219 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

Taleroth wrote...

Negative outcomes of choices is a dumb idea. Especially when it's in contrast to the other options. It denies agency and makes an implicit judgement on the player's style.

Choices should simply have different outcomes. Equal outcomes that are different in ways that respect why the choices were made. Sometimes this can lead to complex situations, temporary negative outcomes, but that should be the case for all outcomes of an event. With the player given the opportunity to turn that around towards the positive outcome.

Respect a player's agency. Do not judge their choices. If you judge their choices, then you insult the player. If you take away their agency, you might as well not give them a choice.

the same can be said about some of the retcon

[Iron Fist]

DeadlyHaven wrote...

What I don't get about the Dark Ritual being canon (like if she conveniently finds some other Warden and does the Dark Ritual with them) is that, if she did the Dark Ritual, then wouldn't my Warden, who sacrificed themselves, be alive?

Alistair or the Secret Companion can perform the ritual in The Warden's place.

[Patchwork]

MevenSelas wrote...

DeadlyHaven wrote...

What I don't get about the Dark Ritual being canon (like if she conveniently finds some other Warden and does the Dark Ritual with them) is that, if she did the Dark Ritual, then wouldn't my Warden, who sacrificed themselves, be alive?

Alistair or the Secret Companion can perform the ritual in The Warden's place.

If the DR is done, by who doesn't matter, then the Warden doesn't die when killing the the archdemon. When the DR choice isn't taken then whoever delivers the killing blow dies, their soul destroyed by archdemon.

IMO it's Morrigan's horrible interpersonal skills that prevents Alistair etc from doing the ritual rather than a lack of agency on her part. If the player refuses who's to say she didn't go ask them herself but she probably couldn't get through the explaination without majorly insulting them.

[Iron Fist]

Ser Bard wrote...

If the DR is done, by who doesn't matter, then the Warden doesn't die when killing the the archdemon. When the DR choice isn't taken then whoever delivers the killing blow dies, their soul destroyed by archdemon.

IMO it's Morrigan's horrible interpersonal skills that prevents Alistair etc from doing the ritual rather than a lack of agency on her part. If the player refuses who's to say she didn't go ask them herself but she probably couldn't get through the explaination without majorly insulting them.

Who would refuse free sex? Morrigan might have a heart of ice, but it's gotta be warm down under.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Damn it.
I almost choke when I read Gameinformer's article.
I shouldn't have like Dragon Age ( Origins ) in my facebook. It would have make my life much easier to move on like most DAO fans do. Beside, I'm quite happy playing latest MMORPGs to worry about DA3 anymore. And I thought, I'd be happier that way ( after more than 2 years of anger and frustration with Hawke, DA 2's story and characters.... ). Alas!
I lost words. This is ..... beyond my expectation..
Anyway, BioWare thank you very much!
I love it. The "canon" ( as the OP wrote ) is certainly my favorite. I'm looking forward to playing it, but please please be very careful with player's grey warden ( I'm not sure about the non-playable grey warden thing ), especially the Cousland who romance Morrigan and perform DR. It could please me greatly to learn about my warden, but it could also kill me if the references are not something I've expected from my previous gameplay in Origins and Witch Hunt DLC. ( The player can choose to enter the portal with Morrigan in Witch Hunt DLC, remember? )

To Gaider, what makes you love writing about Morrigan is exactly what make me love the character dearly. Please keep her that way. Oh, my Cousland always support Morrigan's cause with regards to OGB. Therefore, there shouldn't be much problem for me to understand her motives and reasons in DA3. It would be Out of Character for roleplaying my new protagonist in DA 3, though. But meh, I was Cousland in Origins and part of me is still there no matter what. The new role simply couldn't change that. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 13 août 2013 - 05:04 .

[Lokiwithrope]

Not in my save file!

[Wolfva2]

Faerunner wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Jesus, brushyourteeth, does The Gaider have to keep confirming that the stupid OGB is *not* cannon? Misleading thread title. I'm sorry but I have to report you to BioWareMod04 and he doesn't believe that ignorance of the crime is an excuse.

Hey, you read that article and tell me what I was supposed to think -- especially in the wake of "race options won't be returning OHH NO WAIT YES THEY ARE!" (which I am super pumped about, seriously.)

I'm sure even BioWareMod04 would understand under the circumstances. 


I'm personally a bit disappointed at the thought that Morrigan could have gone "Aw, shucks, you won't let me do this ritual? Dang..." and sulked off into the night. My understanding of Morrigan is that she was going to get what she wanted with or without your help and approval. If anything, this was the easiest path to the OGB and possibly a way to save a friend.

Agreed. If the Warden refused, I figured she just ran off and found another way to do it with another Warden and Old God somewhere else in the world. She doesn't strike me as the kind to just give up and sulk away because someone said "no."

Ah well. In the end, it's the writers' choice.

RACE SELECTION THOUGH!!

Yeah, I mean, how hard can it possibly be to 1) find another blight led by an Archdemon and 2) seduce the warden who fights it?  After all, arch demons and blights are about as common as fleas on a dog!  Why, just the other day I was leaving the Thedas market and bumped into 2 archdemons arguing about parking spots!  They're just that common!

[Fredward]

Taleroth wrote...

Negative outcomes of choices is a dumb idea. Especially when it's in contrast to the other options. It denies agency and makes an implicit judgement on the player's style.

Choices should simply have different outcomes. Equal outcomes that are different in ways that respect why the choices were made. Sometimes this can lead to complex situations, temporary negative outcomes, but that should be the case for all outcomes of an event. With the player given the opportunity to turn that around towards the positive outcome.

Respect a player's agency. Do not judge their choices. If you judge their choices, then you insult the player. If you take away their agency, you might as well not give them a choice.

What? Are you kidding? You're talking about player agency yet you're yanking away the possibility to make any kind of meaningful choice in the same sentence. I did the Dark Ritual and I helped Merrill fix the Eluvian, I am completely willing to face the consequences of those actions. I made them knowing they might end badly. I'd expect that if I had NOT made them a completely different conclusion would be reached, not a qualitatively same one.

They're not judging your choices. People make stupid choices. They have to deal with those choices. If I decide to skip rope on the highway I expect some bad things to happen. If you make a bad choice bad things should happen otherwise you just take away the entire point of making a choice. Mind you this shouldn't mean EVERY choice has to have a good and bad part but something huge like the DR definitely should. Especially since it shrieks "CHOICE WITH POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS" from a mile away.

[mannitt]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Negative outcomes of choices is a dumb idea. Especially when it's in contrast to the other options. It denies agency and makes an implicit judgement on the player's style.

Choices should simply have different outcomes. Equal outcomes that are different in ways that respect why the choices were made. Sometimes this can lead to complex situations, temporary negative outcomes, but that should be the case for all outcomes of an event. With the player given the opportunity to turn that around towards the positive outcome.

Respect a player's agency. Do not judge their choices. If you judge their choices, then you insult the player. If you take away their agency, you might as well not give them a choice.

What? Are you kidding? You're talking about player agency yet you're yanking away the possibility to make any kind of meaningful choice in the same sentence. I did the Dark Ritual and I helped Merrill fix the Eluvian, I am completely willing to face the consequences of those actions. I made them knowing they might end badly. I'd expect that if I had NOT made them a completely different conclusion would be reached, not a qualitatively same one.

They're not judging your choices. People make stupid choices. They have to deal with those choices. If I decide to skip rope on the highway I expect some bad things to happen. If you make a bad choice bad things should happen otherwise you just take away the entire point of making a choice. Mind you this shouldn't mean EVERY choice has to have a good and bad part but something huge like the DR definitely should. Especially since it shrieks "CHOICE WITH POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS" from a mile away.

Exactly!

[brushyourteeth]

Wolfva2 wrote...

Faerunner wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Jesus, brushyourteeth, does The Gaider have to keep confirming that the stupid OGB is *not* cannon? Misleading thread title. I'm sorry but I have to report you to BioWareMod04 and he doesn't believe that ignorance of the crime is an excuse.

Hey, you read that article and tell me what I was supposed to think -- especially in the wake of "race options won't be returning OHH NO WAIT YES THEY ARE!" (which I am super pumped about, seriously.)

I'm sure even BioWareMod04 would understand under the circumstances. 


I'm personally a bit disappointed at the thought that Morrigan could have gone "Aw, shucks, you won't let me do this ritual? Dang..." and sulked off into the night. My understanding of Morrigan is that she was going to get what she wanted with or without your help and approval. If anything, this was the easiest path to the OGB and possibly a way to save a friend.

Agreed. If the Warden refused, I figured she just ran off and found another way to do it with another Warden and Old God somewhere else in the world. She doesn't strike me as the kind to just give up and sulk away because someone said "no."

Ah well. In the end, it's the writers' choice.

RACE SELECTION THOUGH!!

Yeah, I mean, how hard can it possibly be to 1) find another blight led by an Archdemon and 2) seduce the warden who fights it?  After all, arch demons and blights are about as common as fleas on a dog!  Why, just the other day I was leaving the Thedas market and bumped into 2 archdemons arguing about parking spots!  They're just that common!

I think Faerunner was using hyperbole to make her point. I'm positive that s/he doesn't actually think Morrigan would go out and find another Archdemon and GW in time to have a pregnancy that matches up with DA:O's timeline.

The point is that once Morrigan is set on something, she'll quite likely do ANYTHING to see it through.


"Ask the Warden pretty please" doesn't seem like it would be the end of Morrigan's planning. I don't see her saying "Aw, dangit... the Warden said no! Why didn't I prepare for this?!"

Just saying.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 13 août 2013 - 02:09 .

[Fast Jimmy]

They're not judging your choices. People make stupid choices. They have to deal with those choices. If I decide to skip rope on the highway I expect some bad things to happen. If you make a bad choice bad things should happen otherwise you just take away the entire point of making a choice. Mind you this shouldn't mean EVERY choice has to have a good and bad part but something huge like the DR definitely should. Especially since it shrieks "CHOICE WITH POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS" from a mile away.

The problem comes into play, instead, when you make SMART choices (arguably, hard choices, but still smart) and the game says "whoops, nope, you were wrong."

The Rachni were a dangerous threat to the galaxy, nearly wiping out most life before the Krogan showed up. They proved they are easily manipulated and turned into killers. You even find of that Reapers were the ones that turned them aggressive in the original Rachni wars... so it is a totally smart and valid choice to kill the last remaining queen. Yes, genocide is bad... but survival is better.

And guess what? It turns out your choice WAS smart, because the Reapers took the Rachni Queen and turned her into a weapon. But, instead of rewarding the players who made the smart, hard choice, they are, instead, PENALIZED for it, both in terms of having their choice ignored AND having a lower EMS.

THAT is bad. It is railroading, it is arbitrary and it is shallow story-telling. One of the many reasons the Save Import system is a weak vehicle for player/developer interaction.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 13 août 2013 - 02:18 .

[Potato Cat]

Fast Jimmy, I agree wholeheartedly. I hated how almost every renegade choice was considered bad by ME3's EMS system. I think even the 'evil' choices in DAO should have SOME positive effects. Though I think this is something the DA team does well like with the Harrowmont/Bhelen choice.

[Taleroth]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

What? Are you kidding? You're talking about player agency yet you're yanking away the possibility to make any kind of meaningful choice in the same sentence.I did the Dark Ritual and I helped Merrill fix the Eluvian, I am completely willing to face the consequences of those actions. I made them knowing they might end badly. I'd expect that if I had NOT made them a completely different conclusion would be reached, not a qualitatively same one.

The idea that outcomes have to be inequal to be meaningful is ridiculous.

Take The Witcher 2's second act. Vastly different events, qualitatively equal. And more meaningful than any negative outcome seen in a Bioware game.

They're not judging your choices. People make stupid choices.

Calling a choice stupid is judging a choice.

If I decide to skip rope on the highway I expect some bad things to happen.

I expect RPGs not to implement rope skipping on highways.

If you make a bad choice bad things should happen otherwise you just take away the entire point of making a choice.

The point of choice is in expressing your character and creating unique experiences. This is not only maintained by qualitatively equal but with distinct content, it is enhanced. As it enables players to make choices based on how they want their character to play, and pursue goals that are interesting to them, without feeling that they'll be arbitrarily denied because the devs thought their character concept was stupid.

Modifié par Taleroth, 13 août 2013 - 03:29 .

[Lebanese Dude]

It'll be interesting to see how the Old God Baby story unfolds now.

[Spedfrom]

It doesn't matter if all of the Grey Wardens of Thedas lined up to have sex with Morrigan. You need to kill an Archdemon for the ritual to be done!!

There hasn't been another Blight since the one in Ferelden, ergo, no Archdemon to kill to transfer its soul to Morrigan's baby.

[brushyourteeth]

Spedfrom wrote...

It doesn't matter if all of the Grey Wardens of Thedas lined up to have sex with Morrigan. You need to kill an Archdemon for the ritual to be done!!

There hasn't been another Blight since the one in Ferelden, ergo, no Archdemon to kill to transfer its soul to Morrigan's baby.

This is true, and yet I'm still not at all what your point is.

[Iron Fist]

Spedfrom wrote...

It doesn't matter if all of the Grey Wardens of Thedas lined up to have sex with Morrigan. You need to kill an Archdemon for the ritual to be done!!

There hasn't been another Blight since the one in Ferelden, ergo, no Archdemon to kill to transfer its soul to Morrigan's baby.

The epilogue to Awakening references a possible sixth Blight in the Anderfels.

[Maria Caliban]

The problem is that 'is giving Morrigan an old god child something that will be bad in the long wrong?' is being turned into 'is Morrigan a b*****?'

Whether or not Morrigan is a b***** or self-interested or teh evil doesn't have much to do with whether a living old god is a good thing or not.

[Wulfram]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The problem is that 'is giving Morrigan an old god child something that will be bad in the long wrong?' is being turned into 'is Morrigan a b*****?'

Whether or not Morrigan is a b***** or self-interested or teh evil doesn't have much to do with whether a living old god is a good thing or not.

Well, the only real information we have about the old god baby is that both Morrigan and Flemeth think that it could serve their ends.  So what those ends might be is very relevant, and Morrigan's character is our only real guide to that.

Of course it's possible that Morrigan might be totally wrong about the consequences, but in that case we've got no basis for speculation whatsoever.

edit:  Say someone asks you to give them some plutonium.  Doesn't your opinion of what is the correct answer depend on who is asking?

Modifié par Wulfram, 13 août 2013 - 06:15 .

[Maria Caliban]

Right. We have no idea what the impact of its existence is. Any guesses are pulled out of our backsides.

Speculation is fine. Thinking that BioWare is obliged to make our speculation canon is silly.

[brushyourteeth]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The problem is that 'is giving Morrigan an old god child something that will be bad in the long wrong?' is being turned into 'is Morrigan a b*****?'

Whether or not Morrigan is a b***** or self-interested or teh evil doesn't have much to do with whether a living old god is a good thing or not.

I'm not sure what everyone else is looking for from the discussion, but as the OP, what I'm mostly interested in is something more like,

"Would Morrigan use any means necessary to get an OGB if she really wants one?"

And in that case, "Is Morrigan a b****?" is very relevant (depending on your definition of b****) and "Is giving Morrigan an old god child something that will be bad in the long run?" is a secondary question we'll have to leave open for later.

[TK514]

A limited window of opportunity is a limited window of opportunity. It doesn't matter how smart, plucky, resourceful, determined willful, whatever else you want to use to describe her she is. If she missed the window, then she failed.

Frankly, if there were other ways to get an OG soul for a baby, there would be no reason for Flemeth or Morrigan to wait for the unpredictable less-than-once-a-century event of a Blight. They had all the time and seclusion in the world sitting out there in the Wilds to enact whatever they wanted whenever they wanted and no one around to let something as pesky as a conscience or dislike/distrust get in the way.

In fact, even defeating a Blight is so wildly unpredictable that you would only make it the key event of your plan if you had no other choice. It was entirely possible that every man, woman, and child in Denerim was going to die the next day, including the Warden and their companions, leaving a victorious Archdemon to carry on and plague the rest of the world, which would have resulted in exactly zero old god babies.

[Fredward]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
The problem comes into play, instead, when you make SMART choices (arguably, hard choices, but still smart) and the game says "whoops, nope, you were wrong."

The Rachni were a dangerous threat to the galaxy, nearly wiping out most life before the Krogan showed up. They proved they are easily manipulated and turned into killers. You even find of that Reapers were the ones that turned them aggressive in the original Rachni wars... so it is a totally smart and valid choice to kill the last remaining queen. Yes, genocide is bad... but survival is better.

And guess what? It turns out your choice WAS smart, because the Reapers took the Rachni Queen and turned her into a weapon. But, instead of rewarding the players who made the smart, hard choice, they are, instead, PENALIZED for it, both in terms of having their choice ignored AND having a lower EMS.

THAT is bad. It is railroading, it is arbitrary and it is shallow story-telling. One of the many reasons the Save Import system is a weak vehicle for player/developer interaction.

I actually agree with everything you said here. I mean everytime you make a choice there's a chance it isn't going to wind up the way you want it to. There's always an element of arbitrariness to it. But it made sense (with the information you had at the time and maybe even after) to kill the Rachni queen. I didn't because I felt bad. Again I was expecting to deal with some **** down the road and was fine with it, a moral choice shouldn't always lead down the same road as a pragmatic choice after all. But instead you get exactly the same situation except if you made the pragmatic (yet arguably smarter) choice you wound up with either no benefit at all or a kick in the balls for showing mercy this time. But really every situation like this in ME3 was handled ****tily. I didn't like it at all. Lost or killed Tali you got someone to fill her role. Same with Mordin. Same with Wrex. It was exactly the same situation with a ****tier end result if you let someone die.

Taleroth wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

What?
Are you kidding? You're talking about player agency yet you're yanking
away the possibility to make any kind of meaningful choice in the same
sentence.I did the Dark Ritual and I helped Merrill fix the Eluvian, I
am completely willing to face the consequences of those actions. I made
them knowing they might end badly. I'd expect that if I had NOT made
them a completely different conclusion would be reached, not a
qualitatively same one.

The idea that outcomes have to be
inequal to be meaningful is ridiculous.

Take The Witcher 2's
second act. Vastly different events, qualitatively equal. And more
meaningful than any negative outcome seen in a Bioware game.

They're not judging your choices. People make stupid choices.

Calling a choice stupid is judging a choice.

If I decide to skip rope on the highway I expect some bad things to happen.

I expect RPGs not to implement rope skipping on highways.

If you make a bad choice bad things should happen otherwise you just take away the entire point of making a choice.

The point of choice is in expressing your character and creating unique
experiences. This is not only maintained by qualitatively equal but
with distinct content, it is enhanced. As it enables players to make
choices based on how they want their character to play, and pursue goals
that are interesting to them, without feeling that they'll be
arbitrarily denied because the devs thought their character concept was
stupid.

There's a difference between making a "different/going-against-the-norm" choice and a "bad" choice. Example of a potentially bad choice include having a morally ambiguous lady carry to term and raise a child with the soul of a corrupted god. She doesn't even promise she won't teach it to be evil. A going against the grain choice would be exterminating a species that has proven to be incredibly destructive and violent. Or using a blood ritual to save a kids life at the expense of his mother. I'd expect more or less the same qualitative result from those last two choices because neither of them had a signpost that read "BAD IDEA" written on it (well the Rachni one did but whatever, take the Connor one then). "MORALLY REPUGNANT " maybe but not a bad idea.

The DR has deep, dark implications tied to it. It is what makes it a difficult decision. Preserve yourself now but potentially unleash an utter ****storm somewhere in the future. If I knew doing the DR led to good ending X and not doing it led to good ending Y... It would be like having two delicious cakes. One vanilla, one chocolate. You might prefer one over the other but cake is never bad. Though if you dislike cake feel free to swap it with your comestible of choice.

Point is that by equalizing the field, by making either choice positive (or even neutral in this case) when the implications that it is a BAD decision are clearly present is rendering it superfluous. I wouldn't mind as much if the decision was ambiguous, if the result could go either way (as long as there was an actual, tangible result), but as a potentially bad decision should have potentially bad consequences.

Unless you're arguing for the total absence of potentially ****ty decisions in which case... meh? We're all entitled to our opinions.

And also I don't see how it limits you role-playing a character if a decision they make leads to an undesired outcome. Isn't that part of roleplaying? Making decisions and dealing with the consequences? If you just see a choice as faulty for its ending you're entirely skipping the journey. What's more important, your character's reason for making a choice or the end result? Intent or outcome? Meta-knowledge or in-game decision/reasoning?

And lastly I'm hoping the writers aren't sitting at their desks wringing their hands and wondering how they can punish decisions they deem unworthy. They set the parameters for the results of the decisions you make. As objectively as possible, presumably. Their values and ideals shouldn't take a karmic manifestation in the game. Your choices should be cause and effect. This would be the ideal. A neutral decision making environment where your choices can lead anyplace, not just sunshine and happiness but fire and brimstone too.

EDIT:

Is censoring the colloquial phrase for defecate really necessary? <_<

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 13 août 2013 - 09:13 .