105 réponses à ce sujet

[Odysseus44]

Cathail wrote...

Dalyaria wrote...

Like I said, evil and good are not a function of actions, but a function of motives. You can act in a way that some people see as being morally good for entirely morally evil reasons, and vice versa. One of the problems is that I cannot explain my motives to my party members. 

Motives are what make people "good" or "evil", or more accurately make one more or less in-line with any particular persons outlook on life. But it's ones actions that gives people and indication of what your motives are. Explaining your motives to a real person after having done something they object to is just as likely to have no effect. Especially if they have reason to mistrust your explanation.

As several including myself have pointed out already in this discussion, actions beget consequences. My view of your objection is that you want your actions to have no consequences.

I don't know... for me 'good' and 'evil' are judgements, passed on people's motives and/or actions, and depend on the set of values of the ones making the judgements.

And then there can be multiple standards, depending on the level of personal involvements

For example freedom is one of the core value of western cultures. So the Qunari may seem a totalitarian society based on utilitarian principles (from what I see in-game), were the needs of the individual have no importance. Sten is a warrior, and derives satisfaction from the fullfillement of his fonction. Is qunari society evil because it denies free will? Or is individualism evil because it brings chaos and conflict? The answer depends on your culture, and its history with the subject.

Now I've oversimplified things and I don't want to cause a debate over this. It's just that I think DAO manages quite well to incorporate different mindsets (selfishness, empathy, sacrifice) in the companions/NPC.

[Slaign]

Edit: Not sure why this is formatted so strangely. Maybe editting it will fix it.

Everyone complaining about the influence system has one, single problem. You think about it. That's not role playing.

When choosing what to do, there is only one thing a role player should think about. That is, "What would my character do?" Influence is a feedback system. It is part of the game, not the story. You should not be doing things to get influence unless you are specifically playing a manipulative character.

When you say you are being penalized, you are thinking in terms of a game. You are going meta. Instead, you should regard what happens as part of your character's personal story.

You should not feel penalized for not being able to undertake good quests. Your character has no reason to do them. Experience is a meta-game concept, and does not figure into role playing. Your evil character is not going to go do something good because it will give him experience. The material rewards for "out of the kindness of your heart" quests are almost never enough to motivate an evil character to do them. When there is potential for a decent reward, often demanding that reward before agreeing to do the quest will save you from influence negatives from the selfish characters. If it does not, that is a consequence of a character choice and you must accept it.

Remember, you ARE your character. Your character doesn't see +15 influence or +110 exp, nor does he care about seeing "Content." Thus, those things should not even enter into the decisions you make.

Also, gifts take you out of the game partially because they are there to act as a saving grace for meta gamers. If you do not think your character would give someone a gift to get their approval (Why would an evil character care enough about a crazy ex-chantry priest to get her a thoughtful gift?) don't do it. If your character would care enough to get them a gift, it will affect them, because it shows the thought behind it. It gives them an opportunity to reconsider you beyond the moment of that bad decision.

If you want to see all of the game as a role player, play through multiple times and do the good quests with a good party. Experience isn't much of an issue because the game scales with you.

Further, choices will have consequences. Some paths will be open to you, some will not. Certain party members will like you, some may not. You may get some quest rewards and nice items, you may not. These are not punishments. You are not entitled to every reward in the game as a role player. These are the consequences that give your choices weight. You are not -and should not be- able to just make whatever choices you want and have everything always be perfect. If a decision has no consequences, it is not a decision at all.

Think of it this way. Do you get angry at God or some-such when you make a personal decision and a friend disagrees and gets upset with you? How about when you can't see all the "content" because if you accept that dude on the streets offer to pay you 20 bucks to help him bring his couch upstairs to his apartment, you'll get fired for being late to work?

It sounds ridiculous doesn't it? That's how your arguments would sound to your character in world. If you think of this as a game and not experiencing a world, you have already stepped out of the role playing method.

You can play as a meta gamer, trying to get all the experience, do all the side quests, see everything, get all the best armor, and be the best character you can be. You can reload when you get disapproval, or things don't go your way.

Or, you can play as a role player and go with the flow. Accept when you do something in character and it has unexpected consequences. When something goes wrong, do what your character would do once something went wrong. Then, later, play through again to see things from a different perspective.

Modifié par Slaign, 30 novembre 2009 - 08:38 .

[Dalyaria]

Cathail wrote...

Motives are what make people "good" or "evil", or more accurately make one more or less in-line with any particular persons outlook on life. But it's ones actions that gives people and indication of what your motives are. Explaining your motives to a real person after having done something they object to is just as likely to have no effect. Especially if they have reason to mistrust your explanation.

It is true that explaining the actions might not change anything. However, that depends quite a lot on how good a persuader your character is. The key is to make people want what you want - e.g. explaining to Morrigan that by saving some peasant's mother we get the key to the hidden family stash, which we can use to buy her some magical tool. Alternatively, I would be even more happy if I could just torture the peasant for information and then sell her still living mother to a darkspawn liason for food.

Cathail wrote...

As several including myself have pointed out already in this discussion, actions beget consequences. My view of your objection is that you want your actions to have no consequences.

What I want is to properly be able to roleplay my character, and not be shut out of game content without alternate evil content. I also want to be able to have suspension of disbelief, via consistent and realistic party interactions. Like another person said, it is quite difficult when Alistair will completely forgive you for killing innocent peasants when he gets some trinkets as a gift.

[willsanders84]

Unfortunately, and I hate to say this, the consequences of one's actions in today's world of income support, mass education and the acceptance of the crude, have been lost.



Computer games aren't created for the individual, they're created for the masses. The best ones are created for both, but I haven't seen one of those in a good ten years.



Prior to joining this forum, I watched a "good and evil consequences" youtube demo from bioware themselves. The player character approached a caged, starving man, and was asked if he'd trade a key the caged man had stolen that unlocked a box of treasure, for some bread. The narrator then said: "Or you can take the evil path." After which the PC promptly stabbed the caged man to death, then cooly walked away. The narrator continued "And that'll have consequences later in the game".



I simply had to respond. I said something like: "A consequence of that would have been getting instantly jumped by guards, and the game being over".



Which was the good path, and which the evil? From what I saw there was only an option to trade for the stolen key. So blackmailing a starving man for a stolen key was the path of good? Or perhaps the path of good would have been to simply walk away and forget about that box of treasure.



Basically, I completely agree with your comments on the game. I haven't even played it, but I know precisely what you're talking about. Killing children and caged men and having so and so likes you -3 as a consequence is simply bland and completely lazy.



One should be able to get as much from the game by taking 'evil' moral paths as by taking 'good' ones. Frankly, unless the system is consistant, and the consequences just (I suspect they're more like so and so won't talk to you) then who are bioware to even say what's 'good' and what's 'evil'.



Unfortunately it's a product of mass appeal, and the heroic stereotype saving the world. Yawn.

[Sidney]

Have to agree with MarloMarlo that the argument of "The system penalizes you for roleplaying your character as you want" isn't a credible gripe. The game allows you to role play and the chips fall where they may. If you want to be a goody good and take the evil people along expect some fallout. I wanted to see what happened when I kissed the barmaid in Redcliffe and, wow, it really irked Leliana. That penalty is apt for her and my actions. That's exactly what I want to happen because it makes the world a lot more immersive. My "helpers" aren't just dumb mutes who are just pawns to be used in combat - they interact with me and each other in ways that (sort of) make sense.

[Luther Paendragon]

You haven't played the game, yet seem to have a lot of opinions about how badly Bioware pulled off the evil/good thing. Interesting.



The "good" thing to do in the caged man scenario is to help him without asking what he can do for you. Then you won't get the key.

[Slaign]

Dalyaria wrote...


What I want is to properly be able to roleplay my character, and not be shut out of game content without alternate evil content. I also want to be able to have suspension of disbelief, via consistent and realistic party interactions. Like another person said, it is quite difficult when Alistair will completely forgive you for killing innocent peasants when he gets some trinkets as a gift.

Again, if you don't think your character would try to get Alistair's approvement with gifts, you shouldn't be doing it.

As for the impact of gifts, it is a little over the top. That's because it was implemented so meta gamers wouldnt cry as much about influence ruining their game. Still, it does make some sense if you think about it. I will need some minor spoilers to make my point here, so read on at your own risk. ---- Early in the game, you can make a decision that Alistair will react to with -30 influence. The best gift you can give him, his mother's pendant, is +10. Now, think about that. His mother's pendant he thought lost. The only thing he ever had of his mother's. Not only is it of extreme sentimental value, it shows you listened to him well enough to recognize it, took the time to find and keep it, and then wanted to make him happy by giving it to him. That's enough to put anyone in conflict over how to feel. But it still is only a third of a major decision. Most gifts are around 4 or 5 if they are the type the person wants, and as you give more gifts, the influence goes down.

I think it works rather well. Most people, even good ones, care more about how they are treated than how strangers are treated. It's human nature. So showing good will toward party members affects them profoundly. More, every person wants to be understood. So showing them you understand them with dialog choices and gifts impacts them.

[0mar]

willsanders84 wrote...

Unfortunately, and I hate to say this, the consequences of one's actions in today's world of income support, mass education and the acceptance of the crude, have been lost.

Computer games aren't created for the individual, they're created for the masses. The best ones are created for both, but I haven't seen one of those in a good ten years.

Prior to joining this forum, I watched a "good and evil consequences" youtube demo from bioware themselves. The player character approached a caged, starving man, and was asked if he'd trade a key the caged man had stolen that unlocked a box of treasure, for some bread. The narrator then said: "Or you can take the evil path." After which the PC promptly stabbed the caged man to death, then cooly walked away. The narrator continued "And that'll have consequences later in the game".

I simply had to respond. I said something like: "A consequence of that would have been getting instantly jumped by guards, and the game being over".

Which was the good path, and which the evil? From what I saw there was only an option to trade for the stolen key. So blackmailing a starving man for a stolen key was the path of good? Or perhaps the path of good would have been to simply walk away and forget about that box of treasure.

Basically, I completely agree with your comments on the game. I haven't even played it, but I know precisely what you're talking about. Killing children and caged men and having so and so likes you -3 as a consequence is simply bland and completely lazy.

One should be able to get as much from the game by taking 'evil' moral paths as by taking 'good' ones. Frankly, unless the system is consistant, and the consequences just (I suspect they're more like so and so won't talk to you) then who are bioware to even say what's 'good' and what's 'evil'.

Unfortunately it's a product of mass appeal, and the heroic stereotype saving the world. Yawn.

That quest was hilarious.  I hate fed-ex quests so much,. my "paladin" killed him on the spot.  I'm above fetching food/water for a measly key.

[Vergil_dgk]

I say ditch the influence system (it reduces really good characters to quizzes and numbers) and weave the companion quests and sidequests into the story more. Let the romances develop within the story as well and in response to what happens in the game. Kinda like in a movie. If neccessary, reduce the amount of companions to do this (we don't really need more than 5-6 to begin with, more can be added as DLC to increase replay value). I would love it if I really felt like I needed my companions and I think there would be a bigger chance of this happening if there were fewer to choose from and I had to go through more to get them. As it is it can sometimes feel a bit artificial when so many people try to join you on your travels so quickly with rather little motivation.

[Odysseus44]

Dalyaria wrote...

Odysseus44 wrote...

Maybe the game is not radical enough. It gives you feedback of your companions' satisfaction with you, and a means to increase it dramatically (the gifts).

What would happen if you had none of that, except the remarks your companions might make during dialogues...

At some point, they would confront you, maybe with an ultimatum. Some then would leave, other fight you. Maybe betray you. You could have a chance to bring them back (a sidequest), but there would be a penalty (maybe loss of a unique skill, or some stat point, etc.)

I think a system like that would be better. The visible approval / disapproval ratings constantly remind you that you're playing a game, instead of being in a fantasy world full of darkspawn and mages.

Odysseus44 wrote...

In any case, one of my regrets is that companions never come to blows with one another, however strongly they seem to despise one another.

Agreed. This is yet another inconsistency in the party interaction mechanics.

Odysseus44 wrote...

But no system is perfect, and in DAO things are made clear and quite easy to handle. It just lacks drama. The personal sidequests were particularly disappointing in that regard (and short too).

Agreed about no system being perfect. However, one of the purposes of critique is to make the negative qualities visible. Fixing those, the system gets better.

I think the problem with game mechanics (combat, exploration, dialogue, etc.) is this : game or simulation? The latter seems to disappear more and more from 'modern' gaming.

Anyway, the major drawback of bioware meters (lightside/darkside, paragon/renegade, DAO companion approvals) is that they open the door to min/maxing, which is the opposite of roleplay. Choose the right companion for the right conversation/moments, or the answers that will increase your score on the meter. All the more so because there are of course rewards for high score. Rewards is what matters most for most gamers.

[willsanders84]

And what are the consequences of stabbing him to death in broad daylight Luther? I'm sorry that seems confrontational, and I'd really rather not be, but do I at least have a point? If I don't fine, and sorry. And I'm glad to hear there's a 'good' option for the man in the cage.

[Slaign]

You shouldn't talk **** about a game you know nothing about. Because....

Luther Paendragon wrote...

You haven't played the game, yet seem to have a lot of opinions about how badly Bioware pulled off the evil/good thing. Interesting.

The "good" thing to do in the caged man scenario is to help him without asking what he can do for you. Then you won't get the key.

Holy **** I didn't even know he had the key. I always wondered why I couldnt get in that chest but I get it now. As a good character, I always used persuasion to get him food out of kindness. I never got a reward, I figured XP was the reward. As a scoundrel with no good persuasion but a good heart, I still helped him, but I had to steal the food from the guard. As an evil dude, I virtually spat in his face and let him rot, and never got anything from it because I was a dick.

I never even thought to play it through as a man motivated by greed and find a reward hidden there.

So yea, this game handles the matter of choice pretty damn well when I've tackled that quest in 3 different manners and still not seen all the outcomes.

[Legion-001]

Ibian wrote...

Don't really care for this discussion, but do keep in mind that good and evil is in the eye of the beholder.

No it isn't I've played Eye of the Beholder and you can't make good or evil choices!

[Slaign]

willsanders84 wrote...

And what are the consequences of stabbing him to death in broad daylight Luther? I'm sorry that seems confrontational, and I'd really rather not be, but do I at least have a point? If I don't fine, and sorry. And I'm glad to hear there's a 'good' option for the man in the cage.

The man is a deserter sentanced to death and you are a member of an order respected above all else and virtually above the law at that point in the game. In some light, it could be seen as a mercy kill, as the man is being left to rot in a cage. In others, it could be seen as he deserved it. In the end, no one would care that you killed him.

However, you can probably do the quest with Alistair in your party, and he's a good guy. So if he's along, even though the guy is a deserter and under a sentance of death anyway, Alistair might object. I do not know because I have not tried that option either.

This is a tiny, tiny side quest that is very easy to miss, and it has this much depth. So no, you don't have a point. The major decisions have much more imoact and many ways of navigating through them.

Besides, at the end of the day, you are a badass fighter who virtually no one can take on and win, and you are already on the lam from the law. So what exactly do you expect to happen in regards to guards coming after you? With the major plot elements in play, I doubt the murder of a deserter is going to get you much more attention than you already have.

[MarloMarlo]

willsanders84 wrote...
Basically, I completely agree with your comments on the game. I haven't even played it...

If you haven't played it, you aren't qualified to agree with anything but strawmen. You saw a video that overhyped the morality of the game for something you can do before you run into any of your possible party members, except maybe your dog, which isn't around at the time. (And there aren't any consequences for it later in the game, regardless of what you do.)

Companions will leave and maybe attack you over some actions you take, regardless of how much they liked you before. Deciding that all you get are -3 penalties based on a video that has nothing to do with companion consequences is lazier than implementing a -3 penalty for killing a kid, who some would argue had it coming, anyway (not that I'm one of those people).

willsanders84 wrote...Unfortunately it's a product of mass appeal, and the heroic stereotype saving the world. Yawn.

Don't you base your opinion of the game on the videos out for it? Isn't it supposed to be "the new ****" to the tune of Marilyn Manson to you? Where "not every hero is pure" or some other garbage like that? Aren't you supposed to be gushing about how "hardcore" or "gritty" it is?

[zeejay21]

Dalyaria, did you ever play Fallout 3? Please share your thoughts (if you haven't already since I'm too busy enjoying DA:O than reading posts).

[montana_boy]

When I get a negative response from one of my companions because of a dialog choice I make up the diff by giving them a gift... I think that is the entire idea about gift giving.

[Inhuman one]

Companions disappoint me greatly, they hardly ever interact with each other. They arent just working with the player but also with each other. Teamwork shouldnt apply only to the player.



I want to see friendships develop amongst companions, maybe even romance. Could even be a romance with someone outside the party.



I am personly busy with writing a story focusing on a group of six people set in medieval fantasy world and have been busy with this for years. I spend a lot of time thinking about how this would work, how the personalities would get into conflicts, how unlikely friendships could form, and how they can grow into a powerfull force after a very bumpy start where some with a short temper argue about others their mistakes.



If I can work out such things on my own in several years, why cant Bioware work this out better with an entire team that only made games focusing on this very aspect?



Am I that arrogant to think I can handle this aspect better, or am I that horribly wrong?



To give an example of what should be improved: the campsite. All companions just stand somewhere, always at the same spot, staring into the distance and doing nothing. Their positions should not be fixed, there should be many options here. Sometimes they could be gathered around the campfire and enjoying a meal, Sten could sit on a log and sharpen his weapon or clean it, Someone could be sitting against a tree and reading a book, sometimes they could be sleeping in their tent, Leliana could be praying, Morrigan could be practicing some magic, some companions could be sparring with each other, etc.



Instead they just stand there like deactivated robots, waiting for you to say something to them.

[willsanders84]

Does giving the gift cost you in any way?



And MarloMarlo, what on earth are you talking about? Not having played the game doesn't prevent me from commenting on an official video for it, yes commenting, or indeed agreeing with the starter of this thread. Perhaps it's a very good game, I certainly haven't ruled that out as a possibility.



Although MarloMarlo, the last part of your post did make me smile, it was funny. So that's me won over and I'm putty in your keyboard.



Slaign; thanks, it seems the game itself is far more in depth than officially advertised, isn't it a shame when things aren't given credit for the sake of mass appeal and marketability?

[Slaign]

willsanders84 wrote...

Slaign; thanks, it seems the game itself is far more in depth than officially advertised, isn't it a shame when things aren't given credit for the sake of mass appeal and marketability?

Only when you take things at face value. Not trying to be combative, but what did you expect when you judged a game on it's "cover" so to speak? There's a reason that cliche saying exists.

[MarloMarlo]

Inhuman one wrote...
Companions disappoint me greatly, they hardly ever interact with each other. They arent just working with the player but also with each other. Teamwork shouldnt apply only to the player.

I want to see friendships develop amongst companions, maybe even romance. Could even be a romance with someone outside the party.

They interact all the time whenever they cross bridges and at other, similiar-ish points. Stein bonds with Shale over their supposed superiority over humans, for example, and Morrigan sort of mockingly flirts with him. Your companions' interactions aren't always random and unrelated to previous exchanges. I've also had two companions double team me over something I did that was very wrong. There's a part in the game where you can have two party members work together -- an Oghren and Zevran combo is particularly hilarious in that situation, and your dog is effective, too.

I'm only sad that there's no interaction between Schmooples and the dog.

Inhuman one wrote...
Am I that arrogant to think I can handle this aspect better, or am I that horribly wrong?

I'd say it's a combination of arrogance (you aren't even done yet) and ignorance, as I explained above.

willsanders84 wrote...
And MarloMarlo, what on earth are you talking about? Not having played the game doesn't prevent me from commenting on an official video for it...

Sure, but you didn't just comment on the video. You took the video and decided that the game was designed a certain way, and agreed with someone's questionable description of it. A lot of it is factually incorrect. The sex shouldn't change a character's moral system argument is a strawman, for example. It doesn't but the OP goes ahead and criticizes the game by arguing that it shouldn't as if it did. And you completely agreed with his comments on the game, when all you've seen is a video.

willsanders84 wrote...
yes commenting, or indeed agreeing with the starter of this thread. Perhaps it's a very good game, I certainly haven't ruled that out as a possibility.

I never said that you think it's a bad game, just that it's wrong to agree with someone's opinon about a game you haven't played based on his inaccurate description of it and a video that lied to you.

[Dalyaria]

willsanders84 wrote...


Computer games aren't created for the individual, they're created for the masses. The best ones are created for both, but I haven't seen one of those in a good ten years.

Can I ask...what game do you consider best?

willsanders84 wrote...

Basically, I completely agree with your comments on the game. I haven't even played it, but I know precisely what you're talking about. Killing children and caged men and having so and so likes you -3 as a consequence is simply bland and completely lazy.

One should be able to get as much from the game by taking 'evil' moral paths as by taking 'good' ones. Frankly, unless the system is consistant, and the consequences just (I suspect they're more like so and so won't talk to you) then who are bioware to even say what's 'good' and what's 'evil'.

Unfortunately it's a product of mass appeal, and the heroic stereotype saving the world. Yawn.

Agreed. There should be equal apportunities for good as well as evil characters. If not, what's the point of having the option anyways? They could have just made the good side deeper and more immersive. However, I am not necessarily talking about having the ability to do all the same quests, but rather having an evil way to complete many of the quests, or if not, have quests which are only doable with evil characters.

I often play as evil people because the good ones seem whiny and annoying. There was one game which did the good side well, though: Jade empire. But then again, being evil in JE often meant being a violent idiot. BG2 was also great with an evil party. Viconia still makes me smile

Vergil_dgk wrote...

I say ditch the influence system (it reduces really good characters to quizzes and numbers) and weave the companion quests and sidequests into the story more. Let the romances develop within the story as well and in response to what happens in the game. Kinda like in a movie. If neccessary, reduce the amount of companions to do this (we don't really need more than 5-6 to begin with, more can be added as DLC to increase replay value). I would love it if I really felt like I needed my companions and I think there would be a bigger chance of this happening if there were fewer to choose from and I had to go through more to get them. As it is it can sometimes feel a bit artificial when so many people try to join you on your travels so quickly with rather little motivation.

I agree completely about the influence system reducing characters to quizzes and numbers. I'm also completely for increased immersion and depth in the companions and their quests. Neither do I find having so many companions necessary. If the influence system was left in place, I would want there to be at least a good and an evil variant of all the different classes as a companion. I have to admit I would find it annoying if I had to play a lot of the game just to gather my entire party of evil people. It'd feel like a chore I'd have to do before being able to properly start playing the game.

Odysseus44 wrote...

I think the problem with game mechanics (combat, exploration, dialogue, etc.) is this : game or simulation? The latter seems to disappear more and more from 'modern' gaming.

Anyway, the major drawback of bioware meters (lightside/darkside, paragon/renegade, DAO companion approvals) is that they open the door to min/maxing, which is the opposite of roleplay. Choose the right companion for the right conversation/moments, or the answers that will increase your score on the meter. All the more so because there are of course rewards for high score. Rewards is what matters most for most gamers.

Agreed. Would I know that there would be equal opportunities for the evil people (like there normally are, even more so than for the good ones), this would not be such a big of an issue.

However, there are connections with min/maxing and with being evil, at least as its "might makes right" form. Once you make certain people, like your companions, like you enough, you can use them for your own social ends. I guess I could take this perspective to playing the game with my character as well. Evil is personal social and material power, and the lacks of rewards are - from that point of view - penalties. However, I would rather have clearer and less "behind-the-scenes" evil ways to operate in the game.

zeejay21 wrote...

Dalyaria, did you ever play Fallout 3? Please share your thoughts (if you haven't already since I'm too busy enjoying DA:O than reading posts).

I have to admit that I actually didn't play an evil character there either, but perhaps I should. The good side was pretty well done and I enjoyed it. However, I somewhat lost interest when my character became close to invicible. She was walking around in advanced power armor and killing everything in her path, barely losing any health in the process. All in all, I did enjoy the game, though. I like most Bethesda games. Most of all I liked Morrowind - the setting was just so deep, mysterious and immersive. Oblivion felt like a generic fantasy setting where robots with the same voice repeated the same gossip with each other, over and over again. Also the level scaling really cut down the immersion. Peasant bandits in full daedric armor FTW!

Inhuman one wrote...

Companions disappoint me greatly, they hardly ever interact with each other. They arent just working with the player but also with each other. Teamwork shouldnt apply only to the player.

I want to see friendships develop amongst companions, maybe even romance. Could even be a romance with someone outside the party.

I am personly busy with writing a story focusing on a group of six people set in medieval fantasy world and have been busy with this for years. I spend a lot of time thinking about how this would work, how the personalities would get into conflicts, how unlikely friendships could form, and how they can grow into a powerfull force after a very bumpy start where some with a short temper argue about others their mistakes.

If I can work out such things on my own in several years, why cant Bioware work this out better with an entire team that only made games focusing on this very aspect?

Am I that arrogant to think I can handle this aspect better, or am I that horribly wrong?

To give an example of what should be improved: the campsite. All companions just stand somewhere, always at the same spot, staring into the distance and doing nothing. Their positions should not be fixed, there should be many options here. Sometimes they could be gathered around the campfire and enjoying a meal, Sten could sit on a log and sharpen his weapon or clean it, Someone could be sitting against a tree and reading a book, sometimes they could be sleeping in their tent, Leliana could be praying, Morrigan could be practicing some magic, some companions could be sparring with each other, etc.

Instead they just stand there like deactivated robots, waiting for you to say something to them.

I mostly agree. I think the companions are not all bad, though, but they certainly could use much more work. Of course no game is completely lifelike yet, but in many cases I find that "less is more". In games where there's no party banter - Wizardry 8 for example - I imagine the interactions in my head. In that manner, there is always consistency and realism. Time and resources are always issues when developing games. Having that in mind, I would happily compromise for example good graphics for more believable party interactions.

MarloMarlo wrote...

The sex shouldn't change a character's moral system argument is a strawman, for example. It doesn't but the OP goes ahead and criticizes the game by arguing that it shouldn't as if it did.

I have read from many sources that certain characters become much more compliant after you sleep with them. If this is false, I am glad and also apologize.

Going more in depth into the issue, it is a whole another question if sex should be used as a potential tool for manipulation in the game. People generally do become more compliant after you have sex with them. However, considering the equal opportunities for good and evil people, and if the road to personal power would depend on having sex with the various companions, this would entail being able to turn the given companions into bisexuality. Likewise, one should be able to have this with every companion, based entirely on how close a bond you are able to develop. However, the issue is quite complex and I don't see it as a requirement for a fantasy roleplaying game. The game is not, nor in my opinion should be, a sexual interaction simulation.

Modifié par Dalyaria, 30 novembre 2009 - 10:53 .

[Cathail]

Odysseus44 wrote...

I don't know... for me 'good' and 'evil' are judgements, passed on people's motives and/or actions, and depend on the set of values of the ones making the judgements.

And then there can be multiple standards, depending on the level of personal involvements

For example freedom is one of the core value of western cultures. So the Qunari may seem a totalitarian society based on utilitarian principles (from what I see in-game), were the needs of the individual have no importance. Sten is a warrior, and derives satisfaction from the fullfillement of his fonction. Is qunari society evil because it denies free will? Or is individualism evil because it brings chaos and conflict? The answer depends on your culture, and its history with the subject.

Now I've oversimplified things and I don't want to cause a debate over this. It's just that I think DAO manages quite well to incorporate different mindsets (selfishness, empathy, sacrifice) in the companions/NPC.

That is exactly why I quoted good and evil and used terms like compassionate, in-line with values of, etc. Good and evil are both ambiguous and subjective. However, agreement or lack thereof will occur based on ones viewpoints. You can't expect someone to ignore something they are opposed to. It will tend to cause them to dislike you.

[Odysseus44]

Dalyaria, you want equal opportunities for good and evil characters, but don't you feel that DAO steers away from such definitions? The game doesn't reward you from being consistent in the tone of your choices, because there is no moarlity meter attached to the main PC, and so no associated reward for maxing it, like in KOTOR of Mass Effect.



Doesn't that allow you to roleplay your character's morality more freely?



You're only held in check by companions approval score, but you're freed from that constraint with the gift system.

[Cathail]

Dalyaria wrote...

It is true that explaining the actions might not change anything. However, that depends quite a lot on how good a persuader your character is. The key is to make people want what you want - e.g. explaining to Morrigan that by saving some peasant's mother we get the key to the hidden family stash, which we can use to buy her some magical tool. Alternatively, I would be even more happy if I could just torture the peasant for information and then sell her still living mother to a darkspawn liason for food.

Your ability to persuade people should matter, as should their degree of conviction and ability to see through your attempts. I agree that you should be able to do those things, and in fact this is possible in da:o to a degree. But your choices on how to pursue an action are likely to have consequences, that is the way of things.

Dalyaria wrote...

What I want is to properly be able to roleplay my character, and not be shut out of game content without alternate evil content. I also want to be able to have suspension of disbelief, via consistent and realistic party interactions. Like another person said, it is quite difficult when Alistair will completely forgive you for killing innocent peasants when he gets some trinkets as a gift.

This I very much disagree with. In fact I would take this in completely the opposite direction. Playing a completely benevolent, compassionate character should open some choices, close others just as playing a conceited, self centered character with no value on life would. Again to a degree da:o does this, if you help everyone it causes Morrigan to dislike you, and even at times Sten if it takes you away from the mission of pursuing the Blight though in my opinion it could go farther.