93 réponses à ce sujet

[EJ42]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

I am a lower-middle class slave... or is it an upper-lower class one? So hard to tell these days....



Wish my creator hadn't rolled me up as Neutral Good.

I'm simply chaotic.  "Good" is just an illusion.

[Maria Caliban]

nuculerman wrote...

Second, I don't understand your complaint at all.



So, again... wtf are you talking about?

This might be because the original poster wasn't complaining. He made a factual observation (selfish bahaviors in Dragon Age appear to bring more short and long term gain), speculated as to why this might be, and asked if anyone had thoughts on the matter.

That's right, the bastard tried to start a conversation about DA on a forum dedicated to having conversations about DA. wtf was he thinking?

[Ghillied Raptor]

BFBHLC wrote...

Because being good really doesn't amount to jack crap in the real world, why should it in a videogame? Seriously. How many genuinely good people actually  don't get stuck being middle-class slaves?

I do wish I could put on some facade to make people think I'm doing what is best for everybody only to ursurp power and control all of ferelden once I gained their trust.That's just a start mind you, world domination is next.

[TanithAeyrs]

Doing good should be its own reward (warm fuzzies, not money or a cool item or XP). I try to roleplay my characters and a good character does good things. Reward is not figured in. Some of my more practical good characters are not above taking a reward when it is offered, but I often play characters that decline rewards.

[tanglefoot79]

BFBHLC wrote...

Because being good really doesn't amount to jack crap in the real world, why should it in a videogame? Seriously. How many genuinely good people actually  don't get stuck being middle-class slaves?

Eeeeeh, sort of.

If you're talking about the average Joe type of good person. Spouse, 2.5 kids, steady job, pays taxes, doesn't steal, assault people, etc. That's what everyone is supposed to be doing as a base line. No one hands out medals for mediocraty.

Trying to draw parrallels between the real world and a video game is rough. No one is fighting Darkspawn here. But when you think about a "Lawful Good" type of Grey Warden in the real world don't think average Joe.  Think Nobel Prize winners. Think book deal. Think endorsements. The real world occasionally coughs up a tangible reward for the exceptional good people.

However, just like in DA:O don't be surprized when this type of good person isn't completely lily white.

On the flip side, there are a lot more selfish people who get rewarded for their behavior in real life as well. As in DA:O it's sometimes quicker and easier to get what you want if you're a jerk. If other people think they might benifit by letting the matter drop they might do so, just as they put up with you in game to be rid of the blight. If they think you won't be punished for one reason or another, they'll probably let the matter drop.

It's a little more complicated than just "nice guys finish last".

[Roxlimn]

Doing good in DAO gets rewarded, sometimes incredibly so. Helping Kaitlyn in Redcliffe gets your The Green Sword, which you would otherwise not get if you were only after your own thing. In fact, the entire town defense thing is about helping people who have questionable significance to your overall mission and goals. Both Sten and Morrigan point out this obvious fact. Helping Redcliffe gets you a ton of benefits.



You're not obligated to help Danyla, but if you do, it makes a quest later on easier. Over and over and over again in this game, I find that making the sensible choice is punished, not rewarded. You're not even allowed to make the thoroughly despicable choices.



For instance, Redcliffe being in a jam means that you can ask for money in return for martial aid. That is what is called being a mercenary and it's both totally reasonable and plausible. Redcliffe does not want for money they can't use when they're dead - they should be more than happy to pay up, assuming you succeed. It's not evil to do this - it's reasonable. But the game doesn't give you this option. It doesn't even give you the option to assassinate the Bann and the Arl and take over as Arl yourself - the country being in a civil war, any lord needs support - YOUR support. Your being an Arl (albeit one taken by force) only strengthens your position.



This game is definitely not on the same level as BG1, where being ruthlessly evil gets you incredible gains. Randomly kill Drizzt for the win!

[TheRealIncarnal]

Yes, it pays to be a greedy bastard. I don't see why you're surprised.

I guess it's just because most games make it so you know that in the long run there's nothing to be gained by being ruthless, or even penalize you for it. However, much like Dwarven Politics, the winner is the one who takes action to make things happen.

Of course, there are plenty of repercussions for being selfish vs. being selfless, but I find it fitting. I mean, if you're going to be selfless why would you expect to be so excessively rewarded? Instead the rewards for that path are much more difficult to quantify.

Modifié par TheRealIncarnal, 09 décembre 2009 - 04:00 .

[foolish_sagacity]

There IS a reward to doing good. Extra conversations. Take the time to save both Connor and Inora? Alistair thanks you personally. Go out of your way to be nice to Morrigan even when she constantly is chewing you out and disagreeing with you? She personally thanks you for being a great friend and dealing with her social inadequacies so gracefully.



In fact, looking back on the game, my favorite parts were when people acknowledged and thanked my character for what they did. Wynne telling me I should be proud here. Sten telling me he IS smiling (though I couldn't tell). My good deeds never gave me anything but satisfaction.



And the final few choices were really packed in my opinion because they were so morally volatile. Choose Anora who is CLEARLY better suited to the role of ruler than Alistair, who is such a child he's willing to do an about face from whining about being king to begging to be king so he can reverse my decision to spare Loghain and he can have him executed. The result for my pragmatism? Anora IMMEDIATELY betrays me and wants Alistair dead, at best I talk her down to banished. Not 5 secnds as Queen and she's a tyrant.



Reload and instate Alistair...and I have a bad feeling that while I've done right by my friend, I've done wrong by the country. Not that he'll be bad...he just won't do ANYTHING (and he doesn't...he just shakes peasant's hands).



Then take the final decision. Either throw Morrigan out for her proposal and sacrifice either my life that my character has promised to Leliana or Alistair's, thus negating both my decision to save him from Anora AND leaving no ruler for Fereldan. Or take up my friend Morrigan on her offer and get the only happy ending to the game. I chose the easy road for the first and last time on that decision, my shining paladin of a mage chose to create an Old God for purposes she did not know, because she was sick, finally, of sacrifice. And I got the happy ending for that. I still got to travel with Leliana, to go see Qun with Sten. And Morrigan was happy and Alistair alive.



As someone aptly pointed out, the compass doesn't point south...it points nowhere. Much like in life you have to find your own path, and decide what you need. I'm dirt poor, struggling to figure out how to afford Christmas gifts, but I'm told (I don't mean to brag) rather constantly I'm a good person by many people. None of them have yet offered me money for nothing, though I'm sure if I asked for it I could get some. This game's moral compass ended up feeling staggeringly real to me. Be greedy, get money. Be kind, get kind words and approval from those you care about...and seldom a penny for your thought.

[kevinwastaken]

Maria Caliban wrote...
That's right, the bastard tried to start a conversation about DA on a forum dedicated to having conversations about DA. wtf was he thinking?

WHAT? I'll kill that son of a ****!

[CBGB]

nuculerman wrote...
I don't understand your complaint at all.  What was it that you wanted more of?  Money?  You want more money for being charitable?  Yeah, that works.

tanglefoot79 wrote...
 The Author of the article seems concerned about what you get rewarded for, as if the rewards are the whole point of the game. 

tanglefoot79 wrote...
I think the real issue lies with the OP himself.

Wow. I sure didn't mean to upset anyone.

Nor did I didn't mean to 'complain' that material benefits are the only kind. I'm genuinely curious why the game so consistently rewards the selfish path.

One answer, given several times here, is 'that's the way life is.' While I don't personally believe that, it doesn't matter, because I'm not a game designer. The answer would then be, 'Because the game designers believe that's the way life is.'

That's possible. But there are so many places where it would be even more realistic to attach a cost to a selfish act.

I gave Baizyl as one example. Another is in the Warden's Keep, where the choice to kill a repentant man costs nothing (with the right dialog option), not even your standing with Allistair or Leliana.


Is it true that in real life you might be able to get away with blackmail, without material consequence? Sure.

Is it true in DA:O? No. You always gain from the selfish choice without cost.

That trivializes the issue of choice, so well handled in other parts of the game. If I help Morrigan kill Flemeth, for instance, will I save her or find that she manipulated me? Or both? I couldn't predict the outcome.

But when I ran across my second deal with a demon, I could. I knew through the selfish path, I'd have more gold, or more skills, or more loot, without a (material) cost. I could still question if I wanted that, but I didn't need to wonder how things would turn out.


Like many people here, I'd find it unrealistic if all demons suddenly punished you for demanding a reward, but they never do. The Fade Demon could give you a nickel, or a mixed blessing, or a rock that can't be removed from your inventory, but that's never even a possibility.

When faced with an option to be selfish, the choice is ours, and we may vary it for roleplay or personal reasons. But in DA:O the result, unlike in real life, is never in doubt.

Modifié par CBGB, 09 décembre 2009 - 04:00 .

[AntiChri5]

Why would someone expect material gain from charitable actions? this is not only its own special kind of stupid but missing the point of genirosity.

[AntiChri5]

Moralty is not what you do when someone might find out its what you do when you know no one eber will

[tanglefoot79]

CBGB wrote...

nuculerman wrote...
I don't understand your complaint at all.  What was it that you wanted more of?  Money?  You want more money for being charitable?  Yeah, that works.

tanglefoot79 wrote...
 The Author of the article seems concerned about what you get rewarded for, as if the rewards are the whole point of the game. 

tanglefoot79 wrote...
I think the real issue lies with the OP himself.

Wow. I sure didn't mean to upset anyone.

Nor did I didn't mean to 'complain' that material benefits are the only kind. I'm genuinely curious why the game so consistently rewards the selfish path.

One answer, given several times here, is 'that's the way life is.' While I don't personally believe that, it doesn't matter, because I'm not a game designer. The answer would then be, 'Because the game designers believe that's the way life is.'

That's possible.

But there are so many places where it would be even more realistic to attach a cost to a selfish act. I gave Baizyl as one example. Another is in the Warden's Keep, where the choice to kill a repentant man costs nothing (with the right dialog option), not even your standing with Allistair or Leliana. Did you wonder if sparing him might lead to even an (intangible) success for someone in the game? Silly selfless saint.


Is it true that in real life you might be able to get away with blackmail, without material consequence? Sure.

Is it true in DA:O? No. You always gain from the selfish choice without cost.

It trivializes the issue of choice, so well handled in other parts of the game. If I help Morrigan, will I save her, or find she manipulated me? Or both? I couldn't predict the outcome.

But when I ran across my second deal with a demon, I could and so could. I knew through the selfish path, I'd have more gold, more skills, more loot, and never a past that caught up with me. I could still question if I wanted that, but not how things would turn out.


There's not even a cost for dealing with demons. Like many people here, I'd find it unrealistic if all demons suddenly punished you for demanding a reward, but I find it odd that they never do. The Fade Demon could give you a nickel, or a mixed blessing, or a rock that can't be removed from your inventory, but there's never a question that he will.

The choice is ours, and we may vary it for roleplay or personal reasons. But in DA:O the result, unlike in real life, is never in doubt.

I'm not particuly upset. I just felt that the article was a bit...short sighted.. I suppose.

Also, I didn't pen the third quote you have there. That was EJ42.

I would guess that the game rewards the selfish path more consistently precisely because of the temptation. If you see it as just a game, a series of puzzles and objectives to be checked off on a list, then yes the only logical thing to do would be to take the selfish route every time.

But DA:O is more interactive storytelling than game. The choices in game can reflect how you feel the story should be told and in many case what you see as morally sound. So even though the good choices usually net you little, they exist because they are a possible part of the narrative, which is as much or more a part of the game than actual gameplay.

Being the good guy comes at a cost, because otherwise a great many people might never give the selfish choice a second thought. If they were punished more realistically, than selfish or evil acts in the game might bring the story, and civilization to an abrupt end as you ride out the blight in a jail cell and then starve after the city is wiped out by Darkspawn.

All good reasons why the game was built the way it was built.

Modifié par tanglefoot79, 09 décembre 2009 - 04:10 .

[EJ42]

The point of the game is not to gain wealth or items. It's to feel good about the choices you make...or is it?

I think the point of the game is to do whatever you think makes you happiest. Whether that means selfishly seeking wealth and power, or being selflessly benevolent is up to you.

I happen to care about my mother, so I'd do my best to save her, but I'm not a character in a fantasy RPG. Who knows what that guy might do?

[Maria Caliban]

This is the second time someone has linked to that article, and I have to say that it's horrible stuff. It reminds me of some Witchcraft encyclopedias where the author proceeds to grab material from dozens of mythologies, philosophy, occult references, and psychology, blends them all together, and simply ignores the various contradictions.

In regards to the original post, the reason the game rewards selfish PCs with 'ludic' benefits is because that's what the players of selfish PCs are looking for. It rewards non-selfish PCs with ‘non-ludic’ benefits because that's what they're looking for.

When I have the option of slaying a beggar for his coins or giving him some gold and I give him gold, the reward I'm looking for is social or moral in nature. If I kill him for his coins, the reward I'm looking for is material in nature.

The beggars in the alienage are an excellent example of this. They continuously ask for more money, and the situation becomes comedically ridiculous ("He's an orphan; his parents are both dead" "My mother is especially dead.") but at the end you get a group of elves cheering for you.

While I’m at it, ludic is Latin for play, and it refers to a philosophy where maximizing fun is one’s main purpose. He can’t say that selfish actions provide more ludic benefit than unselfish actions because that’s only true for players who derive more ‘fun’ from the consequences of selfish actions. Now, if in Dragon Age, ‘good’ actions backfired, and players who desired social/moral rewards were consistently denied them, then he could say there was less ludic benefit.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 09 décembre 2009 - 04:58 .

[EJ42]

Maria Caliban wrote...

This is the second time someone has linked to that article, and I have to say that it's horrible stuff. It reminds me of some Witchcraft encyclopedias where the author proceeds to grab material from dozens of mythologies, philosophy, occult references, and psychology, blends them all together, and simply ignores the various contradictions.

In regards to the original post, the reason the game rewards selfish PCs with 'ludic' benefits is because that's what the players of selfish PCs are looking for. It rewards non-selfish PCs with ‘non-ludic’ benefits because that's what they're looking for.

When I have the option of slaying a beggar for his coins or giving him some gold, the reward I'm looking for is social or moral in nature.

The beggars in the alienage are an excellent example of this. They continuously ask for more money, and the situation becomes comedically ridiculous ("He's an orphan; his parents are both dead" "My mother is especially dead.") but at the end you get a group of elves cheering for you.

While I’m at it, ludic is Latin for play, and it refers to a philosophy where maximizing fun is one’s main purpose. He can’t say that selfish actions provide more ludic benefit than unselfish actions because that’s only true for players who derive more ‘fun’ from the consequences of selfish actions. Now, if in Dragon Age, ‘good’ actions backfired, and players who desired social/moral rewards were consistently denied them, then he could say there was less ludic benefit.

I gave the first elf money.  The next time, I told them to buzz off.  I got the satisfaction that I tried to do the right thing, but didn't let myself be hoodwinked.

Watch the movie "Everybody's Fine" at the theater, and you'll see a similar situation faced by De Niro's character.

Sometimes, the old beggar lady (enchantress) rewards you for your kindness.  Sometimes, the old beggar lady (witch) feeds you a poison apple for the same.

[nuculerman]

 DA:O doesn't punish ANY actions really.  Your approval goes up or down a little with your companions and that's about it.  As someone said it's moral compass points nowhere.  It doesn't have one.  If you're selfish and want more money you get more money.  If you're evil and want to kill jailed men and elven slaves and poor dragons blood on the one true prophet of the maker, you can do all those things.  Wynne might leave your party and Lelianna might disapprove, but have a decent persuade score and all of the sudden you lose the amount of approval it takes to earn back with two gifts.  There are almost zero consequences for any of your actions that aren't what you intended.

So again, the OP, whether he is "complaining" or not, is just completely off the mark.  The value you derive from wanting money is monetary value.  The value you derive for wanting to murder people is being able to murder people without consequence.  The value you derive from being selfless is the gratitude of those you are selfless too.  The only unintended consequence there happens in the alienage, but that is really just even more of a reward because those beggar elves are awesome.

There are a hundred missed opportunities with regards to the law of unintended consequences.  And that's the problem the OP is pointing out but he seems to only notice it for good actions.  It's universal for all actions.  The consequences of your actions are exactly what you intended them to be.  Want to save Conner and not kill Isolde?  No problem.  Just go to the mage tower.  Take six detours if you want and a year to come back.  Doesn't matter because everything is under control.  Don't mind that the demon very easily disrupted the whole castle and almost destroyed the entire village of Redcliffe single handedly before you showed up.  Now that you've told it to sit quiet for seven months you have nothing to worry about.

Wynne uses blood sacrifice regularly in combat then flips out when a Tevinter mage wants to do the same exact thing to augment my powers.  Not because it will kill elves, but because it's blood magic.

You're a hero whether or not you save Redcliffe village.  And greeted as such.

You're a brand new Grey Warden and you can kill a prisoner without any real reprimand.  

The only real example of not getting what you intended is helping Harrowmont.  If you don't do any digging he seems like the better choice.  He seems like a kind old man that's just trying to fulfill the wishes of his dead king and old best friend.  In reality he destroys the dwarves at end game.  So there's one example.

[graylshaped]

nuculerman wrote...

There are a hundred missed opportunities with regards to the law of unintended consequences.  And that's the problem the OP is pointing out but he seems to only notice it for good actions. 

This and the comment regarding selfish people getting what selfish people want, and non-selfish people getting what they want, sum up why the hype fell just a bit short for me.  Maybe I was looking for a few more Peter Parker moments, where the choice to let the thief go comes back to haunt me.

In the end, though, I gotta believe that being kind to people doesn't need to result in anything other than their good will, and a good reputation. 

[CBGB]

Maria Caliban wrote...

This is the second time someone has linked to that article, and I have to say that it's horrible stuff

It is heavy-handed, but applying the term 'ludic' was helpful, to denote game rewards that aren't strictly material (like getting an extra Talent point for freeing a demon). I'm sorry the rest of the article wasn't worth your time.

nuculerman wrote...
So again, the OP, whether he is "complaining" or not, is just completely off the mark

I really do understand that virtue is often its own reward, that if you do something to help someone, you shouldn't expect material benefit in return.

What distinguishes DA:O on that front is its unerring adherence to one result from a certain set of choices.

Maria Caliban wrote...
The beggars in the alienage are an excellent example of this. They continuously ask for more money, and the situation becomes comedically ridiculous ("He's an orphan; his parents are both dead" "My mother is especially dead.") 

I agree, that's a great example. There the developers seem to be mocking the notion that should get repaid for unlikely generosity, and it's good fun. No problems there.

But the results never change, even in cases where they might. You never have to worry if dealing with a demon is a bad idea. It might not be 'right' for your or character, but it never turns out badly. Nor does blackmail.

Are blackmailers always caught? Of course not. But do they always get paid? Not in real life - just ask David Letterman - but in DA:O, you need not doubt.

When I first starting playing, I wondered if I should lie to Irving about the staff I found. In real life, sometimes honesty doesn't cost you, and sometimes lying comes back to sting you later on.

Would there be consequences?

Of course not. In DAO, there are consequences for being a bad liar, but not for being a liar.

The pattern became clear. I could choose to spare Avernus for personal or roleplay reasons, but I never needed to doubt the outcome of taking his robe. It wouldn't have any hidden costs.

I'm not asking for Disney fairies to bring me a pot of gold. I'm asking why DAO, which puts so much uncertainty in other kinds of choices, never varies the result of a selfish act. In real life (again, see David Letterman), the results aren't so certain.

Maria Caliban wrote...

nuculerman wrote...

Second, I don't understand your complaint at all. 

So, again... wtf are you talking about?

This might be because the original poster wasn't complaining. He made a factual observation (selfish bahaviors in Dragon Age appear to bring more short and long term gain), speculated as to why this might be, and asked if anyone had thoughts on the matter. 

That's right, the bastard tried to start a conversation about DA on a forum dedicated to having conversations about DA. wtf was he thinking?

Sheesh - I sure don't know.


Maybe I should ask the Forum?

Modifié par CBGB, 09 décembre 2009 - 09:55 .

[phordicus]

i think the point is that there's no background tally of universal karma in the game and so while playing evil/selfish has in-game consequences that tend to benefit the player, being good/selfless has no tangible rewards. it's too bad because it wouldn't take much to keep track of and randomly apply some sort of luck bonus. apparently this is the "dark" part of this dark fantasy.

[Jacks-Up]

CBGB wrote...

In DA:O, the selfish player ends up far ahead of the saint, at least in terms of any measurable goods (like gold) or abilities, which this blogger calls 'ludic' rewards, or bonuses of 'play':
www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TaekwanKim/20091116/3568/Dragon_Age_Gazing_into_the_Abyss.php

Why is that?

It's consistent. Give gold to a waitress or a beggar and get nothing for it. Zilch. Kill the bartender and get an income. Sell the soul of a child and get an extra Talent point or save him for nothing. Loose an old demon from the depths and get quite a lot of gold, almost as much as you get for blackmail.

Some players would say that's like real life, but that's not the issue here. While I believe good is often reciprocated, I'm not the game designer, so my view isn't an explanation, either.

For a game that emphasizes hard choices, the moral ones have been made easy. You can, for instance, blackmail Baizyl and he still happily fights beside you and increases Harrowmont's support. It'd be a harder choice if you could have either the gold or the loyalty, but the game consistently makes those choices easy. Bully. Demand. Put yourself first.

I love the game, but I'm surprised by its stance. Potentially difficult choices are made easy: always choose yourself over the common good in DA:O, at least for the best material (or 'ludic') gain.

Is that a deliberate move to suits a dark and troubled world?
Or is it an unconscious reflection of designers who feel generosity is never reciprocated?
Or is the game simply meant to allow few to reach the end without dirtied hands?

Because People who chose to e evil don't get an ending it's a trade off.

[Kanner]

Al Gore's foolish quest to save the world from global warming seems to have tragicially lead to his current obscurity and impoverisment?



I don't think so.



And whether or not you agree with the man, his views, his proposed solutions, the global warming gig certainly seems to be working out well for him.



Too many people commenting on 'the real world' don't actually seem to live in the real world. If you want a country where selfishness and getting ahead at all costs is the name of the game, pick one in africa. Or the middle east.



It's certainly not their own moral standards or their willingness to sell out ofthers to get ahead that's holding them back. =/

[Malificis]

Uhh its realistic.

I won't go into too much depth but Latane and Darley (psychology authors) did some interesting work on something similar to this known as Bystander Intervention Theory.

Selfishness is, from an evolutionary point of view, the way to go. Those who are successful have kids, those who don't die or live unhappily and phase out.

Why help people spending time/money when you can use it on yourself and those who will help you succeed in life?

Doesn't mean you HAVE to be "evil" just means you'll be better off if you do. RP it how you want, but just look at how society works to see how success is achieved.

If you want it put into perspective in gaming, "Lawful Evil" is BY FAR the most effective way of living if you wish to succeed as easily as possible.

Pretty easy really.

[RunCDFirst]

CBGB wrote...
I love the game, but I'm surprised by its stance. Potentially difficult choices are made easy: always choose yourself over the common good in DA:O, at least for the best material (or 'ludic') gain.

Some people can't just put themselves first. They'll play altruistic characters, who will have to anguish a little over whether selling that soul to the demon really is worth the 25 gold so they can buy good equipment to stop the Blight.

Personally, I'm playing a character right now and puts everyone else first. I'm still getting through the game just fine even without earning all the extra gold you can get by being selfish. I don't think this is a problem, nor do I have any concerns with how BioWare implemented this aspect of the game.

[AtreiyaN7]

And maybe the point is that you do good for the sake of doing good, not to get something shiny - or do you think poor people all have valuables stuffed away somewhere? I think it's a little more realistic if someone who's not well off can only give you their thanks. Heck, I probably would've given some gold to that dwarf beggar in the Hall of Heroes if the option existed (the one asking for bread) - and no, I wouldn't have expected him to give me a super-valuable amulet/ring/sword/whatever in exchange either.