of times you are not punished for doing the right thing, but you do encounter dificulties as a result of it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 22 novembre 2010 - 10:18 .

[Ceridwen]

Evil has its champions just like good does, no? Champion does not exclusively register as "goody-goody."

[AlanC9]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

I tend to disagree with "morality choices shouldn't be black-and-white" because I tend to believe rather strongly that morality actually is always black-and-white and that "gray areas" are a self-defense mental construct that people use to lend themselves justification in their actions.

May I ask you a question then? Lets say you're put in a position where you know that by killing a man (who to your knowledge, has never committed any crimes), you'll save hundreds of people. However, in not killing him, these people shall be tortured with the worst pain imagineable.  This entire situation having been a result of your own actions, blame rests with you and you alone. Tell me: Would you immediately know what do in this situation?

Does it matter if he would immediately know what is correct?  A math problem may be difficult to solve while only having one correct solution.

[KJandrew]

Because you get a badass title and with that title you can send those annoying people who you don't like to their deaths in ways that both amuse you and help Kirkwall

[DAOME2FTW]

That's what your meant to find out by playing the game, remember " your the champion of kirkwall, but how did you get there "

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you need utterly absurd hypothetical situations to show that real life morality is not black-and-white, you've already failed.

Dont need to; hypotheticals serve the purpose of conveying ideas in the simplest manner possible. If you want an example of an event that has actually occurred, see the bombing of Hiroshima in WW2. Result: Ended the War Quickly. Means: Kill a plethora of innocent people. By the way, if you need to use lines like "you've already failed" without in any way explaining your position, you've already failed.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 22 novembre 2010 - 10:24 .

[Stick668]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

If you ask me, they should get what's coming to them. Why should I stick my neck out for a bunch of stupid, self righteous, racist, malevolent and/or ungrateful scumbags? Thedas is definately not worth saving.

Out of the game-depicted fantasy worlds I've seen, Thedas is the one that socially and psychologically most resembles the real world.
Implications! 

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Furthermore, unless we actually ever end up reaching the "present tense" it's possible that Hawke didn't exist, and Varric made the whole thing up! Unreliable narrator

This notion amuses the hell out of me, and I would probably love it if this was the case.

I just don't know if Bioware would want to go the whole nine yards with the mostpodern metanarrative commentary like Bioshock or Max Payne 2.

"They'd said 'Would you kindly save the world?' Now, the truth hit me like a crushing prison spell. Green circles around my feet, effect glows swirling in the air, an endless stream of coloured numbers everywhere. Endless repetition of the act of killing. The paranoid feeling of a life under someone else's mouse pointer. The illusion of choice. I was in an epic fantasy arrpeegee. Funny as hell, it was the most horrible thing I could think of." 

Modifié par Stick668, 22 novembre 2010 - 10:36 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

Some values (talking more along the lines of numeric or logical value, not moral values) are absolute despite the context. Nothing I did, or can do gives me the right to kill this man. (unless there are some kind of very specific extenuating circumstances that would render his life strictly forfeit, but you said that he is completely innocent) I cannot kill him and also be justified. I may be forgiven by the people that this saves. That doesn't make it right. Murder is murder is murder. Perhaps I could offer my own head in exchange for his? Otherwise he would have to volunteer to die. [/quote]I don't think we can arrive at that conclusion logically without making a certain set of assumptions. For instance, you speak of rights. I'm aware that many have tried or have believed themselves to be successfully, but I've never seen any logical argument which proved that 'rights' (in the fundamental sense of the word) were objective. You talk as if this man not being innocent in certain circumstances would permit you the right to kill him. Why under any circumstances should you be permitted to take this man's life? I assure you that regardless of what you say, you shall arrive at a contradiction in having claimed that you wouldn't kill this man in order to extend the lives of others.

Of course, I'm going too far away from the topic at hand for the sake of my own curiosity. Truthfully, in spite of my questioning, I don't deny objective morality. That said, I don't believe that one can always clearly see what is right or wrong and that much is left up to interpretation.

[quote]Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

It's not the same thing. Punishment and natural difficulties can be the same, but they are not mutually inclusive. A lot of times you are not punished for doing the right thing, but you do encounter dificulties as a result of it.
[/quote]In that case, I believe this is an issue of semantics. I used the word punishment, but not in the sense of "we encourage you to do X or we will do Y to you." I simply wish for players to have more trouble with their decision making and nothing more.

[the kis arent alright]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

I mean really, just look at Ferelden. It's populated by idiots: Loghain,
Cailan, Lily, Jowan, Alistair, Maric, Isolde, Eamon, Murdock, Erlina,
Howe, Vaughn, Harrowmont, Bhelen, Branka, Oghren, Mithra, Zathrian,
Sarel, Cauthrien, Wynne, Velanna, Howe's Noble lackeys, Ser Guy,
Constable Aidan...  As far as I'm concerned, the Free Marches is no different. If you ask me, they should get what's coming to them. Why should I (Hawke) stick my neck out for a bunch of stupid, self righteous, racist, malevolent and/or ungrateful scumbags like the people I mentioned above? Let the Darkspawn/Qunari/Flemeth have their fun I say. Thedas is definately not worth saving.

because champions get all the girls....... or guys........ or dogs...

[Perfect-Kenshin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

I tend to disagree with "morality choices shouldn't be black-and-white" because I tend to believe rather strongly that morality actually is always black-and-white and that "gray areas" are a self-defense mental construct that people use to lend themselves justification in their actions.

May I ask you a question then? Lets say you're put in a position where you know that by killing a man (who to your knowledge, has never committed any crimes), you'll save hundreds of people. However, in not killing him, these people shall be tortured with the worst pain imagineable.  This entire situation having been a result of your own actions, blame rests with you and you alone. Tell me: Would you immediately know what do in this situation?

Does it matter if he would immediately know what is correct?  A math problem may be difficult to solve while only having one correct solution.

Yes, I would say so. His point was that acting upon morality was always clear. Lack of immideacy suggest otherwise. A math problem may have only one correct solution, but any difficulty in arriving at that solution would suggest that the answer wasn't clear in the first place.