152 réponses à ce sujet

[jpdipity]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Once a 3rd option with no untoward consequences is presented, it takes all the tension out of the story.  And while it made me feel "heroic" to save the day, I did not feel like I was ethically challenged that much.  Nor did I have to make any sacrifices to save Redcliffe.

Your 3rd option works just as well for me.  Although if your intended end result is the Warden saves the village and Connor . . . then what's the difference if I go or the messenger goes?

You don't know that there are no consequences without metagaming.  It should be easy enough to RP that the likelihood of success with the "farts hearts" option is slim and have your Warden decline that option as not viable.  It just requires that the player step into his Warden's shoes instead of looking at out-of-game references.  

I think a nice alternative, and I believe someone mentioned it earlier, would have been to have a few of the companions stay behind to protect Redcliffe with a possibility of failure.  If they fail, then most of village is lost although the companions could have held up in the Chantry with Teagan.  The more companions the Warden takes, the less help the Warden has to clear the circle if that had not been done yet.  Early in the game, defending Redcliffe and clearing the Circle would be difficult with a reduced group of companions.  The game could go back and forth between the Circle and Redcliffe's defense much like in the final fight at Denerim.  So, you'd control your companions left behind for a bit and then shoot back to the Circle.  This is the type of alternative I'd like to see rather than all grim outcomes.

Modifié par jpdipity, 04 janvier 2011 - 09:15 .

[Harid]

The issue with the Redcliffe third choice wasn't that it was there, the issue was that it was unequivocally the only option to choose, choosing other options compared to it was an ultimately stupid choice.



If they made the other 2 choices lead to strong benefits, it would give you a reason to choose those other choices. But I would argue that this is a general problem with Bioware's choices in these situations.

[upsettingshorts]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Once a 3rd option with no untoward consequences is presented, it takes all the tension out of the story.

Yep, that's my problem as well.  

jpdipity wrote...

You don't know that there are no consequences without metagaming.

I'm not so sure.  I thought that the reason Connor was able to sack Redcliff - er, at least the Desire Demon controlling him - was significantly due to surprise.  The knights have returned and helped the Warden deal with possessed Teagan and are aware of the problem.  The expectation that they - including several Templars - will be able to handle one child abomination that is locked upstairs isn't an unreasonable one.  Especially after you're told it's only a day to cross the lake.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 janvier 2011 - 09:56 .

[Dave of Canada]

A third choice should never invalidate the other two.

[WidowMaker9394]

The third option took a LOT more effort.



It was perfect.

[upsettingshorts]

WidowMaker9394 wrote...

The third option took a LOT more effort.

A lot more effort that you were obligated to undertake anyway.   If it was extra effort I'm not sure there'd be as much discussion over the ease of it. 

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

[Maria Caliban]

I don't see how these choices add tension to the story.

Tension within a story is based on the plot question. Can I rescue Redcliffe? Can I save the elves from the werewolves? The greater that I perceive the obstacles between me and my goal, the more narrative tension I feel.

Having destroyed the undead horrors in the town and castle, and the demon having fled from me, the narrative tension for that section is gone. I now come across a choice 'What to do with Connor?' but there are no goals or obstacles. It's a question of values. It might inspire reflection but not tension.

That said, what you're suggesting could quickly destroy narrative tension for me. My meta-question is 'Can I be a hero?' A selection of no win scenarios quickly tells me 'no.'

And to be sure, the title of this thread is NO Redcliffe Choices. At no point, with no amount of work, does the player get to feel as though they've unequivocally done the right thing.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 janvier 2011 - 03:41 .

[Trintrin86]

I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if I rehash anything...



I like the 3rd choice...however I dislike the fact it was so obvious and ultimately easy for Redcliffe.



Make it a bit harder to work for by imposing a time limit on how long to can take to get back from the Mage Tower (very easy if you did the mages before Redcliffe, a challenge if you try to save the mages afterwards).



Or do what they did with the Anvil and make the "bad" option a benefit to Warden's cause.



Or have it be all sweetness and light as a reward for choosing certain other "good" options in the game.



Or have it only be available for a certain Origin



I could could go on, but I think you get my drift, the 3rd option should be a harder path, not an easier one.

[Chokladglass]

I actually never discovered that the 3rd option in Redcliffe had "perfect" consequences. I never even considered pickin it, cause I assumed leaving Connor alive and the village undefended for a couple of days would be a bad move. Even an immoral move. I just fought pretty darn hard to defend these villagers, I'm not going to risk their lives to save just one noble.

If I hadn't read this thread, I'd never have found out the consequences of going to the Circle. That is, unless I decided to roleplay a character who'd avoid blood magic at all costs. But that'll probably never happen.

Modifié par Chokladglass, 05 janvier 2011 - 12:33 .

[Sherbet Lemon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Tension within a story is based on the plot question. Can I rescue Redcliffe? Can I save the elves from the werewolves? The greater that I perceive the obstacles between me and my goal, the more narrative tension I feel.

Having destroyed the undead horrors in the town and castle, and the demon having fled from me, the narrative tension for that section is gone. I now come across a choice 'What to do with Connor?' but there are no goals or obstacles. It's a question of values. It might inspire reflection but not tension.

 

This.  Once the decision is made and it's over, you move on.  The tension between you and Allistair in this instance is over once the discussion is done (or rather his confrontation with you). 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

For you the point of decisions is to generate moral debate. That is good, but that isn't all it should be, and it's not for everyone.
I play for immersion..and having moral dillemas thrown everywhere jsut for greyness sake irks me. I want things where they belong and fel natural.

I will not argue that the Redcliffe choice was perfect - it could have been done better. But I will argue that it's not wrong per see.
The choice presented looses the moral dillema only if you already know the outcome!!
When you play the first time, you have no idea of the chancess of sucess of the options.  Or should I say, you have general idea, but nothing definite. Connor going berserk was a possibility, but not one that HAS to happen. Some players obviously expected bad stuff to happen, and were dissapointed when it didn't. But if Bio did it that way, you'd have the same emount of people complaning about it because they hoped otherwise.

Once you know the outcome of all 3 choices, then you can filter out the best one. So what? That's how it works in real life too. Often there will be the "best" choice (in hindsight - for any given definition of best).

What you want is choices, that even after knowing all possible outcomes, you cannot find a best one? I consdier that approach good only in small quantities and for several reasons.
First, not all people reason the same way and in a dillema where you dont' see a best choice, someone else will.
Secondly, it can be a moral downer and feel artificial when overdone.
Thirdly, some people love their happy endings.


If I were to mod Redcliffe, I'd have the chance of Connor going berserk caluclated by many factors - how many villagers survived, how many knights survived, morale, if any preparations or plans were made before departure to the tower, how long it took you to bring the mages back (probably not as a real timer, but rather counting the number of areas you visit after Redcliffe).
That way the player can actively increase his chancess of sucess.

Of course, that still means that the player can save everyone, something you do not like.
But it does add the possibility of faliure.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

For you the point of decisions is to generate moral debate. That is good, but that isn't all it should be, and it's not for everyone.
I play for immersion..and having moral dillemas thrown everywhere jsut for greyness sake irks me. I want things where they belong and fel natural.

I will not argue that the Redcliffe choice was perfect - it could have been done better. But I will argue that it's not wrong per see.
The choice presented looses the moral dillema only if you already know the outcome!!
When you play the first time, you have no idea of the chancess of sucess of the options.  Or should I say, you have general idea, but nothing definite. Connor going berserk was a possibility, but not one that HAS to happen. Some players obviously expected bad stuff to happen, and were dissapointed when it didn't. But if Bio did it that way, you'd have the same emount of people complaning about it because they hoped otherwise.

Once you know the outcome of all 3 choices, then you can filter out the best one. So what? That's how it works in real life too. Often there will be the "best" choice (in hindsight - for any given definition of best).

What you want is choices, that even after knowing all possible outcomes, you cannot find a best one? I consdier that approach good only in small quantities and for several reasons.
First, not all people reason the same way and in a dillema where you dont' see a best choice, someone else will.
Secondly, it can be a moral downer and feel artificial when overdone.
Thirdly, some people love their happy endings.


If I were to mod Redcliffe, I'd have the chance of Connor going berserk caluclated by many factors - how many villagers survived, how many knights survived, morale, if any preparations or plans were made before departure to the tower, how long it took you to bring the mages back (probably not as a real timer, but rather counting the number of areas you visit after Redcliffe).
That way the player can actively increase his chancess of sucess.

Of course, that still means that the player can save everyone, something you do not like.
But it does add the possibility of faliure.

But doesn't it already feel artificial this way? Even more so than otherwise?

Suppose you want to buy the car I'm selling. Option A, £10,000 cash. Option B, £20,000 in three years. Option C, I hand it over to you for free.

Redcliffe is not your usual good/evil or "choose your sacrifice" choice. It's a situation which plays on drama but with a third option that throws the dramatic value out the window.

And I wonder how knowing the outcome causes loss of moral dilemma.

[nightcobra]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

But doesn't it already feel artificial this way? Even more so than otherwise?

Suppose you want to buy the car I'm selling. Option A, £10,000 cash. Option B, £20,000 in three years. Option C, I hand it over to you for free.

Redcliffe is not your usual good/evil or "choose your sacrifice" choice. It's a situation which plays on drama but with a third option that throws the dramatic value out the window.

And I wonder how knowing the outcome causes loss of moral dilemma.

i wouldn't mind the "for free" option if there were some conditions to be met so that you can have it or that they present a challenge for it's success.

redcliffe for example, how about there was that 3rd option and by choosing you'd have to leave a few party member behind to assist the knights in containing the threat. these "assist" events would replace every random encounter until you come back from the mages tower with irving's help. 

[Ortaya Alevli]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i wouldn't mind the "for free" option if there were some conditions to be met so that you can have it or that they present a challenge for it's success.

More or less what I'm talking about, yes. Presentation of any choice becomes pointless when effort/outcome ratio is horribly unbalanced across options.

[Ziggeh]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
For you the point of decisions is to generate moral debate. That is good, but that isn't all it should be, and it's not for everyone.

Do you not believe they should present a problem? That, as a game, it should not seek to challenge?

Because that's how I see them, as important parts of the gameplay, and not simply elements of the plot. As such, I feel they should be challenging, and if there is an obvious solution, where for example, I choose between "the lesser of two evils" or "no evils", it's simply not one.

I should ask, as this seems to be one of the situations where there is simply a divide in approaching gameplay: What do you feel the purpose of these decisions are if they are not to pose a problem?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I play for immersion..and having moral
dillemas thrown everywhere jsut for greyness sake irks me. I want
things where they belong and fel natural.

Surely that's a challenge for the writers? I agree if it's merely crowbarred in there it will feel unnatural, but these things were deeply ingrained within the world. They made the world and it's carefully balanced situations an active part of gameplay, as you had to include them in your decisions. Almost as if the world were built for them and not the other way around.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I will not argue that the Redcliffe choice was perfect - it could have been done better. But I will argue that it's not wrong per see.
The choice presented looses the moral dillema only if you already know the outcome!!
When you play the first time, you have no idea of the chancess of sucess of the options.  Or should I say, you have general idea, but nothing definite. Connor going berserk was a possibility, but not one that HAS to happen. Some players obviously expected bad stuff to happen, and were dissapointed when it didn't. But if Bio did it that way, you'd have the same emount of people complaning about it because they hoped otherwise.

Indeed. I said earlier that Redcliffe hadn't really presented me a problem, in the same way the elf/werewolf one had. It might have the second time, having a lack of consequences, but I can't really say as I don't really have a developed approach for a second run through such games.

(In all fairness, if the dalish dilemma had forced you to kill one side or the other it would have felt fairly ham fisted and they're essentially both being stubborn, which isn't the same as intractable. If their existences had been mutually exclusive in some way it would have been more of a dilemma.)

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
First, not all people reason the same way and in a dillema where you dont' see a best choice, someone else will.

Right, and so they should be written in a way that should be as challenging for as many perspectives as possible. A fully "good" solution is only a problem for the majority, but a fully evil or pragmatic one presents the same essential problem: negating the dilemma for people with that basic approach. The questions in Origins and ME (can't recall others off the top of my head) had multiple levels of conflict which make me feel they were, for the most part, written with this intent.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Secondly, it can be a moral downer and feel artificial when overdone.

Again, artificial is in the writers remit, moral downer feeds into the next part:

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Thirdly, some people love their happy endings.

This is true, and is incompatable with my own opinion, and so I should really praise the redcliffe solution for providing a compromise to what I see as the main thrust of the game (and story, incidentally, but that's another debate) while not affecting my gameplay.

[Chuvvy]

I just pretend that third option isn't there. Close my eyes put in the corner and throw a blanket over it.

[Beerfish]

Roth wrote...

The Golem choice wasn't grey at all. Siding with Caridin was the good choice because he had realized how much suffering and pain he had caused by making golems and wanted to end it and Branka... well, she doesn't care how many dies as long as she reaches her goal.

You are totally 100% forgetting that you as the warden are up against the blight which could destory the whole land and that even though Caradin has decided (probably rightfully so) that his actions were not good, that can easily be seen as second priority to a warden (even a good inclined one) when he has the chance to have some golems help him quell the blight. 

That was quite a grey decision if you ask me.

[Felene]

I like the Redcliffe choice just fine, minus the "Ye Olde Happy Ending" option.

[SpockLives]

I liked the Redcliffe 3rd option. While I understand that some people want big moral dilemmas, as some posters have already said, some people just like a happy ending. I like escapist fantasy with happy endings. However, I don't think every option in the game should have an "everybody wins" solution.



One of my biggest complaints with the "tough moral choices" some people seem to prefer is that they are a false dichotomy. Rarely in life are there only two options. Because of that, I like games that have a mix of "ambiguous," "everybody wins," and "nobody wins" scenarios. Not all choices should be like the king of Orzamar, but some certainly can.

[soteria]

Maria wrote...

And to be sure, the title of this thread is NO Redcliffe Choices. At no point, with no amount of work, does the player get to feel as though they've unequivocally done the right thing.

To some of us, the problem in DA:O was that they were pretty much ALL "Redcliffe Choices." I don't mind at all if some of them are like that, but I think being the hero, as you say, should be hard. For example, the Circle could have charged you 70g for the lyrium needed to exorcise Connor. Being a hero was so easy in Origins that it cheapened the title, in my opinion.

[nightcobra]

Felene wrote...

I like the Redcliffe choice just fine, minus the "Ye Olde Happy Ending" option.

strictly speaking even that ending wasn't all roses and rainbows, arl eamon didn't have an heir anymore since connor lost his status and was sent to tevinter as a scholar leaving the arling to bann teagan and having most of redcliffe destroyed along with most of their citizens except the ones you saved. pretty much you lessened the damage as best as you could rather than prevented it.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 05 janvier 2011 - 04:22 .

[Ziggeh]

Beerfish wrote...

Roth wrote...

The Golem choice wasn't grey at all. Siding with Caridin was the good choice because he had realized how much suffering and pain he had caused by making golems and wanted to end it and Branka... well, she doesn't care how many dies as long as she reaches her goal.

You are totally 100% forgetting that you as the warden are up against the blight which could destory the whole land and that even though Caradin has decided (probably rightfully so) that his actions were not good, that can easily be seen as second priority to a warden (even a good inclined one) when he has the chance to have some golems help him quell the blight. 

That was quite a grey decision if you ask me.

Not to mention that the golems were once considered crucial to the dwarves defense, as a people embroiled in a constant war, the anvil represents safety, prosperity and ultimately lives: lives which for the most part, due to the nature of the Legion are already pledged to death in that defense.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 05 janvier 2011 - 06:36 .

[Maria Caliban]

soteria wrote...

Maria wrote...
And to be sure, the title of this thread is NO Redcliffe Choices. At no point, with no amount of work, does the player get to feel as though they've unequivocally done the right thing.

To some of us, the problem in DA:O was that they were pretty much ALL "Redcliffe Choices." I don't mind at all if some of them are like that, but I think being the hero, as you say, should be hard. For example, the Circle could have charged you 70g for the lyrium needed to exorcise Connor. Being a hero was so easy in Origins that it cheapened the title, in my opinion.

There were two times that you had a redcliffe choice: Redcliffe Castle and with the Werewolves.

And 'you must pay 70 gold to be a hero' is a horrible idea. Helping people shouldn't be based on my ability to work the in game economy.