93 réponses à ce sujet

[kesayo2]

tanglefoot79 wrote...

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".

Real do-gooders don't win awards or book deals or endorsements.
That's because the really good people don't do good things in order to get recognition. They donate annonymously and do good when people aren't looking.
Everyone who's ever won the Nobel Prize is not really a good person. If they were, they wouldn't have accepted it. Or they wouldn't have done "good" things in a way that gets them recognized for it.
How arrogant do you have to be to accept an award for being "nice".

[eschilde]

Duh, people were expecting the beggars to pull a magical item from their secret stash. +10 all attributes and increased combat regeneration! Do goodin', for profit. Oh, and at the end, it unlocks a secret door to the Maker.

[SnakeStrike8]

Kanner wrote...


And this is no longer any kind of wishywashy karmic religious theory here, just basic economics.  The less you mess with other people to get ahead, the stronger everyone becomes.  In short, the payoff for performing good actions to those around you IS enormous, you just don't perceive it in the same way as if you'd stolen someone's wallet.  But who ever heard of a millionarie pickpocket?

I have. His name is Bernie Madoff. Sure, he didn't cut people's wallets or threaten them at gunpoint, but that mongrel sure made a lot of money at the end. He'd still be doing it too if he hadn't been caught and strung up.

[Prowless]

but you do get more for being good you can keep every single party member happy while being good sure Morgen will throw a fit here and there but as long as you give her jewelry she will stay wanna drink dragons blood highly evil = lose Lil and Wynne wanna side with the Templar's ? gotta kill Wynne first want a army of Werewolves? gotta lose access to unlimited health pot roots i really wish there was some party member you could only get if you did something evil and yes i know the secret party member but its so near the end you don't really get to know him i mean i wish say you sided with the Templar's and killed Wynne you could get jowan instead and maybe if you sided with the Werewolves you could get swift runner and if you sided with the elves you could get that keepers first girl but no nothing like that just gotta be a goody goody and keep everyone happy



but i love the crap out of this game beat it a few times already and nailed every single achievement except the arrow of slaying one and i hope to play any dlc or expansions that come out i just wish there was a point to being evil its all downsides

[kormesios]

One thing I quite like about DAO is exactly what the author of the OP's link hates. Evil is occasionally *tempting.*



I already feel like I have an idea of right and wrong; I wasn't looking for video-game to educate me. I was hoping for a fantasy game where I could play a hero.



To role play a good character, I personally have to feel like I'm making sacrifices. One problem in most cRPGs is that you quickly learn they aren't real sacrifices--you'll typically get less gold but more experience for the "good" path. There's no question which is more valuable in video game worlds.



There are at least occasional moments in DA:O when I got an evil or questionable offer and think "Yes, that'd be nice." Higher stats, more skills, happier companions. (These were more tempting the first time through.) An extra mage for the final battle. My PC's life. (Always going to be tempting.)



All this makes being good more rewarding than other games, all else being equal. And for the most part, my sincere attempts did make Ferelden a better place. There were exceptions, like helping Harrowmount or Jowan; but those were fairly rare and I knew they were risks when I took them. Other risks paid off in satisfying ways, like leaving Redcliff in danger to gather mages, instead of letting Isolde sacrifice herself. (I honestly worried, first game, that I might come back to find Redcliffe destroyed.)



But by the time I'd finished, I thought I'd demonstrated my PC's character quite well--he really would try to do the right thing, even if it was hard or lacking in tangible rewards.

[Axterix]

kesayo2 wrote...

Real do-gooders don't win awards or book deals or endorsements.
That's because the really good people don't do good things in order to get recognition. They donate annonymously and do good when people aren't looking.
Everyone who's ever won the Nobel Prize is not really a good person. If they were, they wouldn't have accepted it. Or they wouldn't have done "good" things in a way that gets them recognized for it.
How arrogant do you have to be to accept an award for being "nice".

Plenty of good people have won Nobel prizes.  Nothing wrong with accepting the prize.  They've done the deed, a bit of acknowledgement for it isn't bad.  It potentially draws attention for a good cause and the prize money can be spent to further it.

Does a fireman who saves a kid at great personal risk stop being a hero because he accepts a reward for it?  Nope.  Now, if he takes the reward and flaunts it, then, yeah, maybe he's a chump.  But then, if he flat out refuses to accept the community's attempt at showing him some appreciation, you know, he's potentially a bit of a chump too.

How arrogant and conceited do you have to be to refuse a reward just because it is given for you being nice?  "Oh, no, I'm too good for that."  Be sure to hold your nose up high when saying that.

Truth is, neither accepting or rejecting the award changes the act.  And the act depends on the motivation for it.  Some people reject the award because they don't feel worthy.  Some because they don't want the attention.  Some accept it because they want the recognition, the status, whatever that goes with the award.  And some just accept it to honor the appreciation shown by those giving it.

[Xandurpein]

Isn't that a main theme of the whole story, whatever you seek to achieve - there is always a cost? At least if you have a conscience. Just look at all the endings of the game. No matter how you play it, things always come with a cost, unless you are amoral and do not care about the suffering of others.

I think the dealing with the Desire demon to free Connor is brilliant. The demon offers you a choice of your reward and if you take the offer no one will ever know what you did except yourself. You know that you have sacrificed an innocent persons soul for your own personal gain. That is what makes it wonderful roleplaying to me.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 11 décembre 2009 - 10:28 .

[Kerilus]

All I can say is...to seek reward is and  should never be the goal of doing good. And THAT is precisely why there are always much more bad people and hyprocrats than good people.

Modifié par Kerilus, 11 décembre 2009 - 11:32 .

[Walina]

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?

Beside politcal problem you've to deal with in the game, there are nothing like in real life and for me there were NEVER a difficult choice in this game.

You want something difficult ? Then play an japanese rpg (let's say Valkyrie profile) and let's see if you gonna find the true ending at your first play with a guide because there is no way you will know that X day at X monbth you will have to make X choice which will lead you to the final ending, so for me it's MORE difficult because that event is important to change the ending!

[Kalcalan]

The selfish, money grabbing character should get more money. If you play a goody two shoes then that warm feeling you get when making donations or rescuing kittens should be more than enough.



Someone made a very good point above about temptation. The wrong way is tempting because in the end it may be more rewarding so you have to take a stand and decide whether or not your character can live with it.



That being said I played through the game as an evil dwarf and I can tell you that there are some disadvantages in cutting corners (for instance the Dalish elf merchant wouldn't trade with my character). I was surprised though when I found out that what seemed to be the evil way in Warden's Keep allowed for a more rewarding ending whereas what seemed to be the better choice forced you into making a compromise.

[sombrus]

I don't believe the game rewards good or evil play... it rewards smart play.



An excellent example is the girl in Honleath... you can save her...if you lie like a conniving son of a **** and go back on your word.

[Templar Vilmon]

With my first "lawful neutral" character, I'm taking an A-Team or Leverage approach (the new series Leverage that is). In other words, my services are for sale, but I'll work for free if you're really in trouble and can't afford it.

My char believes in chivalry and protecting the weak, but he also recognizes that every little bit counts in the fight against the blight. I therefore don't hesitate to hit up rich merchants or Arl Eamon for rewards, but I'll also give money to the poor beggar. So far, I haven't been in a situation where I'm destitute or completely gimped playing a mostly good character.

Modifié par Templar Vilmon, 12 décembre 2009 - 12:16 .

[CBGB]

I've edited the original post to reflect the two questions being answered here. The first is, "is selfish behavior the way to get the most material gain?" There are lots of answers to that, and I'm not arguing with any of them, though I am grateful that I didn't open this Thread with any of my Ayn Rand jokes.

My question is: why does DAO always reward a selfish choice yet never reciprocate generosity?

The kind of choice I'm describing comes up often, but it's not every choice. I specifically mean an option to enrich yourself while harming another (say, by releasing a demon or blackmailing an NPC) or a chance to enrich someone else beyond an agreed trade (say, by offering to return a family sword or refusing payment for a service).

It should happen like that, often. That reflects real-life, and it makes for good gaming, as these posters noted:

kormesios wrote...
One thing I quite like about DAO is exactly what the author of the OP's link hates. Evil is occasionally *tempting.*

Xandurpein wrote...
I think the dealing with the Desire demon to free Connor is brilliant.

I like that choice, too, and I played it differently the first time than I will the next time.

But should the result always be the same? In real life, is generosity really never reciprocated? Is a selfish impulse always successfully filled? In a game with so many uncertain decisions, I'm surprised to find that for those decisions, the outcome is so predictable.

At first, I didn't know that. I believed that if I let Avernus live, forgoing a chance to have his excellent robes, he might make good on his promise to discover something useful. I also found it exciting to weigh the potential costs of lying, since in real-life, it might come back to haunt me. But now I know that's not a factor. I can choose whether lying is 'right,' but in DAO, I don't need to worry if it will 'matter.'

And though I've never tried blackmail in real life, I expect it doesn't always succeed (as with David Letterman), so I wondered if in-game, it might carry a sudden cost. That was before the pattern was clear.

Other decisions in-game aren't nearly so certain. Why are these like that? Here's one good answer:

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
You, as a Grey Warden = common good.

Maybe the story implies that you can't think of yourself as individually as you did before you received your vocation.


Or maybe it's a coding issue:

phordicus wrote...

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.

Or maybe it's to put greater emphasis on the choice between material gain and moral satisfaction, even if the two aren't always opposed in real life:

DarkSpiral wrote...

I've read this thread a couple of times now, and it made me think about why I was acting certain ways within the game.

I like being the good guy, put simply. I often play the bad guy in games *eventually,* but never first. I don't enjoy it as much....
 The options exist in DA to powergame, amass gold and possessions to the detriment of others, act selflessly, or like a mercenary. ...
I have decided, after some thought, that I like it better this way. I really am free to be any character I want to be.

and

Xandurpein wrote...

Isn't that a main theme of the whole story, whatever you seek to achieve - there is always a cost? At least if you have a conscience. Just look at all the endings of the game. No matter how you play it, things always come with a cost, unless you are amoral and do not care about the suffering of others.

[Statulos]

kesayo2 wrote...
Everyone who's ever won the Nobel Prize is not really a good person. If they were, they wouldn't have accepted it. Or they wouldn't have done "good" things in a way that gets them recognized for it.
How arrogant do you have to be to accept an award for being "nice".

Research is expensive, very expensive. Accepting the prize is a great way to get direct money for funding the research project they worked in and attract public attention to said project and get more support.

[robertthebard]

CBGB wrote...

I've edited the original post to reflect the two questions being answered here. The first is, "is selfish behavior the way to get the most material gain?" There are lots of answers to that, and I'm not arguing with any of them, though I am grateful that I didn't open this Thread with any of my Ayn Rand jokes.

My question is: why does DAO always reward a selfish choice yet never reciprocate generosity?

The kind of choice I'm describing comes up often, but it's not every choice. I specifically mean an option to enrich yourself while harming another (say, by releasing a demon or blackmailing an NPC) or a chance to enrich someone else beyond an agreed trade (say, by offering to return a family sword or refusing payment for a service).

It should happen like that, often. That reflects real-life, and it makes for good gaming, as these posters noted:

kormesios wrote...
One thing I quite like about DAO is exactly what the author of the OP's link hates. Evil is occasionally *tempting.*

Xandurpein wrote...
I think the dealing with the Desire demon to free Connor is brilliant.

I like that choice, too, and I played it differently the first time than I will the next time.

But should the result always be the same? In real life, is generosity really never reciprocated? Is a selfish impulse always successfully filled? In a game with so many uncertain decisions, I'm surprised to find that for those decisions, the outcome is so predictable.

At first, I didn't know that. I believed that if I let Avernus live, forgoing a chance to have his excellent robes, he might make good on his promise to discover something useful. I also found it exciting to weigh the potential costs of lying, since in real-life, it might come back to haunt me. But now I know that's not a factor. I can choose whether lying is 'right,' but in DAO, I don't need to worry if it will 'matter.'

And though I've never tried blackmail in real life, I expect it doesn't always succeed (as with David Letterman), so I wondered if in-game, it might carry a sudden cost. That was before the pattern was clear.

Other decisions in-game aren't nearly so certain. Why are these like that? Here's one good answer:

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
You, as a Grey Warden = common good.

Maybe the story implies that you can't think of yourself as individually as you did before you received your vocation.


Or maybe it's a coding issue:

phordicus wrote...

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.

Or maybe it's to put greater emphasis on the choice between material gain and moral satisfaction, even if the two aren't always opposed in real life:

DarkSpiral wrote...

I've read this thread a couple of times now, and it made me think about why I was acting certain ways within the game.

I like being the good guy, put simply. I often play the bad guy in games *eventually,* but never first. I don't enjoy it as much....
 The options exist in DA to powergame, amass gold and possessions to the detriment of others, act selflessly, or like a mercenary. ...
I have decided, after some thought, that I like it better this way. I really am free to be any character I want to be.

and

Xandurpein wrote...

Isn't that a main theme of the whole story, whatever you seek to achieve - there is always a cost? At least if you have a conscience. Just look at all the endings of the game. No matter how you play it, things always come with a cost, unless you are amoral and do not care about the suffering of others.

Actually, you're looking at the reward being always the same from the wrong perspective.  The problem is, the reward is always the same because the situation is always the same.  In other words, if you take the same option in 3 different play throughs, the only thing that's different is the char making the choice.  It is always the same choice, and always the same outcome because it is always the same situation.  If, for example, you make the deal for the stat point with the demon every time, you're going to get the stat point every time.  2 + 2 will equal 4 every time.  You aren't changing anything in any of the play throughs, and even though for you it's the third time you've done it, for your character, it's the first time, every time.

Edit:  A rather poular 12 step program defines insanity as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Modifié par robertthebard, 12 décembre 2009 - 09:21 .

[Nokturnal Lex]

I'm not gonna bother reading every post, but I think what the author wanted was more consequences for your actions that take place later in the game.

In BG:SoA you saw a lot of your previous actions end up to bite you on the ass or randomly reward you, in DA:O I can't even think of 1 action that ends up biting you on the ass later in the game. Sure there's the part where if you force the bartender to help fight, then make sure he lives during the fight, he'll give you a ring, but that's instant. Every action taken in the game has instant reward or punishment with no long term delay before receiving it.

Bioware has promised that in ME2 your actions in ME1 will affect your game in ME2, but in DA:O your actions with random npcs you meet throughout the game have no effect throughout the entire game. How can we expect Bioware to make every action we took in DA:O to affect the next DA game if we barely felt consequences for our actions in DA:O.

Modifié par Nokturnal Lex, 12 décembre 2009 - 10:01 .

[kormesios]

CBGB wrote...
My question is: why does DAO always reward a selfish choice yet never reciprocate generosity?

The kind of choice I'm describing comes up often, but it's not every choice. I specifically mean an option to enrich yourself while harming another (say, by releasing a demon or blackmailing an NPC) or a chance to enrich someone else beyond an agreed trade (say, by offering to return a family sword or refusing payment for a service).

It should happen like that, often. That reflects real-life, and it makes for good gaming, as these posters noted:

kormesios wrote...
One thing I quite like about DAO is exactly what the author of the OP's link hates. Evil is occasionally *tempting.*

Xandurpein wrote...
I think the dealing with the Desire demon to free Connor is brilliant.

I like that choice, too, and I played it differently the first time than I will the next time.

But should the result always be the same? In real life, is generosity really never reciprocated? Is a selfish impulse always successfully filled? In a game with so many uncertain decisions, I'm surprised to find that for those decisions, the outcome is so predictable.

My first response is that the result isn't always the same.  The thread is full of examples of advantages gained by helping others--from a sword you get in Redcliffe for helping a boy, to beggars giving information, up to party members who fight with you to the end.  Be a bastard and stores close, party members actively fight you, and you miss out on various minor gifts.  Sure, you get "Blood Magic" as a specialization for bargaining with a demon, but this is balanced by getting "Assassin" for sparing someone's life.  Someone was complaining that the bargain with the blood mages in the Alienage is a net negative, if you comopare the rewards closely.

Second, generosity does flow two ways--the powerful are repeatedly generous to you after you help them, sometime before; this is independent of agreed upon rewards.  So do the weak on occasion, as even poor refugees will find gifts for a kind deed (like the elves in Lothering.)

What you are complaining about is the lack of a very specific type of fantasy / fairy tale set up, common in most video games: Give a beggar money and get a magic item, spit on one and get a gypsy curse.  Bargain with a demon and get your soul sucked dry (as opposed to just alienating allies.)

I haven't made enough evil choices in  game to comment on what I think of the drawbacks.  But in terms of the positive choices?  I'll tell you, I've given a reasonable amount of money to charity over the years, and I always turn down the coffee mug or tote bag thank-you's if I have the choice.  Alas, none of the recipients have ever turned out to be billionairs in disguise trying to determine if I was truly selfless.  So 100% of of those reward-declining good deeds  has "failed" in the way that bothers you in game.

[EricHVela]

kormesios wrote...

I haven't made enough evil choices in  game to comment on what I think of the drawbacks.  But in terms of the positive choices?  I'll tell you, I've given a reasonable amount of money to charity over the years, and I always turn down the coffee mug or tote bag thank-you's if I have the choice.  Alas, none of the recipients have ever turned out to be billionairs in disguise trying to determine if I was truly selfless.  So 100% of of those reward-declining good deeds  has "failed" in the way that bothers you in game.

You lose out on things by going 100% evil. You'd only know that by trying to be 100% good to see what's been missing.

But there are also no-win scenarios in the game where you're darned if you do or don't. You either gain or lose equally regardless of your approach in those situations. That, however, is life.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 13 décembre 2009 - 02:31 .

[andysdead]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

Wow. That is so wrong! LOL

wrong, but exactly the line of thinking that the OP seems to be engaging in.

isn't a good deed reward enough of it's own?