Honestly, I think this game will get a lot of reviews like this one from people who bought the game. He simply didn't understand what sort of game he bought. some of the stuff he complains about is, while factually correct, simply the same things others (like me) love about the game. In his defence I would like to point out that a HUGE blame for this must be placed on those responsible for marketing Dragon Age. The marketing (like the Sacred ashes trailer) simply sells a completely different game.
Hopefully some of those who bought the game because of that marketing, got their eyes opened to a form of game they might have missed otherwise, but on the whole I think it's very bad to market a game that is so awesome as DA:O is, into something completely different.
Why I Returned This Game (Spoilers!)
Débuté par
Poyzinblud
, déc. 20 2009 07:23
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 11:37
The Capital Gaultier
-
- Members
- 1 004 messages
Removing the alignment system was long overdue. I really hope it's gone in ME2, as well. It's a half-assed measure that should never have been implemented in a video game. In DnD it's fine - there's a real person to argue one way or another and to determine intent. A computer can't do this. Providing consequences that aren't as arbitrary nor easy to game makes a lot more sense.
As for classes, there really isn't a lot to add. Clerics aside, I've never seen an archetype that does not fit the Rogue/Mage/Warrior mold in a video game. It was inelegant to cast aside Clerics but the recognition that "Death Knight≈Paladin≈Warrior" doesn't hurt the game one bit.
As for classes, there really isn't a lot to add. Clerics aside, I've never seen an archetype that does not fit the Rogue/Mage/Warrior mold in a video game. It was inelegant to cast aside Clerics but the recognition that "Death Knight≈Paladin≈Warrior" doesn't hurt the game one bit.
Modifié par The Capital Gaultier, 22 décembre 2009 - 11:39 .
#78
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 11:47
Rainen89
-
- Members
- 935 messages
[quote]Original182 wrote...
[quote]Rainen89 wrote...
That's a consequence that is only limited to your party members, and has no effect on the world. I was talking about consequences of a worldwide scale. A good/evil alignment at least would make it easier to show worldwide consequences.
Slaughtering an entire tribe isn't worldwide? That entire settlement gone, the entire tower of magi for the country of Ferelden, also gone. Killing the top magi leader in ferelden, very big consequence. Letting an entire village/bannorn fall based on your decision, major decision. These are widescale.
[quote]You can slaughter an entire settlement of Dalish by aligning with the werewolves, or you can slaughter innocents who are being persecuted for a crime they directily had no relation to.[/quote]
Basically you're talking about the consequence where if you kill a darkspawn, that darkspawn dies.
No I want a consequence that is far reaching. At least with BG2's alignment, if you help people near the beginning, it will reflect near the end of the game when you buy stuff from the shopkeeper. It is not that accurate, but it's better than nothing.
Tell you what, I only want a good/evil alignment for far-reaching consequences. If Bioware can design a more wide-scale consequence of your actions without a good/evil alignment, I'll take it. Like if you spec blood mage, templars will hunt you down on the spot.
[quote]
You cannot label people as good/evil/lawful/chaotic and do so accurately, you just can't. That's why people don't like the system. How do you even define something as good or evil? It's all subjective, and a lot of how you view depends on your perspective. [/quote]
The karma system seems to work nicely for Fallout 3. There are some universal rights or wrongs in the world no matter how many shades of grey there are. You can always base it on Ferelden law. It is the unbiased measuring stick of what is right and wrong. So even if it's ok for Sten to kill people because of losing his sword, it's not ok in Ferelden. Therefore, Sten's evil alignment increased to 20 points.
[quote]
I didn't think Sten killing was an evil thing to do[/quote]
[quote], if anything he was following his way of thinking to afault, from his perspective he failed. He accepted his crime, accepted whatever punishment did not resist even though he would have easily been capable of resisting. That is easily one of the most lawful things a person can do. To willingly allow themselves to be tried and punished accordingly. [/quote]
And all the friends and relatives of the family he murdered are supposed to just accept your words and let him go? Sten's killing of innocent people is brutally wrong, and now you're trying to justify murder.
[quote]It's not as simple as saying that guy is evil or that guy is good, how many people disagree on Morrigan's alignment? On Zevrans? Seriously it's not simple.[/quote]
The problem here is not that it's hard to tell who is evil or not, it's that you don't even know what evil is. I'll put you to the test, give me one example of something in Ferelden that is evil.
If you cannot give me one example, then how can you tell whether something is evil or not, if you don't even know what evil is?
Conclusion: I prefer a good/evil alignment for the purpose of far reaching consequence, as it is perferable to no real consequence. But if there is a better way to implement consequences without it, I'm game as well.
As far as the Sten is conerned, no I never said I thought it was justified, he was ready to die for his crimes, how is that what an evil person does? Since when is atonement and self sacrifice qualities in someone who is evil? He did something terrible yes, and he was ready to face his crimes and die for them, THAT is what I do not see as evil. That is more mature and selfless than 90% of the people you meet in this game.
Again, you're stating my point. I'm saying the reason why there is no alignment mechanism is because it's not as simple as saying oh that's evil or oh that's good. Yes there are widely believed moralities that everyone would basically agree is horrible, the point is however, from your perspective it's evil. From someone elses perspective it's good/lawful. The entire mechanism is flawed because it's based on one perspective and in reality it's not that simple. You the player decide what is or what is not evil, that's the point. It's subjective, you decide whether or not you think purging the tower is the right or wrong thing to do and draw your conclusions from it.
Lastly, the entire plot revolves around you picking an army. (Killing/saving various factions.) playing in politics and lastly deciding who will rule the entire country before facing the archdemon. I will admit I wished there was a truly "evil" ending where you could lead to the destruction of Ferelden as in many other games, in that aspect there is none in this game. Given the storyline however it wouldn't make any sense for a mindless hive mentality horde to play diplomat however.
TLDR. You just agreed that it's not as simple as good/bad by saying you can't draw an example. That's what they were going for and they did it quite well.
[quote]Rainen89 wrote...
That's a consequence that is only limited to your party members, and has no effect on the world. I was talking about consequences of a worldwide scale. A good/evil alignment at least would make it easier to show worldwide consequences.
Slaughtering an entire tribe isn't worldwide? That entire settlement gone, the entire tower of magi for the country of Ferelden, also gone. Killing the top magi leader in ferelden, very big consequence. Letting an entire village/bannorn fall based on your decision, major decision. These are widescale.
[quote]You can slaughter an entire settlement of Dalish by aligning with the werewolves, or you can slaughter innocents who are being persecuted for a crime they directily had no relation to.[/quote]
Basically you're talking about the consequence where if you kill a darkspawn, that darkspawn dies.
No I want a consequence that is far reaching. At least with BG2's alignment, if you help people near the beginning, it will reflect near the end of the game when you buy stuff from the shopkeeper. It is not that accurate, but it's better than nothing.
Tell you what, I only want a good/evil alignment for far-reaching consequences. If Bioware can design a more wide-scale consequence of your actions without a good/evil alignment, I'll take it. Like if you spec blood mage, templars will hunt you down on the spot.
[quote]
You cannot label people as good/evil/lawful/chaotic and do so accurately, you just can't. That's why people don't like the system. How do you even define something as good or evil? It's all subjective, and a lot of how you view depends on your perspective. [/quote]
The karma system seems to work nicely for Fallout 3. There are some universal rights or wrongs in the world no matter how many shades of grey there are. You can always base it on Ferelden law. It is the unbiased measuring stick of what is right and wrong. So even if it's ok for Sten to kill people because of losing his sword, it's not ok in Ferelden. Therefore, Sten's evil alignment increased to 20 points.
[quote]
I didn't think Sten killing was an evil thing to do[/quote]
[quote], if anything he was following his way of thinking to afault, from his perspective he failed. He accepted his crime, accepted whatever punishment did not resist even though he would have easily been capable of resisting. That is easily one of the most lawful things a person can do. To willingly allow themselves to be tried and punished accordingly. [/quote]
And all the friends and relatives of the family he murdered are supposed to just accept your words and let him go? Sten's killing of innocent people is brutally wrong, and now you're trying to justify murder.
[quote]It's not as simple as saying that guy is evil or that guy is good, how many people disagree on Morrigan's alignment? On Zevrans? Seriously it's not simple.[/quote]
The problem here is not that it's hard to tell who is evil or not, it's that you don't even know what evil is. I'll put you to the test, give me one example of something in Ferelden that is evil.
If you cannot give me one example, then how can you tell whether something is evil or not, if you don't even know what evil is?
Conclusion: I prefer a good/evil alignment for the purpose of far reaching consequence, as it is perferable to no real consequence. But if there is a better way to implement consequences without it, I'm game as well.
As far as the Sten is conerned, no I never said I thought it was justified, he was ready to die for his crimes, how is that what an evil person does? Since when is atonement and self sacrifice qualities in someone who is evil? He did something terrible yes, and he was ready to face his crimes and die for them, THAT is what I do not see as evil. That is more mature and selfless than 90% of the people you meet in this game.
Again, you're stating my point. I'm saying the reason why there is no alignment mechanism is because it's not as simple as saying oh that's evil or oh that's good. Yes there are widely believed moralities that everyone would basically agree is horrible, the point is however, from your perspective it's evil. From someone elses perspective it's good/lawful. The entire mechanism is flawed because it's based on one perspective and in reality it's not that simple. You the player decide what is or what is not evil, that's the point. It's subjective, you decide whether or not you think purging the tower is the right or wrong thing to do and draw your conclusions from it.
Lastly, the entire plot revolves around you picking an army. (Killing/saving various factions.) playing in politics and lastly deciding who will rule the entire country before facing the archdemon. I will admit I wished there was a truly "evil" ending where you could lead to the destruction of Ferelden as in many other games, in that aspect there is none in this game. Given the storyline however it wouldn't make any sense for a mindless hive mentality horde to play diplomat however.
TLDR. You just agreed that it's not as simple as good/bad by saying you can't draw an example. That's what they were going for and they did it quite well.
Modifié par Rainen89, 22 décembre 2009 - 11:51 .
#79
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 12:04
Lohe
-
- Members
- 159 messages
Poyzinblud wrote...
Recently I returned Bioware/EA's 'Dragon Age: Origins' back to Gamestop.
You lucky. I tried yesterday, but they said, you already used the codes inside the game. Well, I guess I trusted too much into Bioware or EA or Edge of Reality so that I used them. I guess you did right. I have a really bad feeling concerning the support on this game. Just have a look to the xbox/console section at all...No good sign.
Ill probably sell my version after x-mas, when all kids got their x-mas money, haha, so Im pretty sure it will find a buyer
#80
Posté 22 décembre 2009 - 01:33
Xandurpein
-
- Members
- 3 045 messages
The karma system seems to work nicely for Fallout 3. There are some universal rights or wrongs in the world no matter how many shades of grey there are. You can always base it on Ferelden law. It is the unbiased measuring stick of what is right and wrong. So even if it's ok for Sten to kill people because of losing his sword, it's not ok in Ferelden. Therefore, Sten's evil alignment increased to 20 points.
If you would just take the time to browse the various threads on this forum you would soon realize that there is precious little people can agree on is the universal Good or Evil choice in just about any situation in the game.
I would go so far as to say that what makes this game so good, is the fact that for most part almost all big choices in the game do not easily fit on some allegedly universal good-evil scale.
