405 réponses à ce sujet

[Rzepik2]

Dasher1010 wrote...

I want to play a game where you destroy the entire world and cleanse it of all life. Why save the world when you can blow it up?

Play Arcanum.

Modifié par Rzepik2, 02 janvier 2011 - 08:34 .

[Mecha Tengu]

Rzepik2 wrote...

Dasher1010 wrote...

I want to play a game where you destroy the entire world and cleanse it of all life. Why save the world when you can blow it up?

Play Arcanum.

play grand theft auto 4

[iEthanol]

Gentlemen, this is not a topic for recommendations.

Btw does anyone know if quicktime events will also occur in DAII? I know the dialogue will be shifting towards how ME works, but I don't remember hearing anything in regards to quicktime events.

Modifié par iEthanol, 02 janvier 2011 - 10:03 .

[bsbcaer]

The problem with a game where you play as the "evil" side is that it often turns out 1 of 2 ways: It either turns towards parody and humour (ie. the Overlord series) or it turns into something amoral (where you're killing anything and everything for schlits and giggles). I would love to see a game where you play the antagonist. To use a frame of reference for the thread, it would be like playing DA:O from Logain's perspective (actually, a better example would be like playing from Ser Cauthrien's perspective). You don't need to play as an evil bastard to be the antagonist, but you just need to have your goals challenged by the protagonist...

[bsbcaer]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Here's an example real quick of something I'd consider the "evil" alternative.

Kirkwall is under siege by the Qunari, oh noes!
You're given a choice, do you side with Kirkwall or the Qunari?

What I'd like to see as an "evil" third choice would be killing the leaders of Kirkwall and the Qunari through loads of manipulation, like pretending to work for both sides and wiping them both out. Let the people fight each other, whoever remains would probably be in shambles and you can swoop in and become an icon to the remnants of whoever won the war and it boosts your position in society.

For example, if Kirkwall successfully repelled the invasion and since the leaders are gone and you're a hero to the people, they address you as their new leader. Hawke successfully manipulated both sides so either way he'd win in the end and used it to rise to his newer more powerful rank.

Though that's far too complex for any game of today.

Bringing it back to Dragon Age for a second...For my first playthrough, I was a Duster.  I was a little upset that I wasn't able to play off both the sides of the Bhelen/Harrowmont fight off on one another and have the opportunity to become regent until my nephew was old enough.  It would have made the discovery that Wardens die when they kill off the archdemon that much more powerful for me and would have made things a LOT easier to have fun with Morrigan outside of the camp

[Liablecocksman]

Stanley Woo wrote...
You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

Also, in Dragon Age II, you don't save the world.

Really?
I mean, is that really what you're saying?

While what you're saying rings true for Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect and Dragon Age itself, it certainly doesn't for Baldur's Gate or Jade Empire.

In the those two games you could get legitimately evil endings.

I'm fine with BioWare wanting to tell a "heroic fantasy"-story, or however the phrasing the the marketing for DA:O went, but don't say it's simply because you're not capable or incorporating "evilness" into your setting.

If settling to become the new God of Murder isn't "evil", then I don't know what is. And yes, BG's world gave you plenty of oppurtunities to be a real "bad guy" - in fact you could slaughter pretty much anyone you wanted to, should you want to, and not care about completing their quests.

Again, I'm not arguing with where DA2(Or DA:O, or Mass Effect, or whatever) is going, I'm just saying you're going to have to come up with something better than "We don't do that kind of stuff in a BioWare game" as an argument.

[Pwnsaur]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Pwnsaur wrote...

You do realize you're entirely ignoring my point...?

Yes.

Seconded.

This guy thinks he's the forum police here.  Every thread he tries to establish and enforce his rules of discourse.  He's going to police what we all say and how we say it.  He will decide what is discussion worthy and what is not.  The hubris is astounding.

Whatever dude...

I guess trying to keep the thread from spiraling into an 'every thread containing the word 'Hitler' must become an ugly discussion about anti-semitism' is acting the part of the forum police? I don't consider that arrogant, I consider that responsible...

But I guess there will always be people who need to attack and label, I just find it disappointing..

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

In Exile wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Alot of drug users would, in fact, want their drug dealers in their homes. We are talking about a possible hero/anti-hero/would-be-villan who isn't concerned or doesn't care about abominations being controlled or not. Maybe they want demons and abominations running amok. Maybe they want absolute chaos themselves.

That would make them insane. It's very difficult to create a scenario for insane characters.

Insane does dot mean non-functional. An insane person does not necessarily mean a cackling mainiac drooling and pissing himself. One can play functionally insane. Or, as someone incredibly arrogant and overconfident in his ability to command an entire army of demons/abominations.

This requires a plot conducive to this. You need a human villain with a relatively stable and coherent goal like in KoTOR or JE.

Which can be done, as it has been done.

Suicide? Since the darkspawn will kill the protagonist on sight. Though you could argue for a more long-term for of sucide, since if the blight spreads the progatonist will merely starve to death.

Possibly. One can make deals with devils and end up getting burnt badly in the end.

 

This goes right back to the game being designed to accompany characters who are insane. Your companions would immediately try to murder you when you do this. I mean, how would this even work in-game? You try to kill every political leader to spread the blight?

Just because one holds extreme religous views does not make them insane. Irrational, yes, but irrational does not mean insane. As far as companions, it wouldn't be the first time a game had you fight and kill all your companions when you turned to the evil/destructive choice. During the game, you could end up gaining others.

Reasonable and completely evil are constantly at odds in threads asking for evil, because people seem to want unstable and self-destructive evil.

But evil can also be  destructive, and games in the past have allowed one to choose a destructive, ultimate evil ending. Self preservation type evil still requires you to ultimately pursue an act for the greater good, even if your character can manage to get there through elss than honrable or moral means. Your ultimate objective in the game, no matter how you get there, serves the greater good, as no one can really say ending the Blight is anything but a good thing for everyone.

I'm talking about the possibility of a villian being able to pursue ultimately a vilanous goal.

[Mr. Man]

I'm fine with saving the world as long as your decisions can also lead to it being destroyed outright, and everything in between. However I still find DA2's idea of not saving the world but playing a part in the ever advancing history of Thedas to be interesting as well.

[Darth_Ravor]

id love to be the bad guy that kills a bunch of heroes and tortures victims and rules with an iron fist! but if i cant do that this will be the first RPG i have ever played being an "evil" character on my first playthrough. i mean all bad. also on a side-note i have no idea what dragon age 2 is about at all. ur the hero of kirkwall and u meet flemeth but other than that i have no idea what the story is about!!

[David Gaider]

Mr. Man wrote...
However I still find DA2's idea of not saving the world but playing a part in the ever advancing history of Thedas to be interesting as well.

Thanks. I haven't read through the whole thread (God forbid) but it seems like people are talking a lot in hypotheticals rather than about DA2 specifically (unless one wishes to count a vague wish for DA2 to be "better" to be on topic). We've already said we're not having you save the world, here, and family plays an important part rather than being killed right off the bat. Beyond that you're still very much the heroic protaganist, as this is still dark heroic fantasy despite some people choosing to forget one or the other, and I can't say I'm particularly interested in satisfying the jaded aesthetes who are just so over everything they need something entirely different for it's own sake in order to pique their interest.

Not that there's anyone here like that, but it seems like we get that from time to time.

Call it a fault of mine, I guess. Meh.

[Anathemic]

David Gaider wrote...

Mr. Man wrote...
However I still find DA2's idea of not saving the world but playing a part in the ever advancing history of Thedas to be interesting as well.

Thanks. I haven't read through the whole thread (God forbid) but it seems like people are talking a lot in hypotheticals rather than about DA2 specifically (unless one wishes to count a vague wish for DA2 to be "better" to be on topic). We've already said we're not having you save the world, here, and family plays an important part rather than being killed right off the bat. Beyond that you're still very much the heroic protaganist, as this is still dark heroic fantasy despite some people choosing to forget one or the other, and I can't say I'm particularly interested in satisfying the jaded aesthetes who are just so over everything they need something entirely different for it's own sake in order to pique their interest.

Not that there's anyone here like that, but it seems like we get that from time to time.

Call it a fault of mine, I guess. Meh.

Like what you guys claimed on DA:O? Sorry, but we have nothing to go on by 'cept the prequel, and the prequel was definitely not a dark fantasy.

Review video

[TheMadCat]

Liable****sman wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

Also, in Dragon Age II, you don't save the world.

Really?
I mean, is that really what you're saying?

While what you're saying rings true for Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect and Dragon Age itself, it certainly doesn't for Baldur's Gate or Jade Empire.

In the those two games you could get legitimately evil endings.

I'm fine with BioWare wanting to tell a "heroic fantasy"-story, or however the phrasing the the marketing for DA:O went, but don't say it's simply because you're not capable or incorporating "evilness" into your setting.

If settling to become the new God of Murder isn't "evil", then I don't know what is. And yes, BG's world gave you plenty of oppurtunities to be a real "bad guy" - in fact you could slaughter pretty much anyone you wanted to, should you want to, and not care about completing their quests.

Again, I'm not arguing with where DA2(Or DA:O, or Mass Effect, or whatever) is going, I'm just saying you're going to have to come up with something better than "We don't do that kind of stuff in a BioWare game" as an argument.

Beat me to it, though I'd add KoToR to that list. Destroying the Republic fleet, crippling the Jedi, and forcefully taking back control of the entity which in the Star Wars universe is the essence of evil. Hell I'd say BioWare has a longer tradition of promoting an "evil" option then it does avoiding it. Maybe BioWare's changed their philsophoy but I don't see how they can get away from the fact that you can achieve an "evil" ending in about half the RPG's they've put out. 

[TheRevanchist]

Stanley Woo wrote...

A lot of people just want more and more freedom to play characters that we haven't written, because, as you certainly must know, every decision, every character trait, needs to be written into the game in order for it to be possible for you, the player, to find it.

BioWare games are, above all, heroic tales of triumph over some great force or obstacle or issue. Yes, some of our characters walk the fine line between righteous and self-serving, but they all still have to want to overcome that force/issue/obstacle. Giving an "evil" character the ability to do some very bad things along the way kind of mucks up our story just a bit. There's a huge difference between a jerky hero having different motivations or attitudes about getting tot he end of the game, but it's another thing entirely for an evil character to start laying waste about him with sword and spell, then toddling off to run a used camel dealership in South Jersey.

You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

Also, in Dragon Age II, you don't save the world.

I think I have to disagree with you here Mr Woo. As I recall...the glorious jewel known to the world as a becone of pure awsome, Jade Empire, allowed just that in fact. Sure you played the hero throughout, but in the end you could become more evil and tyranical then those you destroid. and ruled the Jade Empire with an iron fist until the end of time (or water...whatever came first.) The point is though...that I freaked out at that option...it was so refreshing to finally be able to become the villan and even go so far as to kill your own followers and use their blood to acheive your goals! You could truly become a heartless despicable bastard, and could of in fact always been. Hideing behind the facade of the hero until you reach the point of being able to reveal your intentions without fear of being stoped.

This was golden story telling at it's highest levels! Jade Empire is one of the brightest jewels on the crown of Bioware imo. While I have no idea how such a fantastic game could fail so horribly at making money, unless the option to be evil was the reason for it's failure. I see no reason Bioware can't ever revisist this type of story telling. The refreshing breeze that followed this curveball that resulted from his was a fresh spring breeze that smelled like pine trees and cinnamin.

[upsettingshorts]

Anathemic wrote...

Like what you guys claimed on DA:O? Sorry, but we have nothing to go on by 'cept the prequel, and the prequel was definitely not a dark fantasy.

Review video

You realize what happens every time this gets brought up?

People argue over what "dark" "fantasy" "dark fantasy" "heroic fantasy" and "dark heroic fantasy" even mean.  Then, if the thread isn't locked, decide that trying to label Dragon Age is a completely pointless rhetorical exercise. 

It'd be great if we could skip to the end of that.  That's be great.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 janvier 2011 - 04:38 .

[errant_knight]

I like playing big damn heroes. I can be a non-heroic a-hole anytime I step out the door. I try not to, of course, but still....

[Anathemic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Like what you guys claimed on DA:O? Sorry, but we have nothing to go on by 'cept the prequel, and the prequel was definitely not a dark fantasy.

Review video

You realize what happens every time this gets brought up?

People argue over what "dark" "fantasy" "dark fantasy" "heroic fantasy" and "dark heroic fantasy" even mean.  Then, if the thread isn't locked, decide that trying to label Dragon Age is a completely pointless rhetorical exercise. 

It'd be great if we could skip to the end of that.  That's be great.

Then maybe Mr.Gaider shouldn't use the term 'dark heroic fantasy' since it brings up sunch controversy yes?

[TJPags]

I just want the option to be a completely self-serving hero who only rescues people/places/things that can make it worth my while.

I'll save the world - or Kirkwall, or your cat stuck in a tree, whatever - so long as you pay better than someone else.

Is that an option in DA2?

[upsettingshorts]

Anathemic wrote...

Then maybe Mr.Gaider shouldn't use the term 'dark heroic fantasy' since it brings up sunch controversy yes?

Just assume he means "it'll have the same general mood as Dragon Age, because I'm using the same term again" and everyone will know what he's saying and we won't have to argue about it.

[David Gaider]

Anathemic wrote...
Then maybe Mr.Gaider shouldn't use the term 'dark heroic fantasy' since it brings up sunch controversy yes?

Such labels are really the best we can do to try and communicate our intentions-- they're not an attempt to classify our own story. The fact that people like to manufacture "controversy" on the forums on whether it's dark enough or heroic enough to suit them isn't of particular interest to me, and so long as most people can understand where we sit on the (large) fantasy spectrum I'm pretty happy with that.

[Bryy_Miller]

errant_knight wrote...

I like playing big damn heroes.

A Firefly RPG would be cool.

[Anathemic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Then maybe Mr.Gaider shouldn't use the term 'dark heroic fantasy' since it brings up sunch controversy yes?

Just assume he means "it'll have the same general mood as Dragon Age, because I'm using the same term again" and everyone will know what he's saying and we won't have to argue about it.

Well that's just stupid imprudent. For such a controversial term such as 'dark heroic fantasy' is controversial yes? And controversial means different opposing viewpoints often clashing with each other yes? So the only usage of said term should be in argument, yes? If so, then Mr. Gaider either A) wants a discussion on said term or  improperly misused said term.

Modifié par Anathemic, 03 janvier 2011 - 04:57 .

[upsettingshorts]

I'm skipping that part. I told you.

[Anathemic]

David Gaider wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
Then maybe Mr.Gaider shouldn't use the term 'dark heroic fantasy' since it brings up sunch controversy yes?

Such labels are really the best we can do to try and communicate our intentions-- they're not an attempt to classify our own story. The fact that people like to manufacture "controversy" on the forums on whether it's dark enough or heroic enough to suit them isn't of particular interest to me, and so long as most people can understand where we sit on the (large) fantasy spectrum I'm pretty happy with that.

But this term was used before, and quite frankly it sparked such controversy on it that continues even today. So by applying the same term on a sequel of the game that the term was used on which sparked such controversy isn't particularly wise don't you think?

Sure most of the populace here will generally understand what you are going for but the fact of the matter is that it is still controversial. It might not be a interest to you, but it is an interest to some and being this a time period before a the game's release then this adds more to already hype concerning the game, which subjectively can be taken either positive or negative, your pick.