78 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaosgirl]

Roxlimn wrote...

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 can't think of a rationally evil character who would ally themselves with the darkspawn anyway.  Or a way to approach them even if I did.  It would be like trying to strike a deal with the Borg in ST:NG - 99.9% chance of being killed or assimilated first, at which point your own goals are moot either way.

[Roxlimn]

You mean like Captain Janeway?



There all sorts of reasons one could ally oneself with the Darkspawn, if one were an evil person who wanted to destroy all normal life on Thedas.

[Orogun01]

[quote]DeathWyrmNexus wrote...

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...[/quote]

Yeah but social seems more inclusive of the whole human race, tribe refers to small group of humans. Sorry, correcting is my bad habit. 

The good stupid guy would be punished by his own foolishness; if he jumps into the fire without protection or knowledge he may hamper any chance that the victim may have had. On a grand scale playing the good guy on could have doomed Ferelden to the Blight, a good example is the dwarven epilogue, the obvious good choice leads to a bad end and vice versa.
You mention your desire to play out choices that are more sinister than killing kittens, the only problem I see with that is how to convey it to the gamer. Most of those sinister choices require that your PC is on a position where it can affect the grand scale of things, usually through the pursuit of a good goal only to meet the evil alternative. So all those choices would be dependent on the devs ability to craft a situation and garner to gamer's tastes
.[quote]
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.[/quote]
That is your preference others may prefer to be more destructive, IMO an RPG should be more broad with choices. One of the biggest complaints that I have heard about ME is that you are stuck roleplaying a heroic char and that the choices are between being an SOB or a do gooder. It seems that the same is true for DA:O, you are stuck playing the Warden and any choices are within that scope.  
[quote]
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.[/quote] 
Yet you still end up being the hero of Fereleden and not a questionable champion ala Loghain. I assumed based on the pre-release info that NPCs would react to your choices, but this is restricted just to your companions.  The game seems to deal more with actions and consequences that with intent behind those actions; the intent is left mostly as a meta gaming perspective. A good example is the quest for the Urn, a mage char that hates the Chantry would have a reason to desecrate it and make it seem like a deliberate act and not a random choice. But that is left to the gamer's perspective of what they character is, the act by itself has no reason.
[quote]
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...[/quote]

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. [/quote]
Now we are arguing their intention which is falling under speculation. The result of that quest and the intent of the ones involved fall under the actions of the PC, if you choose to kill the Dalish then they are angry beast and if you choose to release the curse by opposing Zathran then he suddenly becomes regretful of his actions.
[quote]
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.
[/quote] My point is that from a RL perspective those choosing evil believe it to be the right choice or act out of emotions, thus having motive. So while it may not be a rewarding or wise choice to ****** everybody's feet it should not be without motive. If I would like to kill an elf because he offended me and for no "snake" reason there should be some context to it.

[MarkyT]

I think a lot of this comes down to the unambiguous nature of the enemy, the Darkspawn.



Fundamentally, they are presented as evil, pure and simple, and while you may take various choices on the road to their defeat, there is no question that they should be defeated.



There is a certain simplicity in this that takes us back to a kind of WW2 scenario, rather than a current war on terror scenario.



I am intrigued to see if later expansion, scenarios, mods, will present a darkspawn POV.



I am not sure it would work, and the narrative power of struggling to make decision before a gathering darkness has without doubt been the foundation of many of humanity's greatest epics.



But does the archdemon have any motivation besides "kill all humanoids"? We may find out. We may not. Perhaps the darkspawn are merely fighting for their own survival after a long history of being slaughtered by an apartheid system.



I don't know. There is no doubt in my mind that there are some unambiguously bad things in this world, and moral relativism can be as dangerous as the single minded choosing of sides. We can validly explore this through fiction.



But if video games are to be the most powerful form of social commentary in our age, does this game achieve that? It has the technical chops, but does it have the content? Personally, I did not feel it did make me rethink my philosophy, something I hope for in the greatest art. But a great foundation has been laid.



We shall see with time.