245 réponses à ce sujet

[Faust1979]

I hope there are more grey choices in this game that aren't good or bad really just deciding who gets screwed over the least. With a name like Inquistion I hope the storyline is much darker than the first two maybe even somewhat depressing with a few happy moments to lighten up the mood here and there. I hope the game makes me think about my choices more

[Dave of Canada]

Grey choices are too complex for many people and I don't intend to sound condescending, most people were raised on the "good guy vs bad guy" complex and don't understand than an antagonist can be something more than just evil or that sometimes the positives outweigh the negatives.

Hell, the writers themselves have difficulty understand why players would do certain decisions. I'm not holding out much hope for grey morality, just a thinly-veiled social commentary with little resolution.

Thankfully, The Walking Dead was evidence enough that a game doesn't have to be happy-happy to be successful. Perhaps this will mean the writers won't be afraid to punish the idealists and happy-go-lucky players.

[Faust1979]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Grey choices are too complex for many people and I don't intend to sound condescending, most people were raised on the "good guy vs bad guy" complex and don't understand than an antagonist can be something more than just evil or that sometimes the positives outweigh the negatives.

Hell, the writers themselves have difficulty understand why players would do certain decisions. I'm not holding out much hope for grey morality, just a thinly-veiled social commentary with little resolution.

Thankfully, The Walking Dead was evidence enough that a game doesn't have to be happy-happy to be successful. Perhaps this will mean the writers won't be afraid to punish the idealists and happy-go-lucky players.

One of the things that kinda bothered me about Dragon Age Origins is they took out the good/bad meter because they didn't want there to be a clear good/renegade or evil path or whatever you would call it but there is a clear good and bad path. Also in Dragon Age Origins choices don't really hold any weight like curing the guy of his sickness. You can save his family or take the easy route and kill the kid or let the wife die. But no matter what you do the outcome is the same you get the troops and the father is like meh. I remember when I was replaying it and I killed the kid and was like ohh, some bad stuff is going down with my character! then was like what? that's it?

[Sylvanpyxie]

The Walking Dead was evidence enough that a game doesn't have to be happy-happy to be successful.

Things I should have bought in the Steam sales.....

On Topic: I don't understand why every choice has to be altered for one specific set of Players. Some people like their "winning" options, other people prefer the darker choices that lead to greater consequences and there are always a few people that just go where the mood takes them. There's no reason what so ever to cut down on variety.

There's no reason to limit options to "grey, grey and grey" simply because some people find it difficult to take the path they wish to see. If you want to see how morally grey plays out then play morally grey. If you want to see how white turns out then play white. If you want to see how purple plays out then go play purple.

As long as the options are there then there's no reason to limit them to a specific moral code. Variety is the spice of life and variety is what should be available.

/Opinions.

[Faust1979]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...

The Walking Dead was evidence enough that a game doesn't have to be happy-happy to be successful.

Things I should have bought in the Steam sales.....

On Topic: I don't understand why every choice has to be altered for one specific set of Players. Some people like their "winning" options, other people prefer the darker choices that lead to greater consequences and there are always a few people that just go where the mood takes them. There's no reason what so ever to cut down on variety.

There's no reason to limit options to "grey, grey and grey" simply because some people find it difficult to take the path they wish to see. If you want to see how morally grey plays out then play morally grey. If you want to see how white turns out then play white. If you want to see how purple plays out then go play purple.

As long as the options are there then there's no reason to limit them to a specific moral code. Variety is the spice of life and variety is what should be available.

/Opinions.

Yes but some games need to start pushing story lines and make video gamers think about the choices they make. but even good outcomes should have some kind of consequence to it. Sometimes you're think you're making a good choice but it turns out to be wrong video game stories should try and push that more often it makes people think

[Sylvanpyxie]

Sometimes you're think you're making a good choice but it turns out to be wrong video game stories should try and push that more often it makes people think

Redcliffe made me think. It made me weigh the risks, assess the options and ultimately I chose something that I considered to be the best for everyone involved - It was a choice that resulted in the death of a child.

Could I see another option available? Yes. Was that option a better ending? Probably, but I did what I considered to be right at the time and there were consequences that went with that choice.

Does my choice mean that everyone else should be denied the right to pursue other options? No, people are allowed to pursue their own paths, make their own choices and deal with their own consequences.

Why should someone else have their choice stripped away from them, simply because other people want more avenues of failure and consequence? What gives one player the right to dictate the choices of other players?

What is actually gained from limiting the options available to a Player?

[Faust1979]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...

Sometimes you're think you're making a good choice but it turns out to be wrong video game stories should try and push that more often it makes people think

Redcliffe made me think. It made me weigh the risks, assess the options and ultimately I chose something that I considered to be the best for everyone involved - It was a choice that resulted in the death of a child.

Could I see another option available? Yes. Was that option a better ending? Probably, but I did what I considered to be right at the time and there were consequences that went with that choice.

Does my choice mean that everyone else should be denied the right to pursue other options? No, people are allowed to pursue their own paths, make their own choices and deal with their own consequences.

Why should someone else have their choice stripped away from them, simply because other people want more avenues of failure and consequence? What gives one player the right to dictate the choices of other players?

What is actually gained from limiting the options available to a Player?

making a better game like say if you kill Connor then you aren't able to get the troops or the help you need. It's never really fully explained why these Warden's are able to just force people to do their will and it's good for Loghain to actually question this. It would have been cool to just be able to say no to travelling with the warden's and just get a game over then a bunch of slides that show how not going with the warden really screwed up the world. 

[Auintus]

Faust1979 wrote...

making a better game like say if you kill Connor then you aren't able to get the troops or the help you need. It's never really fully explained why these Warden's are able to just force people to do their will and it's good for Loghain to actually question this. It would have been cool to just be able to say no to travelling with the warden's and just get a game over then a bunch of slides that show how not going with the warden really screwed up the world. 

Why? Eamon is still okay and he commands the troops. That doesn't make much for sense.
I wouldn't like an option that resulted in failure. Take the Harrowmont/Bhelen choice. Either option gets you the troops you need, but they have drastically different effects on Orzammar.
Also, the Anvil of the Void. Destroying it denies you extra troops, keeping it gets you golems. Neither is game-breaking, but it is a tangible effect of your choice.

[Cyonan]

Faust1979 wrote...

making a better game like say if you kill Connor then you aren't able to get the troops or the help you need. It's never really fully explained why these Warden's are able to just force people to do their will and it's good for Loghain to actually question this. It would have been cool to just be able to say no to travelling with the warden's and just get a game over then a bunch of slides that show how not going with the warden really screwed up the world.

It would be nice to have consequences, but this specific case doesn't make sense to me.

Why would Eamon pull troops to fight the blight? He knows he can't fight it off on his own, and he probably doesn't want to support Loghain since he kind of just tried to poison him.

He might not like the Wardens at this point, but it's either give them troops to help fight the blight, or risk getting everybody killed. Pulling support for both sides just sounds like Eamon wanting the blight to win.

Modifié par Cyonan, 21 janvier 2013 - 11:43 .

[mcsupersport]

Having a 'Grey" game just because you think it plays better, Stinks and reeks of snobbish, I am better because I understand a more complex ideas than you, mentality. I play games for FUN, not for a statement on the Earth, or any real "Moral" issue associated with it or on it. If you want to play a "grey" game with all sorts of middle choices and social issues, fine, more power to you, but to sit here a demand that the Devs make it that way and it is somehow better is taking a bit on yourself. Personally I am all for MORE choices not less, so people get their "Grey", Light and Dark as they want. If you want to play a social deviant and mass murderer, then fine, it should be an option, just like me being able to play a moral upstanding "good" guy should also be an option.

And the idea that a game is more "powerful" or meaningful because it is dark or "grey" is stupid and old by now. How good or powerful writing is has more to do with the writing of the story and NOT how depressing or morally murky some one makes it. I personally am sick and tired of game and movie makers pumping out dark dismal stories just because they think it has more "statement" than something with a happier tone. Quite frankly it is a sign of laziness of writing and thought that prompts the hey...lets go dark and murky it is dramatic!!! instead of putting the effort into actually writing a decent story and let it tell the tale it's own way.


Now as far as choices go, sure make them mean something, but no reason to just make it bad to not let some one get a good ending just because.

[BlueMagitek]

Instead of making every choice completely grey, it might be better to eliminate any "golden" choice (such as forcing the demon out of Connor by using the Circle's lyrium) and have choices which make sense in that situation and have some form of downside to each of them. It doesn't need to be morally grey, just have a consequence. It's still mostly happy. Tarnished gold, maybe? ;P

[Faust1979]

mcsupersport wrote...

Having a 'Grey" game just because you think it plays better, Stinks and reeks of snobbish, I am better because I understand a more complex ideas than you, mentality. I play games for FUN, not for a statement on the Earth, or any real "Moral" issue associated with it or on it. If you want to play a "grey" game with all sorts of middle choices and social issues, fine, more power to you, but to sit here a demand that the Devs make it that way and it is somehow better is taking a bit on yourself. Personally I am all for MORE choices not less, so people get their "Grey", Light and Dark as they want. If you want to play a social deviant and mass murderer, then fine, it should be an option, just like me being able to play a moral upstanding "good" guy should also be an option.

And the idea that a game is more "powerful" or meaningful because it is dark or "grey" is stupid and old by now. How good or powerful writing is has more to do with the writing of the story and NOT how depressing or morally murky some one makes it. I personally am sick and tired of game and movie makers pumping out dark dismal stories just because they think it has more "statement" than something with a happier tone. Quite frankly it is a sign of laziness of writing and thought that prompts the hey...lets go dark and murky it is dramatic!!! instead of putting the effort into actually writing a decent story and let it tell the tale it's own way.


Now as far as choices go, sure make them mean something, but no reason to just make it bad to not let some one get a good ending just because.

I didn't demand anything from Bioware just talking about why I think it would make a better game.

[xAmilli0n]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Instead of making every choice completely grey, it might be better to eliminate any "golden" choice (such as forcing the demon out of Connor by using the Circle's lyrium) and have choices which make sense in that situation and have some form of downside to each of them. It doesn't need to be morally grey, just have a consequence. It's still mostly happy. Tarnished gold, maybe? ;P

Thats actually a pretty good way of looking at it.  I can buy into this.

[RepHope]

I seriously doubt well see anything approaching Witcher levels but hey we'll see.

[Zekka]

This is one of DA:O's weak points, there are too many variations and choices in the game with little difference in the consequences. They should try to be a little like witcher 2 where the choice makes you end up with different characters and a different location.

[Firky]

There are different types of consequences though. Like, a consequence that results in a new specialisation. Or a consequence that unlocks content, or locks content. Or stuff which feels weighty, but is just for the story, like who will be left in the Brecilian Forest. Or stuff at the end, like the dark ritual.

One interesting choice/consequence moment I always think of is in Bastion. Without spoilers, it's the only real choice in the game. The consequence is massive, but you don't really experience it.

I thought DA2 handled the choices well because I had to stop and think lots of times. Sometimes the consequence was in having to fight someone later, or whatever, but I think more variety would have been good. Origins probably had a better balance between kind of consequence, IMO.

[Naitaka]

leslie2233 wrote...

This is one of DA:O's weak points, there are too many variations and choices in the game with little difference in the consequences. They should try to be a little like witcher 2 where the choice makes you end up with different characters and a different location.

Then people would most likely complain about the length of the game. You need to look no further than Dishonoured and how variety doesn't make everyone happy. The more times Bioware put into different locale and character based on your choices, the shorter a playthrough will become. Remember that most people don't even play a Bioware game more than once. I rather they find a healthy compromise between the two and let us have vastly different endings as that would require less work on Bioware's part for similiar effect.

Modifié par Naitaka, 22 janvier 2013 - 01:32 .

[Darth Death]

I can't see this happening in DA, but then again there are other games that do a better job in the 'grey' department. DA is pretty straight forward.

[Darth Krytie]

I would like more consequences for actions, too. And not just in the slide reel at the end, but one that has more of an in-game impact. Like, if you choose to kill someone instead of show mercy, the towns people may be skittish of you. Or if you steal from so and so, prices in the markets go up. I think that sort of thing is interesting. I would like different endings, based on your choices. I don't know how far that can go, given that they're committed to imports, which means the games can't be vastly different enough to require two different games based on your choices going further. Still, I think they could manage to be a bit more different than the end of DA2 managed to do.

[Kenny Da Finn]

Faust1979 wrote...

making a better game like say if you kill Connor then you aren't able to get the troops or the help you need. It's never really fully explained why these Warden's are able to just force people to do their will and it's good for Loghain to actually question this. It would have been cool to just be able to say no to travelling with the warden's and just get a game over then a bunch of slides that show how not going with the warden really screwed up the world. 

The Wardens stop the blights and save the world thats a pretty good explaination. Beyond that they also have the right of conscription and in DA:O the contracts.

Also ending the game halfway through would be a bad design IMO.

I see no reason why grey is better than good or bad but I will say that the Golden outcome as stated above should require you to do alot more that a grey choice made on the spot.

[Sylvanpyxie]

I would like more consequences for actions, too.

Actions impacting the story is certainly something that I would like to see. If I choose to murder a child I would expect rumours to spread like wild-fire and my reputation to take a beating, honestly I was surprised when such a thing didn't happen. I can agree with the OP when he says he would like a more reactive story like that.

What I can't understand is the exclusion of morally defining choices. I, personally, see no reason to limit the available actions to a single sense of morality, "grey" in this case. I consider variety in choices to be somewhat vital, not just to the evolution of the story and the world around it, but also to the evolution of my character.

I don't understand why anyone would want in-game actions limited to shades of grey. I can't help but feel that it really just creates more restrictions for the Players.

[AppealToReason]

But then people will complain that every choice that isn't butterflies and rainbows isn't legitimate and was a waste of time.

[Fredward]

Is it even really choice if there aren't any consequences?

[Darth Krytie]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Is it even really choice if there aren't any consequences?

Of course. If I go to a fork in the road, and both roads lead to the same store, and I pick the left path, I still made a choice even if both options lead me to the same conclusion.