Aller au contenu

Photo

A lack of moral ambiguity?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
78 réponses à ce sujet

#51
Viglin

Viglin
  • Members
  • 836 messages

MarkyT wrote...

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.



See l read this as you not looking at the big picture, which as a Grey Warden we should be..and in the end, the end justifies the means.

And when Dragon Age 2 comes out, those BIG choices you made...may..just may have a real purpose.

As for not "Dark" enough, l swear there was a similar thread yesterday about this.

You had choices to be be "dark"...dont make the Devs force it on you.

#52
Orogun01

Orogun01
  • Members
  • 168 messages

DeathWyrmNexus wrote...


This...

There isn't any real point to joining the Darkspawn. They are empty shells and pawns of the archdemon. At best, you would alienate everybody in your party and end up a petty Alpha Darkspawn. I am all for evil, I just like there to be a point as well. Evil for the sake of evil is rather dumb.

As so is good for goodness' sake, but nobody takes a swing at the guy going into the fire to save an innocent with no hope of reward. Yet there is the perspective of this act as noble and therefore good, the opposite; evil for the sake of evil, is an option for those interested in RP a despicable villain.

I was actually annoyed at the kill the elves option because it didn't seem to have a point. Witherfang didn't want them dead and I doubt werewolves would be able to get along with the other allies I could get together. So they would be worthless.

 
Actually, it was the Lady of the Forest who didn't; Witherfang as the most bestial side would have agreed or rather not cared. As for the werewolves not getting along with all the other allies, it would be the same case with the Dalish. I know that werewolves is are more shocking than elves, but you can always put them with your golem army.

#53
ExistsAlready

ExistsAlready
  • Members
  • 226 messages
If your character is a zealous Templar, siding with the Elf-cursed Humans to kill the Apostate Keeper and his friends makes sense.

#54
DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus
  • Members
  • 412 messages

Orogun01 wrote...

DeathWyrmNexus wrote...


This...

There isn't any real point to joining the Darkspawn. They are empty shells and pawns of the archdemon. At best, you would alienate everybody in your party and end up a petty Alpha Darkspawn. I am all for evil, I just like there to be a point as well. Evil for the sake of evil is rather dumb.

As so is good for goodness' sake, but nobody takes a swing at the guy going into the fire to save an innocent with no hope of reward. Yet there is the perspective of this act as noble and therefore good, the opposite; evil for the sake of evil, is an option for those interested in RP a despicable villain.

I was actually annoyed at the kill the elves option because it didn't seem to have a point. Witherfang didn't want them dead and I doubt werewolves would be able to get along with the other allies I could get together. So they would be worthless.

 
Actually, it was the Lady of the Forest who didn't; Witherfang as the most bestial side would have agreed or rather not cared. As for the werewolves not getting along with all the other allies, it would be the same case with the Dalish. I know that werewolves is are more shocking than elves, but you can always put them with your golem army.

Your good for goodness sake argument doesn't make sense. Of course people don't punch other people for selfless acts of heroism. Humans are tribal animals, groomed for eons to help the tribe. We actually get brain chemical rewards for doing good deeds... It literally feels good to give. However, if somebody pushes somebody else in a fire, IE evil for evil sake, then of course everybody is going to be pissed off, especially anybody who cared about the victim. Evil for Evil sake tends to bring more grief than it is worth.

You bring up the option of the despicable villain. Guess what, Howe was a despicable villain but he knew who to be nice to, didn't he? He was a sadist but he was smooth about it to the right people. So no, chaotic stupid is still just stupid. You can be a villain without kittten kicking for the sake of kitten kicking. If you want to be a villain for the sake of villainy, play Overlord 1 or 2.

Grey Wardens actually have a goal to accomplish and kicking kittens randomly doesn't really mesh well with that.

The Lady of the Forest is the part actually making a deal with you, not Witherfang. She controls whether he shows up. The werewolves respect Witherfang and want to be human, not wolves. So no, it doesn't make sense to screw that up with pointless slaughter. Also, you only get 4 golems. That isn't much of an army to have Werewolves hang with.

As for the Dalish, um no, they get along just fine with the human army. As a matter of fact, being rational creatures not known to be possessed by demons, IE werewolves, they do quite well. So again, no point.

You seem to be confusing Despicable Villain with being Gargamel, who was the retard who couldn't even beat the Smurfs because he was senselessly evil. So no, I still don't support the pointlessly evil option. Perhaps in a game that didn't have a big job to fill but not in Dragon Age, it just doesn't make much sense.

#55
DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus
  • Members
  • 412 messages

ExistsAlready wrote...

If your character is a zealous Templar, siding with the Elf-cursed Humans to kill the Apostate Keeper and his friends makes sense.

Only if you ignore the whole "Rest of the elves are actually innocent" part...

#56
Behindyounow

Behindyounow
  • Members
  • 1 612 messages

DeathWyrmNexus wrote...

ExistsAlready wrote...

If your character is a zealous Templar, siding with the Elf-cursed Humans to kill the Apostate Keeper and his friends makes sense.

Only if you ignore the whole "Rest of the elves are actually innocent" part...


They knew what they were getting into.

#57
ExistsAlready

ExistsAlready
  • Members
  • 226 messages
All mages outside the Circle are Apostates. All Apostates can become Maelificarum. Templars hunt the Dalish because their Keepers are Apostates. The Lady of the Forest is the leader of a group of humans cursed by a blood mage. The Dalish won't let you kill Zathrian without a fight. Aiding a maelificar deserves punishment.

See, it's easy when you see it from a Templar's point of view.

Modifié par ExistsAlready, 04 décembre 2009 - 08:16 .


#58
DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus
  • Members
  • 412 messages

ExistsAlready wrote...

All mages outside the Circle are Apostates. All Apostates can become Maelificarum. Templars hunt the Dalish because their Keepers are Apostates. The Lady of the Forest is the leader of a group of humans cursed by a blood mage. The Dalish won't let you kill Zathrian without a fight. Aiding a maelificar deserves punishment.

See, it's easy when you see it from a Templar's point of view.

Then technically werewolves are abominations since they are cursed not unlike magi and the Lady of the Forest is a Fade Spirit, no better than a demon.

I can play this game too. ;)

#59
Kuravid

Kuravid
  • Members
  • 224 messages

Behindyounow wrote...

telephasic wrote...

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. 


You have plenty of reason. Elves are the scum of the Earth, and the world would be better off with them dead.


And the Dalish elves are pretty boring IMO. Also,  watching the werewolves march out of the forest in the cut scene right before you go to fight off the darkspawn in Denerim makes the battle feel all the more epic.

#60
ExistsAlready

ExistsAlready
  • Members
  • 226 messages

DeathWyrmNexus wrote...

ExistsAlready wrote...

All mages outside the Circle are Apostates. All Apostates can become Maelificarum. Templars hunt the Dalish because their Keepers are Apostates. The Lady of the Forest is the leader of a group of humans cursed by a blood mage. The Dalish won't let you kill Zathrian without a fight. Aiding a maelificar deserves punishment.

See, it's easy when you see it from a Templar's point of view.

Then technically werewolves are abominations since they are cursed not unlike magi and the Lady of the Forest is a Fade Spirit, no better than a demon.

I can play this game too. ;)


The Werewolves are transformed humans. Abominations are demons possessing mortal bodies. Slight difference between the two.

#61
DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus
  • Members
  • 412 messages

ExistsAlready wrote...

DeathWyrmNexus wrote...

ExistsAlready wrote...

All mages outside the Circle are Apostates. All Apostates can become Maelificarum. Templars hunt the Dalish because their Keepers are Apostates. The Lady of the Forest is the leader of a group of humans cursed by a blood mage. The Dalish won't let you kill Zathrian without a fight. Aiding a maelificar deserves punishment.

See, it's easy when you see it from a Templar's point of view.

Then technically werewolves are abominations since they are cursed not unlike magi and the Lady of the Forest is a Fade Spirit, no better than a demon.

I can play this game too. ;)


The Werewolves are transformed humans. Abominations are demons possessing mortal bodies. Slight difference between the two.

Read your codex, the legends state that they are wolves possessed by demons. And why would a templar take a monster at its word? Let alone a spirit that has done obvious harm to elves. Templar logic works both ways though I see the templar killing both if you want to be technical.

#62
telephasic

telephasic
  • Members
  • 249 messages

Orogun01 wrote...
As so is good for goodness' sake, but nobody takes a swing at the guy going into the fire to save an innocent with no hope of reward. Yet there is the perspective of this act as noble and therefore good, the opposite; evil for the sake of evil, is an option for those interested in RP a despicable villain.


People who act selflessly, whether they do so for reasons of nature or nuture, do so because they have a moral code which tells them to do so.  Now, it's possible to have a moral code which tells you to do "evil" things (Morrigan does, it's very close to Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy actually).  But the only people who do evil acts for the sake of evil in RL are psychopaths, and even they are generally not stupid evil, or they get caught by the police pretty quickly. 

Modifié par telephasic, 04 décembre 2009 - 08:48 .


#63
keesio74

keesio74
  • Members
  • 931 messages
I think there are many decisions in the game without a clear cut "good" or "bad" choice.



Such as:

-Choosing between Bhalen or Harrowmont in Orzammer (Harrowmont looks easily "good" at first until you start looking at the policies of the two)

-Choosing between Zathrian or the Werewolves. I felt for Zathrian and understood his rage though I chose to side with the Werewolves

-Choosing between the Templars or Mages in Broken Circle. My logical mind said that the Templar's were right in their decision to seal off the tower. The decision was easy for me to go with the Mages only because I needed them to save Connor



Speaking of Connor, if I didn't have the choice to get help from the First Enchanter, then choosing between saving Connor and letting Isodole(sp?) die or killing Connor would have been a doozy of a choice. I'm glad I had the "out" for that one.


#64
Krigwin

Krigwin
  • Members
  • 104 messages

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.


I don't think the choice of the Anvil is tough at all, actually. The reason the dwarves had lost their lands was because of a lack of military might. Golems are only one way to make up this might. If the dwarves had other help, like say, if a Dwarven PC asked for surfacer aid, then the dwarves would have no problem. There are all kinds of hypothetical options that don't involve the Anvil. Resorting to a tool of pure evil, like the Anvil, is evil, regardless of the circumstances.

Your choice is never between either keep the Anvil, or watch the dwarves get completely destroyed by Darkspawn. You are only fooled into thinking this is the choice by Branka, who herself is a psychotic megalomaniac who has thrown dozens, possibly hundreds, of her own kind to the slaughterhouse. Even if you think keeping the Anvil around for military reasons is worth it, I don't see how anyone can think handing it over to Branka is a good idea. Either the dwarven PC or Bhelen would be make far better use of it.

Also, I agree on topic that the Witcher did a far better job of implementing hard ambiguous choices.

#65
Orogun01

Orogun01
  • Members
  • 168 messages

DeathWyrmNexus wrote...

Your good for goodness sake argument doesn't make sense. Of course people don't punch other people for selfless acts of heroism. Humans are tribal animals, groomed for eons to help the tribe. We actually get brain chemical rewards for doing good deeds... It literally feels good to give. However, if somebody pushes somebody else in a fire, IE evil for evil sake, then of course everybody is going to be pissed off, especially anybody who cared about the victim. Evil for Evil sake tends to bring more grief than it is worth.

I think the word you are looking for is "social" Humans are social animals; and you fail to account for deviations of this norm or relationships where your argument doesn't apply. Humans are also the result of their immediate environment, criminal gangs, tyrannical governments, the child soldiers guerrillas and the such are perfect examples where one could get away with throwing someone onto the fire. Evil for Evil sake lacks the self awareness that you assign to it, most of these evil people had reasonable ( or in their mind reason) excuses for their actions. A simple example would be someone who has been wronged by the world and feels the need for a revenge of sorts.

You bring up the option of the despicable villain. Guess what, Howe was a despicable villain but he knew who to be nice to, didn't he? He was a sadist but he was smooth about it to the right people. So no, chaotic stupid is still just stupid. You can be a villain without kittten kicking for the sake of kitten kicking. If you want to be a villain for the sake of villainy, play Overlord 1 or 2.

Stupid is stupid despite any moral inclinations, even the most reviled villain knows when to stay put. My concern is for the emotive responses and from an in game perspective. As said before; environment is a potent factor, while some people can overcome their past, others succumb to it. As a GW you weren't given the choice to join on many origins and even if you choose it, you had still been tricked. It seems that every new thing you learn about the GW spells premature doom for you, so why couldn't someone feel wronged and retaliate on response. 

Grey Wardens actually have a goal to accomplish and kicking kittens randomly doesn't really mesh well with that.

Which hampers any attempt to role play as an evil char and leaves every option as a necessary wrong, which breaks part of the game considering that you have instances where you can do great evils with no excuse.

The Lady of the Forest is the part actually making a deal with you, not Witherfang. She controls whether he shows up. The werewolves respect Witherfang and want to be human, not wolves. So no, it doesn't make sense to screw that up with pointless slaughter. Also, you only get 4 golems. That isn't much of an army to have Werewolves hang with.

As for the Dalish, um no, they get along just fine with the human army. As a matter of fact, being rational creatures not known to be possessed by demons, IE werewolves, they do quite well. So again, no point.

Perhaps I saw The Lady as a dual creature with two separate consciences, each aware of the other. Also, it was the werewolves who suggested killing all humans, they even attack you. You assume that because they are capable of speech they are rational creatures.

You seem to be confusing Despicable Villain with being Gargamel, who was the retard who couldn't even beat the Smurfs because he was senselessly evil. So no, I still don't support the pointlessly evil option. Perhaps in a game that didn't have a big job to fill but not in Dragon Age, it just doesn't make much sense.

I don't think that the motives of a cartoon character are too elaborate, that is evil for evil's sake without a motive. There is the conscious choice of doing something despicable because of ideology or emotion and the belief that they are actually right to do so. Perhaps in a game where your hero doesn't have to be so heroic you can actually fail to fulfill your duty; out of neglect or incompetence, but it seems that you are bound to be the awesome Grey Warden nonetheless. 

#66
TuringPoint

TuringPoint
  • Members
  • 2 089 messages
I don't believe moral ambiguity is inherently more accurate than having some well-planned responses available to commit to. And yet, most of the major decisions of the game have some caveat, and they always allow for the morals of the individual to shine through. The only exception is the werewolf situation, but even that is treated pretty neutrally by the game.

I think maintaining amoral standards in your choices, "everyone is the same," is unnecessary to portraying a morally grey world.  I definitely felt like you could play a person without any particular morals, and you could play with a diverse set of morals.  I didn't get that impression with The Witcher, but I didn't play far before I got bored with the world.

All told, I considerably prefer "all choices have consequences, good and bad," to, "all choices are morally grey."

Modifié par Alocormin, 05 décembre 2009 - 03:15 .


#67
DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus
  • Members
  • 412 messages

Orogun01 wrote...
I think the word you are looking for is "social" Humans are social animals; and you fail to account for deviations of this norm or relationships where your argument doesn't apply. Humans are also the result of their immediate environment, criminal gangs, tyrannical governments, the child soldiers guerrillas and the such are perfect examples where one could get away with throwing someone onto the fire. Evil for Evil sake lacks the self awareness that you assign to it, most of these evil people had reasonable ( or in their mind reason) excuses for their actions. A simple example would be someone who has been wronged by the world and feels the need for a revenge of sorts.

Group of humans is called a tribe so while semantics are fun, there was no point in that clarification.

You made the argument about the good guy not being punished and why would he? You also seem to forget what happens to those criminal gangs, tyrannical governments, and child soldiers. Indoctrination and a lack of any kind of real higher thinking. If I am going to be a villain, I would actually like a choice that is more sinister than Lulz kill kittens. All the evil choices you are talking about are basically just shooting yourself in the foot...

Stupid is stupid despite any moral inclinations, even the most reviled villain knows when to stay put. My concern is for the emotive responses and from an in game perspective. As said before; environment is a potent factor, while some people can overcome their past, others succumb to it. As a GW you weren't given the choice to join on many origins and even if you choose it, you had still been tricked. It seems that every new thing you learn about the GW spells premature doom for you, so why couldn't someone feel wronged and retaliate on response.

So basically become a whiny emo **** because you feel tricked into becoming something awesome for a few years before being expected to go find a glorious death in the Deep Roads. I can see how that would happen but I just don't see the appeal of becoming a totally self destructive thug because of it. I prefer snakes to rabid dogs though so that is just opinion on my part.

Which hampers any attempt to role play as an evil char and leaves every option as a necessary wrong, which breaks part of the game considering that you have instances where you can do great evils with no excuse.

Um no... Not really. You can choose to slaughter the evils, desecrate the Urn, kill nearly all your companions, etc etc. I saw a lot of chances to do evil. I just didn't see a lot of chances to be self destructively stupid and those chances that I did see just made me shake my head at the pointlessness.

Perhaps I saw The Lady as a dual creature with two separate consciences, each aware of the other. Also, it was the werewolves who suggested killing all humans, they even attack you. You assume that because they are capable of speech they are rational creatures.

Actually no, I assume that the Lady of the Forest's exact words are what she wants. I also believe that the werewolves are fighting with their nature. I also believe the Gatekeeper wanted to solve things peacefully as did Swiftrunner once the Lady talked him down. Witherfang is merely a personification of the savagery with which werewolves struggle. So sure, it is an alternate personality but it isn't necessarily what both want or even it wants. Children can rage and demand things they don't truly want because they are lost in their anger. IE, the keeper's grudge. It was childish and needed to end. Geez, it is almost as if I was paying attention to the exposition...

The werewolves actually want the Dalish, not humans, to suffer as they have suffered. It is a persuade option to just up and kill them... If you'd recall.


I don't think that the motives of a cartoon character are too elaborate, that is evil for evil's sake without a motive. There is the conscious choice of doing something despicable because of ideology or emotion and the belief that they are actually right to do so. Perhaps in a game where your hero doesn't have to be so heroic you can actually fail to fulfill your duty; out of neglect or incompetence, but it seems that you are bound to be the awesome Grey Warden nonetheless.

A lot of what you were talking about was basically evil for the sake of evil, IE fire shoving. So why shy now? You wanted the option to RP an evil dolt, embrace it with the man love of Behindyounow. Seriously, Duncan makes a point of saying, "Hey morons, we are outnumbered, try not to ****** on the feet of everybody you meet so we can actually do our sacred duty."

So yea... I'd prefer more snake options for villainy. If I want to run around stabbing children or something equivalent, I'll be a jerk in Oblivion or Overlord.

#68
VanDraegon

VanDraegon
  • Members
  • 956 messages
Perhaps someone mentioned this but i think that Bioware kinda did this on purpose. They wanted the player to have to make a more difficult moral choice falling into one camp or the other when a more morally ambiguous choice would have been easier.



I agree with what you are saying though OP but there are expansions and a lot of DLC to come yet. Perhaps we will see something like that yet. Dragon Age is certainly one of the great rpg games though.


#69
Roxlimn

Roxlimn
  • Members
  • 1 337 messages
We don't know that the Darkspawn are actually empty shells and pawns of the Archdemon, since we never get to hear their story. Ruck is basically an-on-the-way Darkspawn and while he seems quite... ...unusual, I never got the impression that he was a mindless automaton.



Since the darkspawn can process tactics and Emissaries can speak, we can at least surmise that they have coherent thought processes of some sort.



In very real terms, we (as heroes of Ferelden) are out to exterminate them with just as much prejudice, brutality, and inhumanity as they are out to get us. Actually, we're probably more destructive because we don't need them to survive. They need us. They can't exterminate humanity and elvendom and dwarfdom because their Broodmothers come from us.

#70
Ariella

Ariella
  • Members
  • 3 693 messages

Roxlimn wrote...

We don't know that the Darkspawn are actually empty shells and pawns of the Archdemon, since we never get to hear their story. Ruck is basically an-on-the-way Darkspawn and while he seems quite... ...unusual, I never got the impression that he was a mindless automaton.


Not a darkspawn, a ghoul, there's a difference. Darkspawn are ONLY produced by the broodmothers. Ruck's an on the way ghoul.

#71
sacredl

sacredl
  • Members
  • 64 messages
Brother Genetivi @ The Urn of Sacred Ashes anyone?

He wants to spread the news across world but it isn't a wise thing to let him do this, so the only option is to kill him. Despite murdering is this really being bad to not let exploit the urn by scavengers in later time?

Modifié par sacredl, 06 décembre 2009 - 01:08 .


#72
MarkyT

MarkyT
  • Members
  • 78 messages
I am honoured that this topic has already engendered so much discussion.



I also believe that it cuts to the heart of the evolution of video games.



Is this an art form/mode of entertainment that ultimately reveals something about the human condition - the mark of all great works - or is it finally a hedonistic pleasure without much consequence?



I am convinced that the potential of this medium to explore ourselves is phenomenal, and truly exciting. I also believe that Bioware, amongst a few others, are coming close to a serious breakthrough in this genre.



It's a thrilling moment in history. Can we, beyond the visceral thrill, use PC gaming as serious social commentary? We can, I am convinced.



Does DA take us closer to that goal?



It does.



But does it achieve it? Almost. Almost.



Of the games studios that have come closest, Bioware is clearly up there. Molynueux, of course. Blizzard. Rockstar. The lads that made Indigo Prophecy. etc. We are touching on a pivotal moment of this form.



I don't want to get all gushy, but now we are so close, let's see a game that actually does it. We can't give up. We need a game that breaks through, without question. One that becomes an unmissable event in our morale philosophy.



I need to play DA more, and think it touches on it, but ultimately remains too rooted in convention to make the modern world go - holy crap - wow - what was that? My worldview has changed.



The possibility is out there. Grab it Bioware!

#73
Zenon

Zenon
  • Members
  • 602 messages
Actually I expected something really bad happening to RedCliffe village, if I left it alone for weeks in order to get enough magi to come back with me to RedCliffe castle. But what happened? Nothing! A bit disappointed here, because it would fit the plot logic, that the attempt to achieve the morally best solution turns out to have the most victims.

Coming to think of it: Especially being a mage myself I'd have felt confident my mage could handle Connor and take him with himself to the tower of magi, cutting the time for bringing mages to RedCliffe in half and having the security of all necessary resources being available at the tower, especially if something went wrong. (EDIT) Possible consequence could have been a demon attack on the camp...

So in some parts the moral dilemma is well presented, but the choices or explanation on why a certain solution would not be possible leaves to the desire.

In many cases information before being confronted with a decision is incomplete. Interesting for me was to play the dwarf noble origin after my first playthough seeing how much intrigue Bhelen committed to get as far as he did at arrival of my mage. Part of the dilemma was here also, that if my mage supported Bhelen, that knowing his methods to go against Harrowmont made me already wonder if Bhelen would be a reliable ally once having achieved his goal. Even if Bhelen would change the caste system, which appears to be morally bad, I saw him as power-mad and a liar. Wouldn't it have been a possible outcome, that Bhelen refuses to help? (I didn't support him yet, so I don't know if anything changes besides the epilogue.)

Part of the moral dilemma is influenced by the origins, which is unique and innovative. Especially when the origin offers the player new choices depending on where his hero comes from. In some cases it's more trying to see the world through a new perspective, but in other cases the hero has new options in the end.

I think already in this game the lines between "good" and "evil" are blurry and sometimes it's hard to figure out what consequences certain decisions will have. I also think it's good, that some situations seem or even are more straightforward than others. Otherwise it would be easy, if it was obvious that a "good" decision would surely be twisted into a bad result.

I haven't played "The Witcher" or "Fallout 3" yet. So I'm not familiar with how decisions are handled in those games, or what would cause more moral ambiguity there. But perhaps one of these two will be my next game, if I don't keep playing DA:O until ME2... (EDIT) I want to conclude: Two thumbs up. The game is not only mature in the way it presents fights and violence, but also in the way it presents and handles mature themes and adding complexity to situations.

Modifié par Zenon, 06 décembre 2009 - 07:36 .


#74
Bryy_Miller

Bryy_Miller
  • Members
  • 7 676 messages
The Anvil decision isn't really a decision. The epilogue makes it sound like they make a new weapon anyway.

#75
asaiasai

asaiasai
  • Members
  • 1 391 messages

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.


Actually being a big fan of The Witcher you are seriously missing out. Now the game does not go into as much detail concerning the choices you have to make as DAO does but the choices do have consequences later on down the line. I still have a hankering for the Witcher because it is just a different style of game play. It centers more around skill in combat as opposed to spell selection. To be sucessfull on the higher skill levels you must really know who your fighting and that means knowing as much about thier weaknesses as possible so you are required to collect knowledge. Once you have aquired the knowledge concerning your foe you must tailor your alchemy and fighting style to counter thier strengths and maximize yours while balancing a toxicity level as the potions have side effects. The combat system in the witcher is probably one of the best systems of combat i have played in a long while. Not saying this game sucks but this game is WoW type of combat and the witcher is the antithesis of this combat system. Much more challanging than DAO combat. The Witcher is a great game in its own right just as DAO is and to have to choose which game i was marooned on a desert island with would be a difficult decision which would probably result in a catatonic state.

Asai