74 réponses à ce sujet

[Ferretinabun]

In the demo example we encounter a group of soldiers, some wounded, with a keep and village under attack. We have 6 options:

1) Have the soldiers protect the wounded and go defend the keep.
2) Have the soldiers protect the wounded and go defend the village.
3) Have the soldiers defend the keep and go defend the village.
4) Have the soldiers defend the village and go defend the keep.
5) Have the soldiers defend the keep, and go defend the keep too.
6) Have the soldiers defend the village, and go defend the village too.


Of these, I worry about options 5 and 6 being viable. Obviously wanting to maximise rewards, I'd suggest the vast majority of people would select from options 1-4 only. This would be a shame. What I'd really like to see is reasons for picking 5 and 6. Perhaps soldiers would not necessarily win if you do not accompany them, and options 3 and 4 actually carry a real, in-game risk of simply wiping those soldiers out along with whatever they were defending. Or perhaps the fight that you will encounter could really be Hellishly difficult without your soldiers there for support.

This harks back to a general issue I have with Bioware games - that it is usually entirely possible to do both the moral thing and to still 'win'. Mass Effect particularly toyed around with the whole 'moralistic v pragmatic' dilemna, but the problem was that the games never really punished you for taking the 'moral' choice, and thus the pragmatic choices became meaningless. In DA games, the Connor dilemna, the Awakening 'Keep v Amaranthine' choice, and DA2's 'should I use blood magic to help find mum' question are examples which leap to mind.

If doing the moral thing involves a sacrifice, then the pragmatic option becomes and lot more appealing, and the choice is a lot more interesting and meaningful.

I HOPE they are leaning in this direction with DA:I. If they are, this could really be an awesome game. Gaider has got close to this (insofar as making the game more punishing) when talking about the non-regenerating health bars making random combat encounters more of a dilemna. Has he said anything specific about tougher consequences for moral choices? I'd be very interested to know.

[Reofeir]

We haven't really seen the defend the village part, so for all we know there may be effects to how many people die while defending it.
Other then that, 5 & 6 are the for sure ones. 4&5 have a time limit on saving the village & keep both and 1&2 is much harsher in that regard. So unless you're really good, chances are you're not going to succeed. Though more benefits to the "hard choices" would be great.

[TheKomandorShepard]

LoL why i should care about ****y village and soldiers to the keep mothe*** now!

[Wulfram]

While there are some times when trying to be too stupidly heroic probably should come and bite you in the arse, I also think it's important not to get into the mindset that the immoral choice is inherently the "pragmatic one".

To take the Keep v Amaranthine thing, if I've spent a fortune building a totally awesome fortress, then that fortress should be able to look after itself.

And what really should be avoided is for the game to spend it's time concocting excuses for the player to commit atrocities and slapping other players in the face for trying to play a decent person. Which isn't what you were asking for but a lot of threads on this sort of subject sometimes seem to drift to that.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Wulfram wrote...

And what really should be avoided is for the game to spend it's time concocting excuses for the player to commit atrocities and slapping other players in the face for trying to play a decent person. Which isn't what you were asking for but a lot of threads on this sort of subject sometimes seem to drift to that.

Well if it is dark and cynical setting that should be in that way not always but mostly yes. 

[crimzontearz]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

And what really should be avoided is for the game to spend it's time concocting excuses for the player to commit atrocities and slapping other players in the face for trying to play a decent person. Which isn't what you were asking for but a lot of threads on this sort of subject sometimes seem to drift to that.

Well if it is dark and cynical setting that should be in that way not always but mostly yes. 

but it isn't so...

[Lotion Soronarr]

Zenor wrote...

We haven't really seen the defend the village part, so for all we know there may be effects to how many people die while defending it.
Other then that, 5 & 6 are the for sure ones. 4&5 have a time limit on saving the village & keep both and 1&2 is much harsher in that regard. So unless you're really good, chances are you're not going to succeed. Though more benefits to the "hard choices" would be great.

This is a game with Save&Load.
You WILL suceed.

Faliure is literaly not an option.

[Ferretinabun]

Wulfram - good points there. I suppose that would be true if every choice ran that way.

[TheKomandorShepard]

crimzontearz wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

And what really should be avoided is for the game to spend it's time concocting excuses for the player to commit atrocities and slapping other players in the face for trying to play a decent person. Which isn't what you were asking for but a lot of threads on this sort of subject sometimes seem to drift to that.

Well if it is dark and cynical setting that should be in that way not always but mostly yes. 

but it isn't so...

Hmm yes it is just look on thedas ,at least except first game when game allowed us be hero without consequences second game in contrast take us to another route where no matter what we do we always loose and to be honest i don't like taking it to such extreme... but still it cynical setting question is how much it will be.   

[crimzontearz]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

And what really should be avoided is for the game to spend it's time concocting excuses for the player to commit atrocities and slapping other players in the face for trying to play a decent person. Which isn't what you were asking for but a lot of threads on this sort of subject sometimes seem to drift to that.

Well if it is dark and cynical setting that should be in that way not always but mostly yes. 

but it isn't so...

Hmm yes it is just look on thedas ,at least except first game when game allowed us be hero without consequences second game in contrast take us to another route where no matter what we do we always loose and to be honest i don't like taking it to such extreme... but still it cynical setting question is how much it will be.   

ok I should rephrase...


 
It is in no way as cynical as other settings like, say, the witcher or Halo (yes the extended universe is VERY cynical)

That said, I hope they learned their lesson from ME3 and DA2 and this time they let us play "our" story, where we can play as the hero/paragon without either a ****slap every other time we decline murdering babies in cold blood or a feeling of "no matter what you do you are screwed"


 
Because that is REALLY not what I play games for

Modifié par crimzontearz, 12 septembre 2013 - 11:39 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Or 7) keep the soldiers and villages locked up in the keep's dungeons as a readily available food source

[TheKomandorShepard]

crimzontearz wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

And what really should be avoided is for the game to spend it's time concocting excuses for the player to commit atrocities and slapping other players in the face for trying to play a decent person. Which isn't what you were asking for but a lot of threads on this sort of subject sometimes seem to drift to that.

Well if it is dark and cynical setting that should be in that way not always but mostly yes. 

but it isn't so...

Hmm yes it is just look on thedas ,at least except first game when game allowed us be hero without consequences second game in contrast take us to another route where no matter what we do we always loose and to be honest i don't like taking it to such extreme... but still it cynical setting question is how much it will be.   

ok I should rephrase...


 
It is in no way as cynical as other settings like, say, the witcher or Halo (yes the extended universe is VERY cynical)

That said, I hope they learned their lesson from ME3 and DA2 and this time they let us play "our" story, where we can play as the hero/paragon without either a ****slap every other time we decline murdering babies in cold blood or a feeling of "no matter what you do you are screwed"


 
Because that is REALLY not what I play games for

i don't say that is on witcher level where no matter what you did you always lose i said if it is cynical setting and that is painted that should support darker choices as end justifies means , bad guys win nice guys end last and i don't say that should support stupid evil choices i just say that game should be more favorable to anti-heroes and ruthless peoples if they are smarter because they aren't bound to morals and are harder to exploit than straight hero.

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 12 septembre 2013 - 11:49 .

[crimzontearz]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

And what really should be avoided is for the game to spend it's time concocting excuses for the player to commit atrocities and slapping other players in the face for trying to play a decent person. Which isn't what you were asking for but a lot of threads on this sort of subject sometimes seem to drift to that.

Well if it is dark and cynical setting that should be in that way not always but mostly yes. 

but it isn't so...

Hmm yes it is just look on thedas ,at least except first game when game allowed us be hero without consequences second game in contrast take us to another route where no matter what we do we always loose and to be honest i don't like taking it to such extreme... but still it cynical setting question is how much it will be.   

ok I should rephrase...


 
It is in no way as cynical as other settings like, say, the witcher or Halo (yes the extended universe is VERY cynical)

That said, I hope they learned their lesson from ME3 and DA2 and this time they let us play "our" story, where we can play as the hero/paragon without either a ****slap every other time we decline murdering babies in cold blood or a feeling of "no matter what you do you are screwed"


 
Because that is REALLY not what I play games for

i don't say that is on witcher level where no matter what you did you always lose i said if it is cynical setting and that is painted that should support darker choices as end justifies means , bad guys win nice guys end last and i don't say that should support stupid evil choices i just say that game should be more favorable to anti-heroes and ruthless peoples if they are smarter because they aren't bound to morals and are harder to exploit than straight hero.

 
That said the witcher setting has its advantages being set up that way...mainly at the end I will not feel bad making a VERY selfish choice and telling everyone to screw themselves as I walk away with Triss

[crimzontearz]

Morocco Mole wrote...

There will be a third option to save everyone with no consequences because this is Bioware my friends.

I will be ok with that

[Star fury]

Morocco Mole wrote...

There will be a third option to save everyone with no consequences because this is Bioware my friends.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Morocco Mole wrote...

There will be a third option to save everyone with no consequences because this is Bioware my friends.

Da 2 ?
Behlen vs Harrowmont?
To be honest i m not enemy third option and it isn't something bad because more options that it will better but in more darker settings third option could slap you in face quite often. 

crimzontearz wrote...


That said the witcher setting
has its advantages being set up that way...mainly at the end I will not
feel bad making a VERY selfish choice and telling everyone to screw
themselves as I walk away with Triss

I don't know i don't like witcher setting where is lose-lose scenario we should have option to win even if we manipulate everyone and be backstabing pr*** and i don't say everyone should win just us if we desire in da 2 i have feeling that hawke could kill himself and that would be ending equal two possible endings.

Star fury wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

There will be a third option to save everyone with no consequences because this is Bioware my friends.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Well it can be bad thing but don't have to but if you put that into setting what says there is no hope it will be pretty lame don't you think?

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 12 septembre 2013 - 12:24 .

[Karlone123]

I dislike choices that makes all the other choices invalid in the case of making "a hard choice" as that there is no consequence of making that choice.

[Navasha]

I am not sure where this whole concept that making a moral choice REQUIRES a bad outcome ever came into being?
Is it because some people are really just incapable of not meta-gaming? Is it the fault of people looking up solutions to quests before actually ever playing the game? Some how there is an irony in the fact that people are "cheating" in order to pick the moral choice.

If a game ALWAYS punishes you for doing the right thing, then the game ultimately fails at it intent which is to entertain the player.

There has always been options in the DA games where doing the "right" thing ended in less than optimal results. However, it seems that some people like to focus on those 2 or 3 situations where everything CAN actually work out okay if someone is good person.

Honestly, I am not sure if it isn't more of some players wanting to play the grimdark bloodthirsty characters and then not happy when their vile actions don't let them feel like they are winning. I play both types of characters in my game. I want my heroics to feel like they are winning, and I want my vile evil types to feel selfish and uncaring about the consequences they reap.

[crimzontearz]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Star fury wrote...
You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is when you want to make choices and consequences actually meaningfull. Who is going to kill connor or sacrifice isolde? Who is going to choose the werewolves or dalish without the compromise?

Why bother talking about difficult choices when there is always a third option that gets you out scot free my friends?

of course, they tried this in DA2 and we got that horrible mess of a mage/templar storyline. So maybe Bioware should stick to the power fantasies.

some games are not meant to remind you that life is bleak and unfair, that is what channel 7 is for. Yes I know it is cool hip and mature to say that grimdarkness is the bee's knees and that power fantasies are for children

 
Whatever

and BTW I often allied myself with the werewolves for two reasons

1: they are better close combat fighters than the dalish

2: I like nature spirits more than I like Dalish elves

[Star fury]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Well it can be bad thing but don't have to but if you put that into setting what says there is no hope it will be pretty lame don't you think?

DA setting is dark but not that dystopian, just compare it to ASOIAF of George Martin or Warhammer40k. There you can there is no hope. 

[Navasha]

Morocco Mole wrote...


It is when you want to make choices and consequences actually meaningfull. Who is going to kill connor or sacrifice isolde? Who is going to choose the werewolves or dalish without the compromise?

Why bother talking about difficult choices when there is always a third option that gets you out scot free my friends?

of course, they tried this in DA2 and we got that horrible mess of a mage/templar storyline. So maybe Bioware should stick to the power fantasies.

That honestly is the fault of the player.   If people are unable to roleplay and simply want to meta-game for the best results, then that is on them.    Why eliminate options for people that are actually roleplaying their characters? 

I have played the "good" dwarven noble who just absolutely hates/fear mages and magic.    He was never going to allow a blood mage to sacrifice Isolde and he certainly was too proud to go beg some mages to help when the very simple solution was to kill Connor and end that whole devilsh mage situation right there and then.

[Star fury]

Morocco Mole wrote...
It is when you want to make choices and consequences actually meaningfull. Who is going to kill connor or sacrifice isolde? Who is going to choose the werewolves or dalish without the compromise?

Why bother talking about difficult choices when there is always a third option that gets you out scot free my friends?

of course, they tried this in DA2 and we got that horrible mess of a mage/templar storyline. So maybe Bioware should stick to the power fantasies.

Fallout 2 had choices that brought "happiness for everyone" in abundance. It is still considered RPG masterpiece and has a cult status. 

DA:O had a few good ambivalent choices like already mentioned Bhelen-Harrowmont conflict, also there was quest with a demon who offered you 40 gold and no gameplay consequences. I'm actually content with both methods. Agreed about DA2 and mage-templar struggle. Bioware should stay away from grey morality, they can't do it. 

Modifié par Star fury, 12 septembre 2013 - 12:43 .