76 réponses à ce sujet

[katiebour]

I had a playthrough in DA2 with a PC whom I termed my b***h!Hawke. She blackmailed Thrask about his daughter, encouraged the Vael to take back his throne at any cost, was perfectly happy when her inconvenient mage sister died in the Deep Roads, told her mother that having a suitor other than Malcolm was out of the question, and chose nearly every power-hungry, backstabbing choice available.

It was a traumatic change from my normal, goody-two-shoes mage-supporting do-gooder Hawke XD But I can verify that there were choices to be made where even lawful good companions like Aveline were completely disgusted with the PC.

Making a deal with the hunger demon in the Deep Roads, or making a deal with Torpor for Feynriel's soul (leading to the mysterious deaths of a number of people in their sleep), choosing dialogue like "You'll be a great ruler; it doesn't matter what you have to do to get there" or "I DO like power..." or selling out Fenris to Danarius, or betraying Merrill's good faith when she's expecting you to give her the Arulin'holm- most of these are arguably evil choices. There WERE some, even if half the time you came off as more grouchy and disagreeable instead of outright spawn-of-satan.

[Lord Gremlin]

Personally, I like playing as evil characters, ones who kill because they like the sight of blood gushing from necks and make a deal with any demon to achieve the ultimate goal - become the single tyrant to rule them all. DAO allowed that to a degree - you could slaughter your way to the victory with demons and werewolves at your side, then cheat your way out of sacrifice and become the ruler of Ferelden (princess/prince-consort). But that was not as satisfying as I hoped.

You ask about motivation... Well, if main character wants to rule Oralis and at some point the entire world - an army of abominations or controlled darkspawn would be ultra helpful. That's an easy way to conquer - most would rather surrender then risk battling hordes of horrors unleashed upon them.
Speaking of DA3, you could make 2 options for mage. What kind of force to assemble. One of them creating an army of mind-controlled darkspawn by performing a blood magic ritual with blood of an Old God and 777 innocent children. See? That's not evil for the sake of evil. That's evil for the sake of controlling a huge darkspawn army that will slaughter templars and chantry supporters for you, and you'll be safe as an armchair general. That's the thing about evil, it's about finding a way to guarantee your success, your personal success with no regard for others or for morality.

Army of templars? Really? Exalted march? Let them have those 2 millions of darkspawn. And mages can sit back and discuss the efficiency of blood magic sacrifice depending on victim. And just imagine that your choices decide if you participate in the final battle, or watch it from safety while your army of horrors do your bidding. That's what evil mages do. And once minions done their job mage appears to gloat and slit the throat of her/his arch-nemesis. "Oh, you expected a duel, seeker of... dung? No can do. Hold him tight, my big horned friend, we're going to do some sacrificing!".

[Cultist]

Evil must should provide rewards for dark deeds you perform. But there should be a price to pay. Leliana, for example, will turn of you, if you decide to desecrate Andraste's ashes. Sadly, that was a rare occurence in Origins, where Protagonist can feel consequences of his evil actions. I certainly would like to see how the world is reacting to your actions.

Modifié par Cultist, 13 avril 2012 - 04:53 .

[CENIC]

I think a big problem with providing an "evil ending" to a game is that too many people will (unfairly so) equate "evil ending" with "bad ending" and assume they did something wrong/didn't get the optimal ending. As someone who enjoys roleplaying, this makes me sad.

People hate on DA2 a lot, but at least there, no matter how "good" or "evil" you were, the ending was neutral. Too many games force a "good" ending on players as the optimal result, including ME3 in my opinion.

[Takamori The Templar]

Kotor did well in that aspect.
You either save the jedi galaxy wohoo ponys
Or you go back to your old self Darth Revan and conquer the galaxy for the Sith Empire.
Its not a bad ending , just matched of what the player pursued in his gameplay.

[Cultist]

CENIC wrote...

I think a big problem with providing an "evil ending" to a game is that too many people will (unfairly so) equate "evil ending" with "bad ending" and assume they did something wrong/didn't get the optimal ending. As someone who enjoys roleplaying, this makes me sad.

People hate on DA2 a lot, but at least there, no matter how "good" or "evil" you were, the ending was neutral. Too many games force a "good" ending on players as the optimal result, including ME3 in my opinion.

Can you present an example of how it is possible to interpret Evil end as Bad end?

[WardenWade]

Takamori The Templar wrote...

Why would be evil to side with the mages?
It can be mages that don't walk the blood magic path and they are being unfairly accused of it.
As the few Templars with emotional sense of the situation you stand as their shield.

Though if they are blood mages, you could add a spec switch to.... Demon Knight, Abyss Knight or something that bioware find fitting.

But need to be explained.

OT: Demon Knight!  A great movie!

Modifié par WardenWade, 13 avril 2012 - 11:45 .

[CENIC]

Cultist wrote...

CENIC wrote...

I think a big problem with providing an "evil ending" to a game is that too many people will (unfairly so) equate "evil ending" with "bad ending" and assume they did something wrong/didn't get the optimal ending. As someone who enjoys roleplaying, this makes me sad.

People hate on DA2 a lot, but at least there, no matter how "good" or "evil" you were, the ending was neutral. Too many games force a "good" ending on players as the optimal result, including ME3 in my opinion.

Can you present an example of how it is possible to interpret Evil end as Bad end?

Bioware had originally planned for it to be possible to save Leandra in All That Remains.

They scrapped the idea, because they felt that if saving her was possible, that would become the "win" condition for at least 99% of players. The time and resources they would then spend on alternate endings, such as her dying, would be wasted, because only 1% of players would ever see them.

As a roleplayer, I might have saved Leandra on one playthrough... and then let her die on another. But according to company metrics there are far, FAR more people who play through the game once, than there are people who replay multiple times, like me. So my experience isn't considered as important.

This isn't a great example, but hopefully it makes sense.

[Maria Caliban]

Going to disagree. Jade Empire and KotOR both had an Evil ending that was obviously a victory.

Having your mother die is considered bad because it is a failure on Hawke's part.

[CENIC]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Going to disagree. Jade Empire and KotOR both had an Evil ending that was obviously a victory.

And then the Good ending get canonized. Sigh...

[schalafi]

How did Bioware handle the good/evil in games like Baldur's Gate? It seems to me, if I remember it right, that you could be pretty evil in those games, sometimes even losing your npc's, and in KotOR, you could make the more evil choices and have your good/evil chart go blue or red. As the OP said, I didn't really see any completely evil choices in the DA games.

[schalafi]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Going to disagree. Jade Empire and KotOR both had an Evil ending that was obviously a victory.

Having your mother die is considered bad because it is a failure on Hawke's part.

I didn't think having your mother die was because of any failure on Hawks's part. I didn't see any other choice given that would have let Hawke save her, so it really wasn't a choice for Hawke but decided by the game.

I felt it was more evil when you had a choice to save Bartrum (sp?), and didn't, or when you didn't go into the fade to save the mage boy, and he became an abomination.
Of course those were rather acts of omission, not comission, so I don't know if you could call them "evil".

[Pasquale1234]

CENIC wrote...

Bioware had originally planned for it to be possible to save Leandra in All That Remains.

They scrapped the idea, because they felt that if saving her was possible, that would become the "win" condition for at least 99% of players. The time and resources they would then spend on alternate endings, such as her dying, would be wasted, because only 1% of players would ever see them.

As a roleplayer, I might have saved Leandra on one playthrough... and then let her die on another. But according to company metrics there are far, FAR more people who play through the game once, than there are people who replay multiple times, like me. So my experience isn't considered as important.

This isn't a great example, but hopefully it makes sense.

I can certainly understand, even appreciate their reasons for doing this - but I still think it wasn't one of the better story design decisions they made.

Some storylines give the character some major goal or purpose like solving a mystery, exacting justice, or saving the world - and those motivations carry the player through the game.  With DA2, I felt like I was constantly searching for motivations for Hawke.  Survive, amass 50g for the expedition, acquire the Amell estate - check.  Take care of the family - oops.  "All That Remains" was pretty aptly named, because after I finished it, I found myself searching for some other purpose for Hawke, and came up empty.

[Cultist]

CENIC wrote...
Bioware had originally planned for it to be possible to save Leandra in All That Remains.

They scrapped the idea, because they felt that if saving her was possible, that would become the "win" condition for at least 99% of players. The time and resources they would then spend on alternate endings, such as her dying, would be wasted, because only 1% of players would ever see them.
As a roleplayer, I might have saved Leandra on one playthrough... and then let her die on another. But according to company metrics there are far, FAR more people who play through the game once, than there are people who replay multiple times, like me. So my experience isn't considered as important.
This isn't a great example, but hopefully it makes sense.

I disagree. That would be "loose" condition should you get nothing for allowing Leandra to die. I don't think striking a deal with Blood Mage who killed your mother could be coinsidered as a viable option - that'll be too ridiculous, but getting his book of blood magic - that's entirely different matter, force him to share his knowledge and then kill him etc.

[Maria Caliban]

loose = not tight
lose = opposite of win

schalafi wrote...

How did Bioware handle the good/evil in games like Baldur's Gate? It seems to me, if I remember it right, that you could be pretty evil in those games, sometimes even losing your npc's, and in KotOR, you could make the more evil choices and have your good/evil chart go blue or red. As the OP said, I didn't really see any completely evil choices in the DA games.

The metaphysics of both the DnD and Star Wars games was created by someone other than them.

They included all those evil options because the setting required them.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 13 avril 2012 - 06:29 .

[schalafi]

Cultist wrote...

CENIC wrote...
Bioware had originally planned for it to be possible to save Leandra in All That Remains.

They scrapped the idea, because they felt that if saving her was possible, that would become the "win" condition for at least 99% of players. The time and resources they would then spend on alternate endings, such as her dying, would be wasted, because only 1% of players would ever see them.
As a roleplayer, I might have saved Leandra on one playthrough... and then let her die on another. But according to company metrics there are far, FAR more people who play through the game once, than there are people who replay multiple times, like me. So my experience isn't considered as important.
This isn't a great example, but hopefully it makes sense.

I disagree. That would be "loose" condition should you get nothing for allowing Leandra to die. I don't think striking a deal with Blood Mage who killed your mother could be coinsidered as a viable option - that'll be too ridiculous, but getting his book of blood magic - that's entirely different matter, force him to share his knowledge and then kill him etc.

Also you could have had a suspicion that the "O" in the note was a certain well known Mage, which might have altered the way you played the final act, if the game had let you.

[LobselVith8]

Malsumis wrote...

I can understand why it was dropped for the ME series(didn'tmake sense), but in the DA universe it's does make sense. Blood Magic, Tevinter, Blight/corruption and lust for power are all themes of the DA universe and all make logical paths for a DA PC. Yet what we get, is anti-hero PC.

I really wish we got to explore the ramifications of an apostate Hawke becoming a blood mage, since it's not inherently bad. Blood magic depends on the person using it. As Duncan notes, some Grey Wardens use blood magic to give them an edge against the greatest threat to sentient life on Thedas - the darkspawn. I would have liked to see Hawke grappling with all the power that blood magic offered, and being able to be "good" or "bad" with it.

[LolaLei]

I prefer it when the antagonists are shades of grey, someone that makes you stop and think "ok, that guy is a total douche, but I can understand his motivations even if I don't agree with them." Kinda like Loghain and the Illusive Man, they were a pair of ****es and their methods were cruel but you can see why they chose the course of action they did.

That's if they're human. However, in regards to the bad guys like the Reapers, I prefer the idea of them being a Lovecraftian horror, their motivations being something we can never comprehend.

Modifié par LolaLei, 13 avril 2012 - 08:06 .

[the_one_54321]

I could see that Loghain suffered from obsessive paranoia that may have been the result of some form of post traumatic stress syndrome, and this is why he chose the course of action he did.

[LolaLei]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I could see that Loghain suffered from obsessive paranoia that may have been the result of some form of post traumatic stress syndrome, and this is why he chose the course of action he did.

Yeah, their motivations being driven by emotion... be it fear, paranoia, revenge etc.

[LobselVith8]

CENIC wrote...

Bioware had originally planned for it to be possible to save Leandra in All That Remains.

They scrapped the idea, because they felt that if saving her was possible, that would become the "win" condition for at least 99% of players. The time and resources they would then spend on alternate endings, such as her dying, would be wasted, because only 1% of players would ever see them.

I really hate that kind of thinking, because it seems to be why almost every royal boon they have addressed goes sour; the Magi boon gets turned down, the Dalish at the Hinterlands are apparently killed. It's like they think things being "dark" makes it better. I guess making Hawke out to be someone who wouldn't bother to warn his mother about a serial killer murdering women was preferrable to giving the player agency, and allowing the player to actually be proactive as Hawke. As it stands, Leandra was a victim of one of the many one-dimensional, stupid and insane mage antagonists who added nothing to the story. How does Leandra getting murdered by an insane lunatic add anything to the story? Hawke doesn't even bother to investigate her murder if he finds evidence of an accomplice!

I really hate how passive they made Hawke out to be.

[LolaLei]

LobselVith8 wrote...

CENIC wrote...

Bioware had originally planned for it to be possible to save Leandra in All That Remains.

They scrapped the idea, because they felt that if saving her was possible, that would become the "win" condition for at least 99% of players. The time and resources they would then spend on alternate endings, such as her dying, would be wasted, because only 1% of players would ever see them.

I really hate that kind of thinking, because it seems to be why almost every royal boon they have addressed goes sour; the Magi boon gets turned down, the Dalish at the Hinterlands are apparently killed. It's like they think things being "dark" makes it better. I guess making Hawke out to be someone who wouldn't bother to warn his mother about a serial killer murdering women was preferrable to giving the player agency, and allowing the player to actually be proactive as Hawke. As it stands, Leandra was a victim of one of the many one-dimensional, stupid and insane mage antagonists who added nothing to the story. How does Leandra getting murdered by an insane lunatic add anything to the story? Hawke doesn't even bother to investigate her murder if he finds evidence of an accomplice!

I really hate how passive they made Hawke out to be.

I didn't mind that Hawkes mother had to die, but I think they could have handled the whole situation/scene better. It could have potentially been a really emotional, poignant scene but Hawke's reactions towards the whole thing was like "Mother noooo! Oh she's dead... Well guys, I've got some fetch quests to do, lets roll!"

[Wozearly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've also been the type of person that feels evil should sometimes be the one that just gets the better loot.  I dislike it when games seemingly provide the option to be evil in order to be self serving, but in the end make it so that the reward for being good is equivalent (or better).

It's a tricky grey area though, because people will feel it's unfair, and some will conclude that we're even sending the wrong message in terms of morality and stuff like that.

KotoR & KotorR2 addressed the "evil should get better loot" approach quite elegantly by making the dark side significantly more effective in short-term rewards, but by giving the light path more of the best-in-class items over a much longer period of time, at the cost of short-term losses and missing out on gains.

This was also reflected in abilities, where dark side characters became much more proficient at damage-dealing force powers whilst light side characters became better at supporting themselves and allies through healing and defence.

Another loot-driven approach would be to reward evil characters with items that are significantly more powerful to them personally, but reward "good guys" with more varied loot that results in improving their companions. Same end result, albeit a different balance of impact across the party.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I like the idea of being able to choose good and evil, there's also times where it just doesn't make sense (especially considering the  limitations of plot divergence). I don't think there's really a way to  do a more pure "evil" type of playthrough in DAO given that the Darkspawn nemesis was not something that can really be bargained with or sided with.

I disagree. Although its likely that the majority of the main quest is going to mimic the Paragon / Renegade approach from Mass Effect (ie, you're doing the "right thing" to progress the plot, whether that's by being an all-round nice guy or a selfish git), there's still a number of opportunities to have the situation look very different for you personally.

Again, the KotoR series managed to pull this off very effectively by having very distinctive divergences near the end of both games, with very different consequences, depending on whether you'd pursued a light path or a dark path.

Whilst I do accept that the dark/light division comes much more naturally to the Star Wars setting than the moral grey of Thedas, there's no reason that you shouldn't be able to arrive at comparatively 'evil' outcomes along your journey in the DA series and have the same opportunity approaching the endgame to pursue wildly divergent outcomes.

There's no reason that has to be connected to the moral greys of the main quest. It would actually be far better if it wasn't - for example, in the Templar / Mage conflict situation, siding with either side shouldn't automatically be 'good' or 'evil' - there would ideally be ways to pursue 'good' and 'evil' outcomes through supporting either side (or perhaps through supporting neither).

Four highly distinctive endings, be that cinematically and/or via dialogue boxes as in DA:O, would also have the advantage of marking a very distinctive shift away from the controversy plaguing the way that ME3 concluded. 

Modifié par Wozearly, 13 avril 2012 - 09:28 .

[Sylvianus]

Brockololly wrote...
As for the player character having "evil" choices available...I think it comes down more to just having more choices available at all times with how you approach a situation or interact with a character. Whether its "evil" or not will just be something that the world and NPCs can react and put a label on.

This. There are no magic potions, no secrets. In DAO we had choices available encompassing a wide enough field.

[Sinuphro]

GodWood wrote...

I imagine the game is going to centre around the mage/templar conflict so you're probably going to have the evil option of siding with the mages.

lmao siding with the chantry is actually the evil option