66 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

salbine wrote...

Yeah, the choice isn't so much good vs. evil, but mature vs. five-year-old. I've never found it fun to act like a boor or kill people for the hell of it, which is why I tend toward playing good characters. If a game ever offers the ability to be subtly evil, I might go for it.

I think this game does.

Even in the same conversations, with the same dialogue options, there are many roleplaying paths that would lead you to the same choices.  If I say to Cailan "I didn't realise things were going so well" there's a wide variety of things I might mean by that, and there are a wide variety of reasons I might ahve said it.

That's roleplaying flexibility, and there is plenty of opportunity for subtlety.

[menasure]

stragonar wrote...

One thing to ponder about Alistair, even if you can get rid of him, do you really want to? I mean, unless your main character is also tank, you could be screwing yourself over bigtime.

it is problematic indeed to play without a tank, although i have done on my first run which proved to be ... very difficult at times. some of those pc characters just do not have a suitable alter ego to replace them (small warning: you can not trust everything they claim about their abilities either) or they are simple already too much autoleveled to convert them to a more suitable role for your party.

[Uncle Ruckus]

Video game mechanics unnaturally penalize you for being anything but good.  Even in games that profress to be 'dark.'
In reality, being good often rewards you with nothing more than the knowledge you did something good.  Furthermore, taking a good stance is often synonymous with weakness and others see it as such and treat you accordingly.  ...video games are the opposite.
In the real world people defer to and respect strength.  In video games, NPCs would rather die than let you intimidate them.
I have never seen any game come remotely close to allowing people to play a realistic character (without limiting them to 10% of the game).
If I stop to help the poor orphan boy for two days, that is great and everyone loves me for it and I get rewarded out the wazoo.  But somehow no one is concerned that we just wasted two days on this kid when we only have 5 days to save the world!  I'm the worst leader in history and no one notices?  In fact they love me for it?  What?
In reality, my character from DA:O would be getting betrayed at every turn by everyone he meets.  Because aside from being a good fighter, he is a simpleton chump and I cannot figure out why anyone respects or fears him.

Still a great game .  But the notion of playing as 'evil' in a world with no grey areas is, well...

[Uncle Ruckus]

On a completely unrelated note... it amazes me that in the year 2009, no one has yet developed an online forum capable of handling even simple text formatting. Wow.

[Infiniteone2]

I usually pretend i'm Captain Picard on my first playthrough of an rpg like this.



On my 2nd playthrough I play more to what my personal preferences would say, if you search deep down, you'll find that you are truely darker than you think you are. I usually try to put myself in the persons shoes and make decisions coming from that pov with my personal preferences, not just what I think is fun or funny, I just do what I honestly think I would do in that situation if it was real, it not too different from the Picard run, but still very different to note.

[salbine]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think this game does.

Even in the same conversations, with the same dialogue options, there are many roleplaying paths that would lead you to the same choices.  If I say to Cailan "I didn't realise things were going so well" there's a wide variety of things I might mean by that, and there are a wide variety of reasons I might ahve said it.

That's roleplaying flexibility, and there is plenty of opportunity for subtlety.

Having numerous dialogue options lead to the same thing isn't roleplaying flexibility. Neither is the ability to mean something specific in your head when saying the same line of dialogue (all games offer that). Unless what you meant actually influences game events, how you meant it doesn't count for much.

[salbine]

stragonar wrote...
One thing to ponder about Alistair, even if you can get rid of him, do you really want to? I mean, unless your main character is also tank, you could be screwing yourself over bigtime.

I've been playing without Alistair for most of the game and haven't had a problem. I'm playing on normal. I use the following party most of the time: the PC (rogue, dps), Dog (mainly for overwhelm and group stun), Morrigan, and Wynne. I leave Alistair in camp to tend to the fire. I don't care for Shale, Oghren, or Sten, so they help him.

Modifié par salbine, 27 novembre 2009 - 09:32 .

[Kevin Lynch]

In regards to being able to play evil, playing evil doesn't necessarily mean you can't "save the world". Taking a very basic example, if your evil character wanted to rule the world and another evil character wanted to destroy it utterly, then it would be in the best interest of your evil character to stop the other. It's intention that matters, not action.



For DA:O, you might want to stop the Blight because that form of "evil" doesn't align with what your character wants to accomplish. On the other hand, if you're pro-Blight...well, I agree that the game isn't going to help you much.

[Brimleydower]

I try to cover all fronts over time while playing this game and other games like it. While I'm not trying to insinuate this is the case in general, I've found that there is a great disconnect between my line of thinking and my character's. I usually tend to begin my first trip or two through with a "lawful neutral" character; duty and the letter of the law above all else. Then, in no particular order, I'll make the out-for-himself rogue, the evil wizard, the quintessential hero and champion of all that is right and good, and the crazy ass dwarven juggernaut.



I've enjoyed very thoroughly most of the characters in the game, but I still can't seem to quite pin down a behavior pattern for Sten, even on my fourth permanent character. It's still not hard to keep myself in his good graces, but I dunno... am I alone in this? I got the impression he has a very rigid view on life, but choices I imagined would fall in line with this outlook sometimes disappoint him greatly.

[Lordwolf89]

i hav enow played a good 50 hours of this game, with maaaany different character ideas,with the problem with good vs evil... i view it as Good vs bad...Mages and Dwarves are the easiest to be "bad" with where as Human NOble and the elves arent, onc eyou leave the origin stories...you knida loose track over hvo your character is..and just go wit hthe good choises... now..i have been incredible close to threatening to kill the revered mother in lothering (for not lettign me free sten) or Kill the boy in Redcliffe because of his incompetent mother... but yeah...that jsut some key moments that frustrated the heck out of me.... i am on my sceond play through, Dalish Elf my first playthrough were City elf...and at first my cityelf hated humans, said somerude stuff to the king and so on.... i am one of those who jsut want to torture morigan because she insist on that wer shouldnt help Redcliffe....

[Sylvius the Mad]

salbine wrote...

Having numerous dialogue options lead to the same thing isn't roleplaying flexibility.

It is if those options have different intent behind them.

You can't control how other people behave, so how people react to your actions has no bearing at all on whether you got to choose those actions.

Neither is the ability to mean something specific in your head when saying the same line of dialogue (all games offer that).

No they don't.  Mass Effect is an excellent example of a game that absolutely did not offer that.

Unless what you meant actually influences game events, how you meant it doesn't count for much.

How you meant it and why you said it are what roleplaying is all about.  It's the decisions that matter, not the outcomes.

[Lord Badmagic]

Problem for me is in this as with many other games with "morality" choices.

Good = normal person.
Evil = petulant child.

Makes it difficult to RP evil when you loath the character your forced to portray.

[ComTrav]

Some of the 'evil' decisions in the game are easier to take then others. It is easier to be take the 'probably evil, but definitely useful' decision that it is to be 'evil evil, I'm mainly doing this because I enjoy laughing maniacally and eat puppies for breakfast.' Hardly any evil person sees themself as such.



Most of the time I'm drawn to good, but I'm not above making expedient choices. (Ask for reward, or "Your happiness is enough?" I'm thinking that my save-the-world supplies aren't paying for themselves...)

[mrotton]

I don't necessarily mind being evil. One of my (very few) problems with Bioware games, is being evil usually equals being an ass. There are lots of evil people who don't act like buttheads at every opportunity. You can be an evil person who's very nice to his companions, because he knows he'll get the best results out of them that way. They may backstab said companion later, but in the meantime they treat them well. Most bioware evil options you just act like a butt.

[nitenman]

indeed, in DA:O you can be a real dushbagg, but in no way you can be really evil, because what's realy evil in Thedas it's the darkspawn... the game is more about moral and social choices and their consequences, not about being good or evil... it's about roleplaying, not basic D&D like alignement.

the world is dark fantasy, and you're humanity's beacon of hope. The wardens are not called Grey for no reasons. Simply the act of the Joining could be considered as evil act in many classical fantasy cultures. as warden you are beyond good and evil, any end justify the means, you can roleplay like a samaritan or or a dirty bastard, it's about you're relation with you character, not an alignement Ladder. Stay true to your roleplay, if you want to be a c**t, do it from the beginning, and don't be afraid to lose companions...then it will be easier to choose "Evil" behaviour. there's a difference between being Good and not being a Bastard. just roleplay, DA:O is one of the rare games where you can really have this opportunity to feel the story as personnal...

[Blessed Silence]

Ever since I played DnD back in the day when it was on the computer, I could only be good.  Just the thought of doing evil put butterflies in my stomach.

Stuff changed with ME though as I am having a blast playing a Renegade character.

Still, in DA:O I can't make myself be evil.  I guess it's how the game shows doing those acts.  So a goodie all the way!