100 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

Your decisions shouldn't feel wrong to you, regardless of what others think.

[KainD]

David7204 wrote...

That's a knife that cuts both ways. You should have the narrative 'telling' you which choices are good as well.

The ones you decide. 

[David7204]

The story cannot read your mind and present all the choices you personally made as great and other ones as scumbag-y or stupid. 

Modifié par David7204, 20 juillet 2013 - 12:46 .

[KainD]

David7204 wrote...

The story cannot read your mind and present all the choices you personally made as great and other ones as scumbag-y or stupid. 

What I mean is that it is irrelevant what the game thinks, what matters is what you think. If you think it was the right choice, then it doesn't matter if the game gives you a hard time after that, because you should believe in your choice and it should be worth it. 

[Ziggeh]

filetemo wrote...

Kill Loghain or join him, with Riordan's input and Alistair's protest  (NPC reactivity)
Kill, spare, imprison or exile my fellow Warden companion (Companion reactivity)
Determine the new king of a country or become myself one (world reactivity)
Do or do not the Dark Ritual, altering (or at least that's what it looked at the time) your own fate, the fate of your relationship with Morrigan, her role in the upcoming events, and the way to end the war, with sacrifice or not, also indirectly granting you the option to decide who dies killing the archdemon (that's plot, world, npc, and companion reactivity)

TEM's reaction to you saving or destroying the collector base, Tali's suicide, restructuring the nature of life in the galaxy and handing Isabela over to the Qunari.

Having a primary antagonist join you is rather unique, but as you say, he's quick spoutng whatevers.

I'm still not sure where you're coming from. You're comparing instances of companions being compliant to ones where they're not, despite all of the games containing examples of both. Granted DA:O contained more world shaping choices than DA2, but that was largely due to the setting.

[filetemo]

KainD wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The story cannot read your mind and present all the choices you personally made as great and other ones as scumbag-y or stupid. 

What I mean is that it is irrelevant what the game thinks, what matters is what you think. If you think it was the right choice, then it doesn't matter if the game gives you a hard time after that, because you should believe in your choice and it should be worth it. 

That's the point, the game rarely if ever, tells you that "that choice was a douchey move based on the in-game morality".

Which kinda links into the bioware motto of "You can play a badass extreme character, but never an evil or truly amoral one"

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Ashes- Leliana and Wynne betray you.
Anvil of the Void - Shale betrays you
Save Loghain - Alistair betrays you
Be an ass to Zevran - He'll betray you.
Abandon Redcliffe - You lose many side quests including chantry quests, blackstone irregulars and collectives. Not to mention it's now a ghost town.
Side with the werewolves - You lose your only income of infinite elfroot.

Those are just from top of my head. I'm sure DA2 has some. (At least I think it did)

[Wolfspawn]

Play The Witcher 2. There is plenty of moral ambiguity and an emphasis on consequence in that game. Also, Telltale's The Walking Dead.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...


Also a tiny cult in a single isolated village going to war against the Chantry? I'm pretty sure that isn't happening. They always tried to minimize contact with the outside world because they knew that bringing unwanted attention could be disastrous for them.

If you defile the Ashes, and then attempt to talk the Cult into joining you to fight the darkspawn, Kolgrim will state that the darkspawn are the work of the Maker (I believe this to be the only time Kolgrim uses that name) and announce a hands-off policy. He will go on to state that when the spawn are done weakening Thedas, he intends to take it over for Andraste. So, notwithdtanding that starting a world war with only a single village on your side is not the brightest idea, Quistina is right that this is their intention. (Which quickly became moot in my defilement playthrough, since being refused aid like that angered me.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 20 juillet 2013 - 06:04 .

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...

Alistair isn't very religious at all. In fact, I can't recall a single nice thing he ever had to say about the Chantry. While tainting the ashes of Andraste might annoy him, I don't see him attacking you over it.

Presumably your murder of Wynne and Leliana. 

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

filetemo wrote...

it's dissapointing when you replay that both outcomes of a choice almost always end up with a "fine...whatever, let's move on" response from most companions and npcs.

It wasn't unconcious.

note I already specified npc reactivity aswell

I'm honestly curious - what game do you think has reactive NPCs? Because all the RPGs I can think of only have ranges of fail. 

[Nightdragon8]

Plaintiff wrote...

Alistair isn't very religious at all. In fact, I can't recall a single nice thing he ever had to say about the Chantry. While tainting the ashes of Andraste might annoy him, I don't see him attacking you over it.

I agree he really wasn't the religious type, yea he grew up in the Chantry, buy he didn't turn out a choir boy. It always felt more like, he got an education was though the Chant Dogma but in reality couldn't care less. In fact despite this templar training, it seemed to me that he really didn't like how the templars where treating the mages either....

[Nightdragon8]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Filament wrote...

I can point to a couple examples that explain what I mean. One was when Grace kidnaps your brother/sister. You can go there, and there's a disagreement between her and Thrask and you can be supportive of Thrask-- great, character expression. But then regardless, Grace is all "lol nope" and kills Thrask, while the player just stands there doe-eyed. It's one thing to say your character tried to back up Thrask with not just words, but action, but simply failed to do so. But instead Hawke is forced to be a bystander there.

I didn't experience this because all I could see was red, and all I could say was "touch my sister and you die."

Another is with the blood mage in the alienage. His girlfriend says he's coming back tonight so you say you'll protect her, but all you can do is wait in Merrill's house until nightfall and then walk out to see him already in the middle of murdering her. Sure, you expressed your intention to do something, but then there's a really half assed job of actual trying to follow through with it. It's not like you could have stuck with her until nightfall or anything, no...

So those are the kind of things I mean when I say those choices feel hollow, because it's like your character isn't really allowed to "mean it."

I see what you mean. You're suggesting we actually DO what we say, not that what we say turns out successful. I will certainly admit that happened a few times--Petrice comes to mind. I got a sense in Act 3, however, of a world rapidly spinning out of control with Hawke unable to do anything about it.

Alot of games suffer from the "lack of action" in some senerios. Skyrim had a few moments like this as well, Solitude's execution. was one. Alot in ME in some cases. ME did it pretty well, although it was hit and miss, whereever the story needed someone to die it seems.

I mean its one thing if we diecide to play the bystander, its another to say one thing and have it happen without any input.

Now lets say during that fight, Thrask could be killed while in combat (can heal and he has a few pots) and if you fail to save him then so be it, but also have it so if he lives which would be a bonus for you. (as long as its not some grassy knole kind of thing, it was fine for the sister would have liked to be able to kill her myself but ill take the free murder)

[Ryzaki]

scyphozoa wrote...

I highly recommend you play the Imperial Agent class story in SWTOR. It has excellent choices, consequences and morality. And yes, if you make disagreeable choices, you will be reprimanded.

When? 

I just finished playing a "kill everyone I see" douchemobile. I think Keeper got on my case once. Same with my wide eyed way too naive to actually be an agent agent.

Only people that said anything were people I was supposed to be killing/spying and who really cares what *they* think.

[Ryzaki]

In Exile wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Alistair isn't very religious at all. In fact, I can't recall a single nice thing he ever had to say about the Chantry. While tainting the ashes of Andraste might annoy him, I don't see him attacking you over it.

Presumably your murder of Wynne and Leliana. 

Nah he won't attack you over that.

He is the one who tells you about the moral ambiguity of the wardens in the beginning. While he might think you're scum of the earth he still needs your help to fight the blight which is the most important thing.

[Zeldrik1389]

I think the word "wrong" is rather vague, because people feelings and opinions are different from each other's. The same action, some might think it's incredibly wrong, others might think it's justifiable.

For instance, Anders blowing up Chantry in DA 2, in my opinion, it was pointless, stupid, and an act of terrorism. But there are others think that its justifiable, and understandable. His action is completely "wrong" to me, but not to others.

Of course there are also choices that most people will feel terrible about, like in ME 3 when Shepard can choose to shoot Mordin and stop the cure. Personally, after so many playthroughs, I still couldn't do it.. I guess it the one "wrong" est decision I've seen in games for awhile. I don't know if there's anybody feel good about that action though, but I guess there's always the possibility.

Anyhow, in the end, It all depends on how we look at the action though. One thing I like about BioWare is that they always throw in choices that, in most cases, allow players to follow their own morals.

Modifié par Zeldrik1389, 20 juillet 2013 - 12:51 .

[filetemo]

Zeldrik1389 wrote...

I think the word "wrong" is rather vague, because people feelings and opinions are different from each other's. The same action, some might think it's incredibly wrong, others might think it's justifiable.

For instance, Anders blowing up Chantry in DA 2, in my opinion, it was pointless, stupid, and an act of terrorism. But there are others think that its justifiable, and understandable. His action is completely "wrong" to me, but not to others.

There's also the lack of reactivity to Hawke's possible personalities. Agressive Hawke is very rude and he always gets away with it. If he was at my town instead of at Kirkwall, Hawke would have been beaten up every time he opened his mouth.Yet the writing makes it that, you could tell the Knight Commander, the Arishok and the Viscount to f... off and go to hell, and she would find a way to ignore your disrespectful manner and continue the dialogue.

I understand that Tone responses were designed as a mostly aesthetic choice, but you can't ignore people reacts almost equally to a diplomatic hero, a sarcastic one or to a downright aggresive thug.