152 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Felfenix wrote...

Does the "non-linearity" of Dragon Age really enhance it? Would it make any difference whatsoever if the game sent you to recruit the factions in a circle order, instead of at your whim? It's not like the order you personally chose had an effect on anything at all. It didn't do anything. The idea that it was "non linear" gameplay is a fallacy in place to trick fools.

To an extent it did allow for additional roleplaying. For example, a Mage Warden might hear that the Templars have called for the Rite of Annulment to clear the Circle Tower and decide that it takes priority. Or a Dwarf Noble might feel he or she has unfinished business in Orzammar.

In terms of explicit ingame consequences though, no, not really.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 janvier 2011 - 08:45 .

[drahelvete]

On my last playthrough, I deliberately painted myself into a corner by first executing the blood mage in the cellar for his crimes, then annulling the Circle - all in the name of "good". In the end, I had no other choice but to either kill Connor or have his mother kill him. My character sure as hell didn't WANT to kill a child, but having his own mother kill him would have felt even worse. That woman had been through enough.
The idea was that these decisions would bring my character a great deal of angst, harden him and serve as something of a Start of Darkness.

I guess my point is: just because there IS a third option, doesn't mean you have to take it. It's an RPG after all.

Modifié par drahelvete, 04 janvier 2011 - 09:10 .

[DarthCaine]

BioWare doesn't do gray. There'll ALWAYS be a choice better than all other choices

[upsettingshorts]

DarthCaine wrote...

BioWare doesn't do gray. There'll ALWAYS be a choice better than all other choices

Indeed, I remember making myself King of Orzammar and telling both the Sith and the Jedi to go to hell at the Star Forge.

Speaking of third choices though, I wish The Witcher let me blow off both the Order of the Flaming Rose and the Scoia'tael and just stick to a neutral, non-committal path.

...in case it wasn't obvious, I am disputing that such a consistent pattern exists.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 janvier 2011 - 09:24 .

[DarthCaine]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Indeed, I remember making myself King of Orzammar and telling both the Sith and the Jedi to go to hell at the Star Forge.

That's not my point. In BioWare games one choice is ALWAYS better than the other. For example, choosing Bhelen is always the lesser evil than choosing Harrowmont, saving Amaranthine is always better than saving Vigil's Keep etc.

Modifié par DarthCaine, 04 janvier 2011 - 09:26 .

[Felfenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Felfenix wrote...

Does the "non-linearity" of Dragon Age really enhance it? Would it make any difference whatsoever if the game sent you to recruit the factions in a circle order, instead of at your whim? It's not like the order you personally chose had an effect on anything at all. It didn't do anything. The idea that it was "non linear" gameplay is a fallacy in place to trick fools.

To an extent it did allow for additional roleplaying. For example, a Mage Warden might hear that the Templars have called for the Rite of Annulment to clear the Circle Tower and decide that it takes priority. Or a Dwarf Noble might feel he or she has unfinished business in Orzammar.

In terms of explicit ingame consequences though, no, not really.

It might add to roleplay if you could miss the Rite of Annulment by visiting the Tower last, or something. Instead, everyone acts like you went to them first, even if you went to them last. You don't even get dialog explaining to your companions where you're heading and why. At least the framed narrative will be adding something to the game, instead of taking away like the "free roam" (I find it insulting to actual freeroam to even call it that) does.

[upsettingshorts]

DarthCaine wrote...

That's not my point. In BioWare games one choice is ALWAYS better than the other. For example, choosing Bhelen is always the lesser evil than choosing Harrowmont

Who says?  Do you know what the King after Bhelan is going to do with all that absolute power concentrated in the monarchy after he disbands the Assembly?  I sure don't. 

I can't justify supporting the Scoia'tael in The Witcher, that doesn't mean I'd label that choice as objectively better.  One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, etc.

DarthCaine wrote...

saving Amaranthine is always better than saving Vigil's Keep etc.

That one is probably true, at least from what I can tell.  But like I said, I'm disputing that it represents some kind of consistent pattern on their part.

Felfenix wrote...

It might add to roleplay if...

This is just a guess but I believe that the kind of player who would see the roleplaying value in the choice offered by DAO as to which main quest to pursue first is not the type to demand the game recognize the motivation behind the character's action, only that it doesn't actively prevent it.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 janvier 2011 - 09:30 .

[Felfenix]

DarthCaine wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Indeed, I remember making myself King of Orzammar and telling both the Sith and the Jedi to go to hell at the Star Forge.

That's not my point. In BioWare games one choice is ALWAYS better than the other. For example, choosing Bhelen is always the lesser evil than choosing Harrowmont, saving Amaranthine is always better than saving Vigil's Keep etc.

I agree that ALMOST ALWAYS there's a butterflies and rainbows "hero" choice in Bioware games, but I thought Harrowmont/Bhelen was the kind of thing we should face MORE in Bioware games. Yeah, Bhelen makes some good changes for the future, in the end, but he's a murderer and a crook. I like how both Bhelen and Harrowmont carry pros and cons. They could have been better, but it was a step in the right direction, at least.

[upsettingshorts]

Bioware does lean "good" more than it does "unsettling" or "downright upsetting" - that is for sure. But the King of Orzammar decision isn't a particularly good example if you're trying to demonstrate that.

Now, the elves and the werewolves on the other hand...

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 janvier 2011 - 09:31 .

[Felfenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Bioware does lean "good" more than it does "unsettling" or "downright upsetting" - that is for sure. But the King of Orzammar decision isn't a particularly good example if you're trying to demonstrate that.

Now, the elves and the werewolves on the other hand...

The blatantly good "hero" option was to kill all the elves... Obviously.

It's a no brainer. Always choose to kill elves when the opportunity presents itself.

Modifié par Felfenix, 04 janvier 2011 - 09:44 .

[The Gentle Ben]

I realize that it's somewhat off the narrow confines of the DA topic, but I feel that the ME1 & 2 choices were actually superior in regards to their ambiguity. I found the Rachni, Genophage and Quarian/Geth dilemmas all highly difficult within the moral stratum. Granted, Bioware to some (I believe unfortunate) extent rendered their own value judgments through the Paragon/Renegade system, but despite a generally "paragon" outlook throughout the games, I personally found the evaluation of "live and let live" vs "potentially unstoppable galactic threat" to be one of the more conflicting explorations of ends vs. means that I've encountered throughout all of fiction.

[Maria Caliban]

I rather liked the moral decisions in ME 1 as well. ME 2's 'A House Divided' decision was also well done.

That one choice added paragon points while the other gave you renegade points wouldn't be so bad if they'd spent the first and second games making them coherent philosophies instead of 'nice, diplomatic hero' and 'mean, sometimes bloodthirsty hero.'

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I'm all for a Redcliffe scenerio, especially if I can decide if Jowan can be executed all over again. Now that was fun!

[The Gentle Ben]

Maria Caliban wrote...
That one choice added paragon points while the other gave you renegade points wouldn't be so bad if they'd spent the first and second games making them coherent philosophies instead of 'nice, diplomatic hero' and 'mean, sometimes bloodthirsty hero.'

I agree completely, although I felt that ME2 was vastly superior in this regard (That said, 'A House Divided', was actually one of the more frustrating sections for me. I viewed the matter from much the same framework as the genophage conundrum (Stronger Geth=greater (and potentially unstoppable) threat to the galaxy), yet the dialogue options were focused on a different moral decision, which left my rationale unexpressed). It's actually one of my greater concerns for the paraphrase system. Sometimes I want to be forceful, even a bit of a hardass (it depends on the situation), but I don't ever really care to be a right bastard. Conveying these subtleties, even with the aid of icons, seems difficult.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 04 janvier 2011 - 10:14 .

[obnoxiousgas]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I rather liked the moral decisions in ME 1 as well. ME 2's 'A House Divided' decision was also well done.
 

While I liked the dilemma it presented, I do feel that could have been handled better if they'd given us the opportunity to explain why we were doing whatever we did (note: I am in no way a technical person and don't know if this would be really difficult to implement or something). When you decide that destroying the geth is kinder than re-programming them, it kinda sucks when Shepard goes "I am full of RAGE and these VILE  FIENDS must be DESTROYED."

In terms of DA, I'd have preferred it if there were some repercussions for leaving to do the circle quest if you hadn't already saved the circle. It would still be possible to save Isolde and Connor if you'd already done the quest, so the third choice can still present itself, but it would make the decision itself a little bit more difficult - as opposed to A) Be a bit of a dick, Be a bit of a dick with blood magic, C) Save them both you glorious person you!

[dragondragon]

On my first playthrough I killed the mother, because I thought there wasn't enough time to go to the tower first. On my second playthrough I decided to try the third choice and everybody was saved, that made me a bit annoyed, since there was no downside to this, not even some extra difficulty involved and now my first choice seemed stupid in comparison.

[Ortaya Alevli]

If they sent a messenger to the Circle tower, maybe it'd make a little more sense. Maybe. Right now it just looks like a cheap "no, it doesn't always have to be suck and blow, let's smell the roses blooming amidst this pile of manure for a change" reaction.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Rubbish.



Why do some people so analy try to turn everything grey?



I want nothing more than several choices with realistic conseuqences. I don't give a damn if they're dark, grey, white or pink, as long as they are consistent and believable.



The idea that going to the mage tower MUST have bad reprocussions is silly. Not everyone beside the player is an incompetent fool.

Also, the choice is not flawed if you don't know the outcome..and the Warden doesn't.



Alas, there is NO WAY to make this to please everyone. You can add a timer to the quest, but it would ****** some people off. You can make the result semi-random, and it would still rub some people the wrong way.



Personally, I'd prefer the "player actions affect the chance of bad things happening" kind of thing.

[boewyr]

My five cents, the game steers the newbie player to head to Redcliffe first - via Alistair as well as some beefgating in the Brecillian Forest and Frostback Mountains. My first playthrough, I tried for the everyone wins option, went to the Circle and then found myself having to play for hours on end to clear out the abominations and then even more stuck in the Fade.



I got the happy ending in the end, but as a player I had to work for it. Now obviously that's not the way everyone played it (I didn't play it that way my second crack at it) and there was nothing stopping me from going off to Orzamar or Denrim or wherever in the interim, but I can see the logic behind making the consequences of running off to camp or to another location for an extended period of time minimal. Obviously it would've meant more resources from the budget, but for a game that didn't sell itself as Heavy Rain in an RPG setting, it could also seriously ****** off or irritate some initiate players.



As to Harrowmont/Bhelan, I thought that was complicated. Even if you don't play the Dwarf Noble origin, Bhelan is underhanded and manipulative whereas Harrowmont is honorable and reasonable. Without knowing the differing epilogue outcomes, Harrowmont certainly seemed like the best choice for a leader to me. Obviously people's mileage may vary. The Paragon choice really only becomes complicated once you throw in the Grey Warden lore, which besides physically ending the blight, the player was pretty much open to disregard as much as they liked.

[Maria Caliban]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I want nothing more than several choices with realistic conseuqences. I don't give a damn if they're dark, grey, white or pink, as long as they are consistent and believable.

I agree... with the caveat that 'consistent and believable' is simply a product of the expectations of the world and thus as much a thematic element as anything.

[Sidney]

[quote]obnoxiousgas wrote...

I rather liked the moral decisions in ME 1 as well. ME 2's 'A House Divided' decision was also well done.
 [/quote]

While I liked the dilemma it presented, I do feel that could have been handled better if they'd given us the opportunity to explain why we were doing whatever we did (note: I am in no way a technical person and don't know if this would be really difficult to implement or something). When you decide that destroying the geth is kinder than re-programming them, it kinda sucks when Shepard goes "I am full of RAGE and these VILE  FIENDS must be DESTROYED."

In terms of DA, I'd have preferred it if there were some repercussions for leaving to do the circle quest if you hadn't already saved the circle. It would still be possible to save Isolde and Connor if you'd already done the quest, so the third choice can still present itself, but it would make the decision itself a little bit more difficult - as opposed to A) Be a bit of a dick, Be a bit of a dick with blood magic, C) Save them both you glorious person you!

[/quote]

Explaining why is always a weakness. I still hate that saving Redcliffe got me so much grief when all I want his the flippin' Arl's army not to help his idiot can't build a wall without holes peasants. There are a lot of "good" choices I might make as a bad guy because I can USE the good to aid my evil but that never shows up as an option.

The issue with the circle is the other always there weakness -- time. You are trying to stop the blight but can look for lost caravans. You are trying to stop the reapers but oooh, look, there's a turian insignia over there....shiny!!!! ME2 did better with time but the need for "non-linear" means they can't timebox too much.

[Ziggeh]

boewyr wrote...
As to Harrowmont/Bhelan, I thought that was complicated. Even if you don't play the Dwarf Noble origin, Bhelan is underhanded and manipulative whereas Harrowmont is honorable and reasonable. Without knowing the differing epilogue outcomes, Harrowmont certainly seemed like the best choice for a leader to me. Obviously people's mileage may vary. The Paragon choice really only becomes complicated once you throw in the Grey Warden lore, which besides physically ending the blight, the player was pretty much open to disregard as much as they liked.

I've only doen orzimmar as a dwarf commoner, and so chose bhelen as a progressive, despite him being a complete jerk. "Gimme your support, you swine" didn't seem a very compelling argument.

Can't imagine the dwarf noble had much of a hard decision there, despite the increased investment, you lose the moral quandry, which for me was the interest.

How did it appear to non dwarfs? Surely harrowmont makes a lot more sense, or does he refuse to support the war effort or something?

[Ortaya Alevli]

Ziggeh wrote...

How did it appear to non dwarfs? Surely harrowmont makes a lot more sense, or does he refuse to support the war effort or something?

In short, Bhelen appeared vile while Harrowmont appeared honorable. Harrowmont helps a non-dwarf Warden as much as Bhelen would. He also seems genuinely grateful compared to Bhelen's cold "pleasure doing business with you" attitude.

Modifié par Ortaya Alevli, 04 janvier 2011 - 02:13 .

[Ziggeh]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Why do some people so analy try to turn everything grey?

Because, for me at least, the point of such decisions is to generate a moral debate.To question my own morality, and/or one I've constructed for the purposes of the game. It's not grey for the sake of grey, it's grey for the sake of making each choice as morally problematic, and so requires analysis and ideally deep thought to justify.

The questions they kept grey still stand strong in my memories because they hold both an emotional and intellectual attachment, where as the one with a clear "good" outcome I only vaguely recall.

[Ziggeh]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
In short, Bhelen appeared vile while Harrowmont appeared honorable. Harrowmont helps a non-dwarf Warden as much as Bhelen would. He also seems genuinely grateful compared to Bhelen's cold "pleasure doing business with you" attitude.

Hmm, problematic.

Did being dalish effect the decision to smack tuvok?