74 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKomandorShepard]

Navasha wrote...

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.

Heroes wins in idealistic setting not in cynical as i said before unless we talk about anti-hero and you evil type if don't play correctly also should get punches in face because playing as stupid evil who makes unnecessary sacrifices will quickly destroy your resources. For example you have our enemy he set on fire orphanage and run away this should end in that way if you save orpahange our enemy will cause huge damage or if we kill our enemy and let orphanage burn we avoided that was simple example. But letting our keep burn because we simple want sword for ourselves should backfire as well.

Star fury wrote...

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. 

i don't say that about da world just pointed extreme such thing as save everyone should't be available outside idealistic setting at least not everywhere in cynical settings that should be rare

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 12 septembre 2013 - 12:45 .

[The Elder King]

Morocco Mole wrote...

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

They said that you can save both the keep and the village, not that there shouldn't be consequences. You might lose more forces (agents?) that you would've if you saved the keep, and the village might be saved but more people died/a part of it is destroyed, instead of be completely saved. Maybe the villagers are pissed off because you didn't completely saved the village.
I'm not saying that this is going to happen (and Bioware doesn't have a good record with third choices having bad consequences), but there are ways to have a third choice that has some negative effects.

[t0mm06]

Star fury wrote...
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. 

I wouldnt say they cant do grey morality. Yes they didnt pull it off in DA2 particuarly well, but then there are things like Logain in DA:O, he seems to devide people a lot, and looking at the arguments i wouldnt say one choice is the good choice and the other bad, he is a harsh and stren person who did some terrible things for what he thought was the greater good. But i dont think he was evil, just scared and angry. 

So yeh i think they CAN do moraly grey very well... but they can also not do it well also

[Ferretinabun]

Navasha wrote...

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.

From my own perspective, the choices which, to this day, keep me hooked on DA:O are the ones such as the Dwarven King and the Landsmeet - each side of the choice has merits (though even in the case of the Landsmeet, one outcome is a little more 'rosey' than the others). I'm not saying I want all-good or all-bad outcomes from moral choices to be inverted, I am saying I don't want all-good or all-bad outcomes at all. Each option should have its merits - and its flaws.

[Tarek]

defend the keep, the village and wounded are dead meat anyways if the keep falls

[Taleroth]

Karlone123 wrote...

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.

I agree. But maybe not in the exact same way you do.

All choices should be valid and equal, just for different types of players. With benefits (and maybe drawbacks) to each. No choice should have only drawbacks, unless you're absolutely certain you have a notable subset of players who likes making choices only to suffer and fail. I'm skeptical of that.

That means if you allow the player to try saving everyone, they should maybe end up only saving half of everyone. Not that they should fail completely.

[The Elder King]

@Taleroth: I agree. The demo 'save everyone' option might lead to losing some agents, something destroyed in the keep, and a part of be village/ people destroyed/killed.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Taleroth wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

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.

I agree. But maybe not in the exact same way you do.

All choices should be valid and equal, just for different types of players. With benefits (and maybe drawbacks) to each. No choice should have only drawbacks, unless you're absolutely certain you have a notable subset of players who likes making choices only to suffer and fail. I'm skeptical of that.

That means if you allow the player to try saving everyone, they should maybe end up only saving half of everyone. Not that they should fail completely.

i don't agree that means only that goody-two shoes will end in best situation when they have village and soldiers, game shouln't also think that player care about peoples i will care only about my chcaracter ending and i will do what is beneficial to me (sometimes as well others because it will benefical to me too) i hope for first time they will make hero choices backfired not pragmatic one.

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 12 septembre 2013 - 01:34 .

[mikeymoonshine]

forget the villagers and sod the keep, off to the Tavern

[Taleroth]

mikeymoonshine wrote...

forget the villagers and sod the keep, off to the Tavern

Where do you keep your tavern, if not the village or the keep?

[jtav]

I don't think there should be clear right choices for our major decisions. Doesn't mean it's a no-win scenario, but there shouldn't be "do this if you're competent." The only things that ever really vary for me in DAO are the Landsmeet and Orzammer. The mages, werewolves, and Redcliffe/Ashes all have a clear correct choice, which actually limits my roleplaying.

[Taleroth]

jtav wrote...

The only things that ever really vary for me in DAO are the Landsmeet and Orzammer. The mages, werewolves, and Redcliffe/Ashes all have a clear correct choice, which actually limits my roleplaying.

Good observation.

[DarkSpider88]

The thread title had me expecting something vastly different... Along the line of equipping the inquisitor with whips and paddles.

I do hope however there is an ultimate achievable outcome for each situation but that they are hard to achieve.

[Xilizhra]

I'm totally fine with many things having a third option that works out well; the only time I'd rather not see that is in situations relating to choosing sides in the mage/templar war.

[NoForgiveness]

... am I the only one that sees that the last 4 are exactly the same?

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm totally fine with many things having a third option that works out well; the only time I'd rather not see that is in situations relating to choosing sides in the mage/templar war.

So every choice in the game should support a third choice that is as good as the others, but not the mage-templar war, when it's likely that some people have an opinion that don't support either side, just because a part of pro-mages and pro-templars want to force all of us to join one of them?

Modifié par hhh89, 12 septembre 2013 - 03:09 .

[Xilizhra]

hhh89 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm totally fine with many things having a third option that works out well; the only time I'd rather not see that is in situations relating to choosing sides in the mage/templar war.

So every choice in the game should support a third choice that is as good as the others, but not the mage-templar war, when it's likely that some people have an opinion that don't support either side, just because a part of pro-mages and pro-templars want to force all of us to join one of them?

I said many, not necessarily all. As for the other thing... well, yes. I believe fully in "I removed the chance of compromise, because there is no compromise!" It's a force that aspires to be unstoppable against an object that aspires to be immovable, and one must give.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 12 septembre 2013 - 03:18 .

[mikeymoonshine]

Taleroth wrote...

mikeymoonshine wrote...

forget the villagers and sod the keep, off to the Tavern

Where do you keep your tavern, if not the village or the keep?

I meant one in a safer Village or a town or a city idk  

[Herr Uhl]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm totally fine with many things having a third option that works out well; the only time I'd rather not see that is in situations relating to choosing sides in the mage/templar war.

What about choosing neither side and still having the war going on? Similar to how they did it in Witcher 1.

[The Elder King]

@Xilizhra: so I should have limited roleplaying just because you guys can have an all-out war? Yeah, I'm not going to agree with that. I don't want to be forced to join either side, since the mages seem to want freedom with no regalation, and templars want mages to be caged. There is no freedom in those choices. You're forced to extreme solutions. And for choosing one, I have to be forced to roleplay a character with determined beliefs.

[Taleroth]

hhh89 wrote...

@Xilizhra: so I should have limited roleplaying just because you guys can have an all-out war? Yeah, I'm not going to agree with that. I don't want to be forced to join either side, since the mages seem to want freedom with no regalation, and templars want mages to be caged. There is no freedom in those choices. You're forced to extreme solutions. And for choosing one, I have to be forced to roleplay a character with determined beliefs.

But we can all agree to beat up the Red Templars right?

Filthy commies.

[Xilizhra]

What about choosing neither side and still having the war going on? Similar to how they did it in Witcher 1.

The war really does need to end in this game, or at least have some sort of set ending point, as there are other things to explore. And it can't end with just the resumption of the status quo or the death of all mages, so...

You're right, my previous comment was probably ill-made because the templar side couldn't possibly win. It'd have to be between pro-mage and pro-compromising-Chantry.

[Taleroth]

Xilizhra wrote...

And it can't end with just the resumption of the status quo

Why not? You even have a pro-circle companion.

[Xilizhra]

Taleroth wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And it can't end with just the resumption of the status quo

Why not? You even have a pro-circle companion.

Because that would make DA2 and most of DAI completely narratively pointless. Also, we don't know what "pro-Circle" means yet, if it's in favor of the system or in favor of its people (completely different, as Wynne ultimately learned).