Commander Kurt wrote...
The games could definitely have been darker in that sense. Still, this is not what I take from ASOIAF. Most of that brutality and cruelty is not the consequences of descisions but rather bad luck. And I still would have been fine with it had there been a balance, but no one is ever happy (for long). No good intentions ever pay off. Life is all toil and strife and then you die violently.
I'd say the opposite myself but it certainly is a valid point of view.
Personally, I loved that ASOIAF's characters suffer at the hands of their own choices and reap what they sow. The people who trusts too much or breaks his vows are destroyed by their own actions and I appreciated that everyone has their own agenda behind everything, it's not simply someone who's the "bad guy" and the protagonist can do wrong.
(Going onto a slightly-related tangent which isn't really focused at you, Kurt.
)
It's something which I'd like to see explored more in the Dragon Age universe, something which the writers have tended to shy away from. We're (as in the Dragon Age protagonist and companions) living in an extremely xenophobic culture, yet we're never hearing any xenophobic comments from anyone except for the villain (and it's often thrown in as their "kick the puppy" scene).
Why can't good people be xenophobic? Why can't we see good and bad mages and templar? Why can't the protagonist suffer for the consequences of their own actions? Why does the player always have to "win"?
These are the things I dislike about the Dragon Age universe, they tend to throw everything aside with bare-bones gray morality to make the player stay in their comfort zone. The fact is, you're
not supposed to be in your comfort zone when doing these things.
It's why I get pissed off when I see the Genophage plot's resolution in Mass Effect 3, everyone praises it but it always ends happily-ever after. The only thing which puts you out of the average player's comfort zone is the "evil" decision which--by all intents and purposes--appear rational but is portrayed as heartless, monstrous and ends up with everyone going exinct.
In addition to this, anyone who dares challenge the player and serves as a contrast must be eliminated because the player doesn't like them. I'm looking at characters like Udina, The Illusive Man, Meredith, etc. They're all very interesting characters who are placed onto the back-burner for the sake of having a villain in the plot, we can't agree with them in the end because they're made insane / mind-controlled for the sake of serving the player's self-righteous vengeance.
Games like Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, etc. They tend to do it in a way which I love, they make every choice just as viable as the other except you've got consequences for both routes (or it goes no-where but greatly influences how people think of you).
The idealist may be betrayed in Game of Thrones but others recognize they were trying to do the "right thing" and earn their respect, helping them achieve something later down the line. Meanwhile, the rutheless guy is well-liked by his superiors but every-one else looks upon them as a monster. Some people die, some people don't.
Retour en haut
