78 réponses à ce sujet

[MarkyT]

This game is undoubtedly one of the best RPGs ever made, and deserves all its applause.

But I was a little disappointed by its relative lack of moral ambiguity. Apart from one or two genuinely tricky decisions, such as killing or not killing that blood mage guy (Jauffre?), most of the choices in this game were simple: do you a) want to be a good guy or want to be a bad guy?

I realise that the great fantasy epics of our time all offered this simplistic tried ad tested good vs evil approach - Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and so on. But we have moved on a little with modern story telling I believe, and I feel an opportunity was missed.

I would have liked the decisions to have been a little more colored - for example, you choose the side of order at the cost of quelling creativity; or you choose the bad guys, knowing that ultimately they will offer more personal freedom.

I felt the Witcher was more successful at that approach. A great example of the counterintuitive take is "Wicked", which offers a strikingly different perspective on the Wizard of Oz. Everything is more murky. Or, perhaps we might consider the current approach to Batman - the flawed Dark Knight, who enters deeply questionable places with every piece of supposed do-gooding.

This kind of writing is much harder. But it is also far closer to the epic decisions of our era, and more appropriate commentary.

Lord of the Rings was simple: the ****s are casting a dark shadow over Europe, and allies must come together to stop them. This is the basic Dragon Age formula.

But what of a more subtle 'war on terror' formula; where by opposing the vile acts of terror, you compromise your own standards by the creation of torture camps? An era where we have enough information about other people and cultures to realise that no one side is the ultimate bogeyman; there is good and bad in all.

In other words, it would be great to have faced some 'bad guys' with just cause, to have protected good guys with deeper flaws. Dragon Age took some faltering steps in this direction, but I would like to see a lot more of it in future episodes.

Modifié par MarkyT, 04 décembre 2009 - 04:06 .

[Roxlimn]

You can't actually choose to be that much of a bad guy in Dragon Age. You can make some questionable decisions, but they never really offer the evil outcome. You can't for instance, choose to ally yourself with the Darkspawn.



I actually like that just the way it is. I'm not sure I would like to play a game where half the content means I have to be a genuinely bad guy.

[Valmy]

Roxlimn wrote...
You can't for instance, choose to ally yourself with the Darkspawn.

Yeah the Darkspawn do lack a good diplomatic corps.  That makes them difficult to negotiate with.

[MarkyT]

AH - the Darkspawn ambassador.. now that would have livened things up a bit.



Secret pro-Darkspawn printing presses, promising Ferelden that they are in fact working to overthrow the old corrupt regime, offer an era of new glory and equality for all.

[Herr Uhl]

MarkyT wrote...

AH - the Darkspawn ambassador.. now that would have livened things up a bit.

Secret pro-Darkspawn printing presses, promising Ferelden that they are in fact working to overthrow the old corrupt regime, offer an era of new glory and equality for all.

Well, some accuse Loghain of being in league with darkspawn...

[Roxlimn]

Technically, you could also ally yourself with a demon and become an abomination - that might work as an amoral choice, too. Can't do that, either.



Or create your very own Broodmother.

[LdyShayna]

You didn't feel the choice at the Anvil was a tricky one? Given what your character knew, the dwarves had lost almost all of their lands once the golems stopped being made, resulting in the near complete loss of the Deep Roads and most of the dwarven race. I coudl easily see a PC, especially a dwarven one, at least having difficulty with this decision.



And the "evil" choice for who ruled the dwarven kingdom was the only one that resulted in the dwarves actually thriving.



Of course, I'm not a big fan of always having to choose SOME sort of evil. I want to play a hero, and ALWAYS choosing evil? Not much of a heroic enterprise. This is, indeed, one of the reasons I've no interest in playing The Witcher, so I suppose I'm not a good person to argue against your stance. Heh.

[ExistsAlready]

Side with the goody-two-shoes Harrowmont but be pragmatic and side with Branka. You'll doom the Dwarven race!

[MarkyT]

LdyShayna wrote...

You didn't feel the choice at the Anvil was a tricky one? Given what your character knew, the dwarves had lost almost all of their lands once the golems stopped being made, resulting in the near complete loss of the Deep Roads and most of the dwarven race. I coudl easily see a PC, especially a dwarven one, at least having difficulty with this decision.

And the "evil" choice for who ruled the dwarven kingdom was the only one that resulted in the dwarves actually thriving.

Of course, I'm not a big fan of always having to choose SOME sort of evil. I want to play a hero, and ALWAYS choosing evil? Not much of a heroic enterprise. This is, indeed, one of the reasons I've no interest in playing The Witcher, so I suppose I'm not a good person to argue against your stance. Heh.

You are right, the anvil was a decent choice, but lessened by the fact that you knew there would be no bad consequences to destroying it.

If the choice had been that destroying the anvil really meant losing your best hope of saving the land - ie, perhaps the anvil was the games equivalent to the atom bomb in WW2 - and that not sacrificing those souls to its dark magic would have cost the lives of many others, it would have been tougher.

But by that point, for me at least, it was already pretty clear that the "good choice" would lead to a pretty positive outcome anyway. Still, I did like the Branka narrative. It was perhaps the best of them.

What the story is missing is a sense of real darkness... where you lose your friends and are facing defeat in the face, and have to take some gruelling decisions to stave off that defeat.

While there is darkness in the game, you never really hit rock bottom.

Modifié par MarkyT, 04 décembre 2009 - 04:25 .

[Wolf68]

I can't agree with every statement.



Let's take the Orzammar storyline as an example.



Supporting the obviously good Harrowmond, destroying the anvil, establishing a chantry ... results in a "bad" epilogue text.

Taking a more evil approach results in a great future for Orzammar. As a common dwarf you are even declared paragon with an own house.



That was suprising for me. And a bit confusing.

Being rewarded for being opportunistic? That's almost like in real life.

I am not sure, what the developers wanted to tell us. Doing the right thing is not always the right? Orzammar is better served with a murderous tyrant? Or maybe a simple "lol owned".



To be honest, I would have preferred a clear good-evil morale. Being good helps the people, being evil don't. Something like that.

[SpideyKnight]

You can be pretty heroic in The Witcher. It isn't over the top, most noble man on earth stuff. The guy has to do what is necessary in a few instances, but he certainly has the capability to not be a jerk most of the game.

[MarkyT]

Wolf68 wrote...

I can't agree with every statement.

Let's take the Orzammar storyline as an example.

Supporting the obviously good Harrowmond, destroying the anvil, establishing a chantry ... results in a "bad" epilogue text.
Taking a more evil approach results in a great future for Orzammar. As a common dwarf you are even declared paragon with an own house.

That was suprising for me. And a bit confusing.
Being rewarded for being opportunistic? That's almost like in real life.
I am not sure, what the developers wanted to tell us. Doing the right thing is not always the right? Orzammar is better served with a murderous tyrant? Or maybe a simple "lol owned".

To be honest, I would have preferred a clear good-evil morale. Being good helps the people, being evil don't. Something like that.

Re the epilogue, that is a fair point. And there were some clues that Harrowmont would be a closed-minded traditionalist.

But while I liked the epilogue, it did not really feel like a consequence - at least, not in terms of gameplay. I am more interested in the consequences during the actual gameplay period than the epilogue.

Still, perhaps I haven't played enough outcomes to appreciate the moral complexity in there.

[LdyShayna]

MarkyT wrote...
You are right, the anvil was a decent choice, but lessened by the fact that you knew there would be no bad consequences to destroying it.

I had no such assurances, personally.  Indeed, I rather assumed I would get fewer dwarven troops and leave the dwarves doomed to dwindle.

What the story is missing is a sense of real darkness... where you lose your friends and are facing defeat in the face, and have to take some gruelling decisions to stave off that defeat.

While there is darkness in the game, you never really hit rock bottom.

Ah, see.  I have zero interest in playing such a game.

EDIT:  Ah, that is a difference too.  I DEFINITELY consider the epilogue a very important part when considering the results of my character's choices.

Modifié par LdyShayna, 04 décembre 2009 - 04:31 .

[Maconbar]

MarkyT wrote...

LdyShayna wrote...

You didn't feel the choice at the Anvil was a tricky one? Given what your character knew, the dwarves had lost almost all of their lands once the golems stopped being made, resulting in the near complete loss of the Deep Roads and most of the dwarven race. I coudl easily see a PC, especially a dwarven one, at least having difficulty with this decision.

And the "evil" choice for who ruled the dwarven kingdom was the only one that resulted in the dwarves actually thriving.

Of course, I'm not a big fan of always having to choose SOME sort of evil. I want to play a hero, and ALWAYS choosing evil? Not much of a heroic enterprise. This is, indeed, one of the reasons I've no interest in playing The Witcher, so I suppose I'm not a good person to argue against your stance. Heh.

You are right, the anvil was a decent choice, but lessened by the fact that you knew there would be no bad consequences to destroying it.

If the choice had been that destroying the anvil really meant losing your best hope of saving the land - ie, perhaps the anvil was the games equivalent to the atom bomb in WW2 - and that not sacrificing those souls to its dark magic would have cost the lives of many others, it would have been tougher.

But by that point, for me at least, it was already pretty clear that the "good choice" would lead to a pretty positive outcome anyway. Still, I did like the Branka narrative. It was perhaps the best of them.

What the story is missing is a sense of real darkness... where you lose your friends and are facing defeat in the face, and have to take some gruelling decisions to stave off that defeat.

While there is darkness in the game, you never really hit rock bottom.

Destroying the Anvil clearly has negative conquences. Do the Dwarves have much hope in regaining any of their losts thaigs without golems? Who is to say the getting rid of the Anvil doesn't result in the slow attrition of the remaining thaigs?

[Sidney]

LdyShayna wrote...

I had no such assurances, personally.  Indeed, I rather assumed I would get fewer dwarven troops and leave the dwarves doomed to dwindle.

Well the whole of Orza has no clear options. Break the anvil and the dwarves are on the same slow road to oblviion they are on now. Bring it back and how many "volunteers" meet their end on the anvil trying to reclaim what is lost?

Toss in that you can choose the "good" king as Harrowmont and reinforce the nasty caste order or take the illegitmate Bhelen and bring a bit of opportunity to the poor Dusters.

I think there are plenty of not good options in Recliffe - kill mom or kill the kid unless you've not Annulled the Circle then you have other options but I didn't have that option my first time.

You can make plenty of dark choices in the Breciallian Forest as well.

I think there's plenty of darkness and morally ambiguous choices that some people don't take them isn't the problem of the game,

[Roxlimn]

Between Harrowmont and Bhelen, Bhelen was the pragmatic choice. It was obvious enough to me, anyway. I totally expected both respective outcomes. I didn't know that Branka endings were so bad, though.



In any case, siding with a powerful, obsessed personality and giving her command of a powerful artifact is obviously bad if you want a sane choice. Even though I wanted to save the Anvil, the fact that Branka came with it significantly tilted me in favor of Carridin. If I could give it to Bhelen direct, I would have fought Carridin for it for sure.

[telephasic]

I have to agree I haven't found the choices the game presents me very difficult from a personal perspective. Now, from a roleplay perspective, some are difficult, but I really hoped the game would give me more decisions my internal morality didn't check of a "right" answer on within two seconds (the minor case of the templar and the desire demon in the Tower was the hardest decision for me to make in the entire game).

To summarize -

1. Elves vs. Werewolves: You basically have an ideal/good option (save everyone), a slightly less good option with no game effect (kill the werewolves), and a chaotic stupid game option (kill the elves). Unless you're metagaming to unlock the werewolf army, you have NO REASON to pick the option of persuading the werewolves to kill all the Dalish. You don't have a werewolf treaty, you have no reason to believe the werewolves will help you.

2. Mage's Tower: At first glance, there is a ruthless option (kill the surviving, possibly innocent mages to gain the templar's help) or a forgiving option (allow the circle to continue). Now, you *do* have the option to send the mages to Lothering for questioning, and gain the Templar's aid without slaughtering the mages, but the game does not make that option evident - if you miss one line of text, it's easy to pass by.

3. The Behlen vs. Harrowmont choice was one of the best in the game IMHO. Even if I didn't know Behlen would be the better king, I would be sincerely torn on who to pick. Essentially, Behlen uses "evil" means towards an ultimately "good" end, while Harrowmont uses "good" means towards a "bad" end. I think you have the option to pick Branka as queen here, which would just be chaotic stupid, as she's obviously unfit to rule.

4. Anvil: I could never conscionably allow the Anvil to survive, particularly given Branka is in control of it, although RPing a Noble Dwarf I'm sure I'd feel differently. But personally speaking, if that's the power the Dwarves need to become a force in Ferelden again, they can wither away and die for all I care.

5. Sacred Ashes: The dumbest "decision" in the game, bar none. The cultist leader, after you have slaughtered 90% of his followers, gives you the option of defiling one of the most sacred relics in Ferelden for vague promises of power (and a metagame unlock! cool!). Even if you aren't a follower of the Chantry, the decision is so clearly a parody of mustache-twirling stupid evil that it's not even funny.

6. Connor: Overall, a poor decision tree. As long as you haven't killed and/or exiled the mages, there is a no loss good way to solve the questline. Which basically means killing the Arl's son is just lazy and ruthless, and allowing Isolde to sacrifice herself is just lazy. Of course, you only know that if you metagame. I do have to say the way blood mage is unlocked is quite smart however, as it's an "evil" decision that makes sense, as the desire demon clearly offers material benefit to your character, and thus a way to help stop the blight.

Modifié par telephasic, 04 décembre 2009 - 04:50 .

[elijah_kaine]

MarkyT wrote...

LdyShayna wrote...

You didn't feel the choice at the Anvil was a tricky one? Given what your character knew, the dwarves had lost almost all of their lands once the golems stopped being made, resulting in the near complete loss of the Deep Roads and most of the dwarven race. I coudl easily see a PC, especially a dwarven one, at least having difficulty with this decision.

And the "evil" choice for who ruled the dwarven kingdom was the only one that resulted in the dwarves actually thriving.

Of course, I'm not a big fan of always having to choose SOME sort of evil. I want to play a hero, and ALWAYS choosing evil? Not much of a heroic enterprise. This is, indeed, one of the reasons I've no interest in playing The Witcher, so I suppose I'm not a good person to argue against your stance. Heh.

You are right, the anvil was a decent choice, but lessened by the fact that you knew there would be no bad consequences to destroying it.

If the choice had been that destroying the anvil really meant losing your best hope of saving the land - ie, perhaps the anvil was the games equivalent to the atom bomb in WW2 - and that not sacrificing those souls to its dark magic would have cost the lives of many others, it would have been tougher.

But by that point, for me at least, it was already pretty clear that the "good choice" would lead to a pretty positive outcome anyway. Still, I did like the Branka narrative. It was perhaps the best of them.

What the story is missing is a sense of real darkness... where you lose your friends and are facing defeat in the face, and have to take some gruelling decisions to stave off that defeat.

While there is darkness in the game, you never really hit rock bottom.

I tend to think more along the lines that MarkyT does. While I don't disagree with a player wanting to be a "hero" , like LdyShayna, that's a perfectly viable desire to want out of a game, I do think it's been seen to much and I think the further and further games get away from that the more they will evolve.

I think adding more deep emotional choices is what's needed in Role Playing Games, especially ones that focus on story, I think the moral choices in games are having trouble evolving. Moral choices I would love to see in a game "If you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he became the *#&$er we know him as today would you?" "If you could cure a terrible disease in the world and all you had to do is kill one innocent kid would you?"

The thing about the kill Hitler as a kid choice that makes it so powerful is on one end you're preventing genocide, on the other hand your killing a peice of your soul and doing something morally wrong yourself, something pretty perverse as far as bad things go. But then if you don't kill him when running into him as a kid your allowing that genocide to happen. That's what really makes a powerful moral choice.

In my personal oppinion I think that some of the choices in DragonAge loose some of their moral weight, and emotional power when you have the abilitly to get the "good" result without having to do anything bad. Namely the chocies at RedCliffe Castle and The Elves vs. Werewolf (can't spell the forest name off the top of my head.) situations were you can do the good thing (not resorting to blood magic and not be wiling to sacrifice the wife to save the boy/ Convince both the Elves and Werewolves to get along kiss and make up.) I feel both of those choices would be more powerful and would be more meaningful in the end for the player because it forces them to not only decide what is the right thing to do, but what is the lesser of two evils is, or even what the more moral of choices is. Is it more moral for The Elven Keeper to be allowed to get his revenge? Or is more moral for The Elven Keeper to die in order to spare the ancestors of Human Barbarians their pain? 

Then again I'm sure some players would be upset by not being able to get the happy ending, or to be the hero and save the day without any weight on there shoulders, like LdyShayna, who probably would view not being able to make things right and ultimitaly save the day might be somewhat of a buzz kill for her as a player. So it's really hard to say that I think Bioware should do things that way becaue there are obviously players who will not enjoy that and Bioware's job is ulitmately to make games that as many people as possible can enjoy.

[Archonsg]

I don't know, there was one choice in particular in dealing with Connor and the Desire Demon that was controlling him. That whole situation has got oodles of moralistic choices that some might have missed because either they were not paying attention or just “fast clicked” past conversations.
Of note is the fact that the demon cannot make someone do something that they do not want or had no inclination to do so in the first place. This was mentioned by another demon you met in the mages tower.  So knowing this, you have to ask yourself this, all that transpired, the attacks on Redcliffe Village and Connor’s lust for power and conquest, disregard for both the peasants and those who served him in the castle as well as making his uncle, Bann Teagon, a “fool” was something that Connor himself probably dreamt of doing and in doing so, gave the fuel for the Desire Demon to wreak havoc.
So now you have the choice to save him even though you know he is a “broken child” and hope that he will not grow up to act on his dreams, kill him outright or to insidiously make a deal with the demon and betray everyone to your own benefit.  While saving Connor by defeating the demon might have made you feel good, at the end, if you made the choice to live through the fight with the archdemon, Arl Eamon tells you that he wonders about Connor and that Connor sometimes gives the Arl “strange” looks. A Foreshadowing perhaps, of a darkness that has been awakened in the boy.

In the end I choose to give Connor a chance because what he might do, isn't the same as what he would do right?

[Herr Uhl]

telephasic wrote...

4. Anvil: I could never conscionably allow the Anvil to survive, particularly given Branka is in control of it, although RPing a Noble Dwarf I'm sure I'd feel differently. But personally speaking, if that's the power the Dwarves need to become a force in Ferelden again, they can wither away and die for all I care.

Yes, the heroic choice *coughs*.

[elijah_kaine]

Archonsg wrote...

I don't know, there was one choice in particular in dealing with Connor and the Desire Demon that was controlling him. That whole situation has got oodles of moralistic choices that some might have missed because either they were not paying attention or just “fast clicked” past conversations.
Of note is the fact that the demon cannot make someone do something that they do not want or had no inclination to do so in the first place. This was mentioned by another demon you met in the mages tower.  So knowing this, you have to ask yourself this, all that transpired, the attacks on Redcliffe Village and Connor’s lust for power and conquest, disregard for both the peasants and those who served him in the castle as well as making his uncle, Bann Teagon, a “fool” was something that Connor himself probably dreamt of doing and in doing so, gave the fuel for the Desire Demon to wreak havoc.
So now you have the choice to save him even though you know he is a “broken child” and hope that he will not grow up to act on his dreams, kill him outright or to insidiously make a deal with the demon and betray everyone to your own benefit.  While saving Connor by defeating the demon might have made you feel good, at the end, if you made the choice to live through the fight with the archdemon, Arl Eamon tells you that he wonders about Connor and that Connor sometimes gives the Arl “strange” looks. A Foreshadowing perhaps, of a darkness that has been awakened in the boy.

In the end I choose to give Connor a chance because what he might do, isn't the same as what he would do right?

Well there is that, but that is very sutle and the consequences of letting the boy live aren't thought about my any one in your party or even given lime light in the scenario. Not one character, not a mage in your party mentions the fact that it could be the demon is revealing the true nature of the boy.

I'll admit that subtle thought went right over my head, but you must admit that it wasn't really given attention in the game, or in the moment of the choice. The focus of the choice is do you use Blood Magic to save a kid, do you resort to an evil deed to save the kids life or do you risk the kids life (which might be considered an evil deed) in order to not have to commit an evil deed? The choice may have been more powerful if that line of thought that you picked up on was given more focus.

(is going to pay closer attention to talking to the mother and Arl after the scenario, sounds interesting.)

I'd also like to add that I'm not making light of the fact that Dragon Age is a wonderful compeling story. I just think that the choices could have been more emotionally powerful and more intellectually compelling.

Modifié par elijah_kaine, 04 décembre 2009 - 05:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

telephasic wrote...
1. Elves vs. Werewolves: You basically have an ideal/good option (save everyone), a slightly less good option with no game effect (kill the werewolves), and a chaotic stupid game option (kill the elves). Unless you're metagaming to unlock the werewolf army, you have NO REASON to pick the option of persuading the werewolves to kill all the Dalish. You don't have a werewolf treaty, you have no reason to believe the werewolves will help you.

I disagree. I tried getting the werewolves to join the army and it felt gratifying. I wouldn't trust the werewolves on their own, but one can trust the lady of the forest, who obviously doesn't want to see the blight win.

It's actually very pragmatic. You either get weakling elves, many of which are cursed. Or you get badass powerful werewolves, who will get a boost to their numbers via cursed elves. It's not chaotic stupid at all. It's ultimate pragmatism. And you can convince your party members of that fact.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 04 décembre 2009 - 05:19 .

[Sable Phoenix]

I disagree that there is a lack of moral ambiguity in Dragon Age. It's probably not as high as the ambiguity of The Witcher, say, but it IS true that for the majority of the decisions in the game, especially the major ones, you're not choosing between "evil" and "good" choices, you're choosing between being a jerk or being a nice guy, being selfish or being altruistic, or even just trying to figure out what will be the greatest help in defeating the darkspawn, all considerations of selfishness or nicety aside.

Promote Alistair for the throne or Anora?  Destroy the Anvil of the Void, or restart it?  There's no real "right" answer for these situations.  You're just trying to choose what will be the most help in stopping the Blight.

Dragon Age is more ambiguous than almost any other RPG, so I think Bioware succeeded.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 04 décembre 2009 - 05:22 .

[TheRealIncarnal]

I honestly can't think of any game I've played that has offered me more moral choice and flexibility than this game has.



I mean dealing with Conner? Freeing the Werewolves from Dalish oppression vs. Ending the Curse? Golems vs. Sacrificing the Dwarves? Annulling the Mages vs. the risk of keeping them around? All of the issues surrounding Loghain and Alister leading up to Landsmeet? The entire game is so full of difficult moral choices compared to the usual "Save the Orphans vs. Set them onfire" choices you get, these are actually difficult decisions.

[TjM78]

Herr Uhl wrote...


Well, some accuse Loghain of being in league with darkspawn...

Of course. He is an all powerfull Vampire