119 réponses à ce sujet

[Auraad]

Please consider:

Just talking stupid things and annoying people does NOT make you evil ... as a matter of fact, talkmasters who do that seem to do pretty well, but the audience would not consider him being evil (for examp.)

"Real evil people" quite often talk nice and try to make many friends (and even have (one-sided( love affairs), but when it comes down to it they ACT evil (kill a person, side with a demon or something like that).

So, in this game, you'll have a hard time being an a**hole (talking sh*t) and eventually end up with no friends ... if you want to play evil, you need different strategies.

Luckyly for you, many people want to follow you because you are a grey warden and are supposed to fight the blight - you they "trust" you to a certain extent.

[Niten Ryu]

My first run was dwarven commoner rogue who was very good to the point of being poster child of utilitarianism. Game allowed this and choices were really easy to make and end result worked great.



My second character is complite opposite. Disgrunted and disfigured elven mage. It's much more tough to find evil options. And even when you find something, end result don't really mean anything nor have real consequences. You can gut that prisoner in early part of the game but that option is not available on most of the encounters. You end up doing quest for 'em and they may or may not give something for you. Indiminate option usually leads avoiding fighting. Fade creatures offer you some nasty options but again, there's little consequences what happens afterwards. All you usually get is avoiding some fight.



I guess Bioware did get bored with "chaotic stupid" options and several vocal board members got what they wished for. Too bad for me, as I always liked that option in games.

[Malkavianqueen]

I guess I'm in the minority since I prefer roleplaying the evil character and it's very hard for me to be good...Eheh...I don't even know how I got through my good human noble playthrough. ^__^

Sten liked my evil character just fine. He never complained/lost influence when she randomly killed people. ALAISTAIR on the other hand hated me. A lot. ;P And thought my character was quite insane. Which she probably was.

I found one of the best party combos for an evil playthrough is Zevran/Sten/Morrigan. ... And I don't see how people lost influence with her as an evil character, she liked everything I did. *blinks* Zevran actually gains influence if you kill people/make deals with demons. Which is very handy. The only thing he ever got cranky about was anything to do with killing elves, which I didn't do anyway since my character was Dalish.

Modifié par Arduine, 23 novembre 2009 - 08:25 .

[sagevallant]

I play the heroic hero first time I go through a game such as this. Why? Because I wouldn't be into playing RPGs if I didn't like playing the heroic hero. It would be irrational to play the games if I didn't like being hero.



What I'd like to address is how much of a douche I feel like trying to play a game where the hook-up is Morrigan. Yes, I got her approval very high eventually. In spite of this, I also managed to get Leliana's up very high again (she kinda fell into my lap on the heroic hero playthrough). So I lie to her the first time, because I like her and think it's not going to cause problems, right? It's so hard to be mean to her. So now I'm at the point where she tries to confess her feelings, and I tell her we're just friends, and I feel like I kicked a puppy. And her rating goes up, because I handle it properly. And THEN I talk to her again and I get the angry lecture about getting it on with Morrigan, like I'm leading Leliana on when I JUST TOLD HER I was with someone else.



+2 dead puppies for shutting her down twice in the past two minutes >_<

[menasure]

i have no big problems pleasing morrigan (enough) and certainly not sten (i read many topics about how difficult to please he is, well i have 3/4 plot skills unlocked for him) but eventually the problem is that you do not really know your options. take the landsmeet for example. if you tell one party that you will not support them then the game automatically assumes you are supporting one of the others even when you never explicitly made that choice ... before you know it you 'll have not a single option left.
the dark path is one with very few to no available options in this game and maybe you'll have to refabricate some story in your head instead because of that. most options were included on the assumption that you'll like alistair, that you're inclined to take "good" choices and as a result your options just won't make sense anymore. i'm at a point where i'd rather switch sides completely now but looks like it can't be done anymore. that is the disappointing part when playing a more evil or even a strictly neutral role.

Modifié par menasure, 23 novembre 2009 - 08:34 .

[Faerell Gustani]

The problem I have with playing "evil" is that the choices are seldom as good as the "good" choices.

Baldur's Gate 2 had it right in the last levels in Hell. If you're evil, you get some cool shinies you can't use otherwise.



From what I can tell of Dragon Age, the best benefit is to take the "good" choices and be a goody-goody. Being evil doesn't net you anything more. I suppose the most "evil" thing I did was take the Assassin specialization.

[Snaggletooth the Pirate]

marshalleck wrote...

Netrin wrote...

What most players do wrong in my opinion,
is that they play the really good guy their first playtrough. Second
time around they just want to play evil to see what they missed out on.
I totally understand that. The problem is that you do not build a
character in your mind, how he should act, what his goals are etc. you
are just picking the most "evil" actions all the time. Being a jerk to
all, doing random evil acts that hurt you in the end and so on.

If
we have to use terms that are a bit known, you do not have to be
"Chaotic Evil", but you can for an example,  be evil in a way you are
seeking power and that is what only matters in the end. Your companions
are just tools, but you know that by being nice to them and inspiring
loyalty you can further use them to gain power. Make a character in
your head and try to roleplay it. Much more fun that way.

True, but it's hard to stick to concept when the dialogue options are

1 - Lick the King's boot
2 - (kill the King)

Also, with dialogue choices there are often few opportunities for willful duplicity. LIke going along with an NPC for the time being. Often, if you agree with them it leads to you fully taking on their cause. Now in DAO there are definite exceptions, but not always.

If you play the dialogue options right, those won't be your only options.  I'm not going to do any spoilers, but a good example would be to spend some time negotiating with pleasure demons. I have found quite a few "villians" who are more than willing to let you appear to have "taken care" of them. Many of them will even give you good stuff in exchange.

[Chezdon]

Can you not run through the game with Zevran if you want to be evil?



I plan on doing a second run through but saying all the things I've wanted to say, but haven't because I've been playing as a "goodie".



I was planning on:



Shale

Morrigan

Me (Mage

Zevran

[Gecon]

Every time I try to play evil, the best I can up with is randomly choosing good and evil choices, constantly being confused what exactly I am supposed to do.

[Gecon]

About how evil people are, well I consider my own government a good example of evil people. They hardly ever say really evil things. They only constantly lie about what they want to do.

For example, they talk about how important education is, but they shorten the budget for schools and universities, introduce tuitition fees, and even completely abandoned education and completely handed it over to the single states. Yet ALL, and I really mean ALL five parties which made it into our parlament had posters that stated how important education is and that they want to make it better.

The way they speak, you could think they are angels, but in truth they are devils.

P.s.: Why does this forum freaking disformat postings so.

Modifié par Gecon, 23 novembre 2009 - 11:42 .

[Memengwa]

None of the party members you have in yoru party are strictly evil (nor strictly good). I don't see why everyone complains that they can't play evil as in D&D since BioWare has strictly already explained there is no "good & evil" in this game - just shades of gray.



Mass Effect had as many complaints that you can't play evil - in the end you still are the hero to saves the world. Your choices are between paragon and renegate, one of them being law abiding and rather friendly, the other being recless, free-spirted, rash and something of an ass.



There was a moment in my playthrough when I got huge amount of dissaproval from both Alistair and Morrigan for an action. They both decided my PC was an ass to do so. Without too much spoilers - There's a amge in a dungeon in a place overrun by darkspawn. He is an assassin and bloodmage. I can't free him because of the obvious (and Alistair dissaproves). At that point I didn't think I could leave him there - he was in the risk of being eaten by the darkspawn, so i chose to gut him. Alistair and Morrigan were very upset by that. So I reloaded the game, leaving him in there, planning to go back to my original decision if he ended up dead by the darkspawn.



The game is not set on playing good or evil, it is set on playing the kind of Gray Warden you can be with ultimate goal of gaining an army and defeating the darkspawn and the archdemon. Neither being ultimatelly good nor evil are the goals of this game (they were the goals of KOTOR games - they aren't here). You can of course try to be either, but don't complain that you stand there alone to fight the archdemon. All your actions are supposed to have consequences - your party leaving you ARE the consequences you pay for your actions. I believe that the consequences for going out your way to be nice to everyone and help everyone are too small actually.

[roku]

ive played plenty of rpgs and the one thing thats olways been true is that you cant play evil and have a fulfilling experience.



no matter how they market it...game developers just dont make it possible to play an evil character and have as much fun. often doing so will gimp you in the long run...or youll loose out on side quests...or you wont get the good loot....or some such thing.



they dont even make the evil choices evil. all they do is make you a jerk.



for example...in DAO a truly evil option would be to side with the darkspawn...not gonna happen.



i always try to paly evil on my second run...and it never works. the dialog options are just too silly and not evil at all. besides its often obvious that if you choose the evil option youll miss something.

[Gecon]

EpicTragedy wrote...
When "evil" characters do "evil" things, I'm pretty sure they don't view them as being "evil". They justify their actions as self-righteous or necessary.

Theres people like that, but its not a general rule.

I'm pretty sure if you go to a prison and ask every murder there, if their crime was evil, most will answer yes.

[Gecon]

roku wrote...
for example...in DAO a truly evil option would be to side with the darkspawn...not gonna happen.

Thats a suicide option.

[MarloMarlo]

Nissa_Red wrote...

To be honest and to the point, I can't recall a game designed by Bioware that ever offered a satisfying "evil" path for me. Maybe Planescape Torment, and even then, it was... a very particular "evil".

BioWare didn't do Planescape Torment.

Balderhagen wrote...
To be able to play true evil, the game must have an evil plot... like make sure no one stops the darkspawn progress to take over the world or something like that.

Loghain was plenty evil without wanting the darkspawn to win. And his goal wasn't to turn Ferelden into a mountain of fire and tears. Evil doesn't require evil ends, just evil acts.

Faerell Gustani wrote...
From what I can tell of Dragon Age, the best benefit is to take the "good" choices and be a goody-goody. Being evil doesn't net you anything more. I suppose the most "evil" thing I did was take the Assassin specialization.

You can be evil during the dwarf and the elf parts to build a better army, or at least a cooler one. Being evil also gets you the blood mage specialization.

[sagevallant]

for example...in DAO a truly evil option would be to side with the darkspawn...not gonna happen.

I'm not sure you can really side with something that wants to kill and eat you.

Edit: Not necessarily in that order.

Modifié par sagevallant, 23 novembre 2009 - 03:48 .

[Are el]

I don't bother with "evil." Evil is unrealistic. Even (most) people that commit evil acts, don't think of themselves as evil. Their motivations and agendas might be twisted, but they still have a reason to do the things they do beyond "being bad" just for the sake of it.

I tried playing the jerk, but couldn't do it. It just seemed implausable that my lowly Grey Warden initiate would smacktalk the King of all Ferelden. And being a douche to everyone else wasn't any better.

I finally settled on my Dwarf Commoner being "oportunistic" and "pragmatic." She's cordial when talking to others, but she doesn't kiss ass. She doesn't do anything simply because it's noble or right, but to be rewarded. She lays it out that she expects to get paid, and more than you're offering! Intimidation is preferred over persuassion. She also tends to side with the "darker" moral choices, because it's often more efficient, or she doesn't think she owes anyone anything, or because she finds value in a bit of cruelty. And she will listen to what a demon or traitor has to say, so maybe she can get something out of it.

Sten stays relatively happy with this character. He doesn't agree with everything, particularly when I go out of my way to do something (to get rewarded, of course), but gifts help bring his mood back up.

Oh, and someone meantioned not being able to get the Reaver specialization because it was too costly to lose party members. If you unlock a specialization, it's unlocked for the game, not merely your character. So, if you revert to a previous save and go the "good" route, you'll still have Reaver unlocked and available. You can do the same thing with Blood Mage. This also works with tomes you can buy. Save the game, buy the tome and use it, then reload the game. You'll have the specialization unlocked for free.

[Faerell Gustani]

You know...maybe if they programmed it such that you could side with Teyrn Logain and instead of work against his plots (against Eamon and the City Elves, usurping the throne from his daughter. Side with Howe, ect.) you helped him along?



I think that would be a good way to provide "Evil" options that would give different content, thus a reward for playing evil and a serious impact on the story.

[Bibdy]

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...


I haven't ever played an evil character, namely for the reason that the respective roles consisted exclusively of stupid and aggresive people using the reply option "I kill you." However, I'm thinking about my second character be somewhat harsh:

The second character I plan to play will be more interesting. An Elf
Commoner upon whom great and cruel injustice was committed. His deepest
feelings have been irreversibly harmed and the death of his fiancée was
the last straw that broke the camel's back. He fills his heart with
hate towards everything human and their society that made him and his
people suffer. Bitter and acidulated, he will search for vengeance or
peace of death.

I think that if a game provides for an intelligent roleplay the question of good / evil is only a matter of point of view. If you build your character a bit deeper I believe that playing him is the same, and most likely more, fun as playing a virtuous hero.

The Origins system is really cool in that regard. Its meant to be an important event in your character's life, and its up to YOU to decide how to react and grow from that event. If you play as the Human Noble, you could choose to play a character consumed with rage, hatred, guilt and vengeance...or not. And in that case, you would probably play the 'douche' archetype.

There isn't really a good or evil, in this game, and its part of the reason I love it. Its more often than not a matter of 'conscionable decision' vs 'any means necessary'. Do you pick up assassination jobs, for more cash to fund your war effort and perhaps 'bettering' the world by potentially ridding it of some douchebags, or does your conscience start waving a red flag? Do you accept more power at someone or something else's expense, to give you that edge to defeat the darkspawn, or do you decide that to do that would cause more harm than help, or defeat the entire purpose and purity of what it is you're trying to save in the first place?

Because the protagonist is always striving towards the goal of actually DEFEATING the evil (rather than joining it, or just playing through being a selfish dickhole, but being the good guy because you have no other choice than to lop the big dragon's head off), it becomes a much more interesting decision-making game than
any RPG game I can think of that I've played in the past.

[Bibdy]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

You know...maybe if they programmed it such that you could side with Teyrn Logain and instead of work against his plots (against Eamon and the City Elves, usurping the throne from his daughter. Side with Howe, ect.) you helped him along?

I think that would be a good way to provide "Evil" options that would give different content, thus a reward for playing evil and a serious impact on the story.

That would shoot the game in a completely different tangent from an early point and require a lot more content to make it happen (and the game would still be in development). Sounds like an awesome idea for a mod, though. You could keep much of the same content from the game, but play it from a different perspective. Unfortunately you wouldn't have access to the voice actors to perform the dialogue

[Sixteen Miles]

Playing the evil side in games.



Not since Arcanum has any game ever had as much "Evil" impact as that game did. To the point where you can actually join up with the bad guy and actually destroy the world. I always play the evil character first where the options are available. After many years of playing games that require you to run around performing menial tasks for inconsequential people to advance the storyline, the opportunity to just say "I would rather kill you and take the information and move forward." Is a really intriguing one.



HOWEVER This is where most games fall down.



Dragon Age for example. There is no evil route. There is a route where you can be a bit of a jerk sometimes and also sometimes kill a few people and not have it impact the game in any significant way. It still comes down to the point where you actually cannot physically advance in the game without saying something along the lines of "How can I help you?" Whenever it comes to a significant game choice, like meeting Duncan in your origin story or signing a treaty, you always end up having to perform this stupid run around task in order to continue the storyline.



Meeting Duncan for example. You can be a complete mother****er to him, declare complete lack of interest in being a Grey Warden and downright refuse to join him. No matter what you do, at the end of your origin story you will still find yourself at Ostagar with him on the path to becoming a Warden, the same as would have happened had you been a complete saint.



Dialogue options change. The end result doesn't.



Currently the only point so far where I think my decision might have impacted the game is Redcliffe where [SPOILERS]my character was not at all interested in helping them and I turned my back to look for treaties elsewhere (preferably where I could intimidate and kill my way into getting them signed.)[/SPOILERS] I haven't returned to Redcliffe yet so I have no idea if my decision to leave them to their fate has had any impact, aside from a short cinematic cutscene.



Really, however you play your character in DA, the end result will always be the same albeit slightly modified, ie [SPOILERS]siding with the werewolves instead of the dalish, or siding with the templars instead of the mages.[/SPOILERS]



There is no evil option. At best your character will just come across as careless or like a juvenile brat aside from a few ruthless moments, which again are few and far between and have no real impact on anything at all aside from your relationship with your companions.



IMO

[marshalleck]

There is an option for you, Sixteen Miles. Tell Duncan you don't want to join him, then turn off the game and pretend your character died of poison, got sent to prison and executed, exiled to wander and fight until their early death, etc.

Modifié par marshalleck, 23 novembre 2009 - 07:33 .

[Bibdy]

Sixteen Miles wrote...

Playing the evil side in games.

Not since Arcanum has any game ever had as much "Evil" impact as that game did.

And Arcanum was incredibly far behind in graphics as its competitors at the time. Its a safe bet that a game that far behind in technology that a much, much larger fraction of the development work went into the content of the game itself. They could afford to pump out as many character classes, races, game mechanics and story directions as they wanted to because...well they didn't really have anything better to do when creating the game...all it WAS was content and story. Which is fine for a game to be, but that's not what Dragon Age is. Expecting a game with this much graphical content to have as much depth as a game like Arcanum where the entire dev team could sit down and pump out a new character model, animations, complete with entire dialogue line in 20 minutes with MS Paint and notepad is a little unfair.

With so many years and people working on a game, they can only afford to put in so much content at release day. Giving players the "no" option to joining the Grey Wardens would lead to what? Your character standing there like a ******, watching the world fall to pieces around him? Or an entirely separate story line, branching off from an incredibly early part in the story, leading to essentially DOUBLING the amount of content they need to release.

That's a great idea in theory, until to realise to facilitate that, the game would still be in development for the next year or two.

[helluvafar]

Bibdy wrote...

With so many years and people working on a game, they can only afford to put in so much content at release day. Giving players the "no" option to joining the Grey Wardens would lead to what? Your character standing there like a ******, watching the world fall to pieces around him? Or an entirely separate story line, branching off from an incredibly early part in the story, leading to essentially DOUBLING the amount of content they need to release.

That's a great idea in theory, until to realise to facilitate that, the game would still be in development for the next year or two.

^This. I think a basic return-on-investment analysis is a big part of why the 'evil' side in RPGs such as DAO is less often a meaningful, intricate divergent path of a central 'good' storyline, and more often 'hurrr Imma giant douche.' To give it equal weight in player choice and the outcome of the story, you basically have to allocate it equal development time to do it justice. And metrics such as the poll elsewhere in this thread that suggest that 95% of players prefer being 'good' dont help convince producers that that kind of development resources wouldnt be better spent elsewhere. In addition, when the 'evil' option is the brutally efficient one (screw this side quest, just ignore/kill the street urchin/old lady), it also means having players 'skip' a lot of your lovingly-created content and shorten the overall game length.

To be fair, Bioware (and Black Isle) pull this off better than most, if not all other developers in giving at least some opportunities for the player to take things in a different direction - and make even playing a giant douche (with its occassionally funny and/or 'badass' responses) enjoyable, or as enjoyable as it could possibly be.