74 réponses à ce sujet

[Taleroth]

Xilizhra wrote...

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).

DA2 is already narratively pointless.

DAI is not about the Mage/Templar war. It's about the tear in the veil.

[Xilizhra]

Taleroth wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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).

DA2 is already narratively pointless.

DAI is not about the Mage/Templar war. It's about the tear in the veil.

DA2 doesn't have to be pointless if DAI uses it well.

[Taleroth]

Xilizhra wrote...

DA2 doesn't have to be pointless if DAI uses it well.

Asunder already rendered it pointless. It was just a single event. They care more about the Rite of Tranquility.

DA2's contribution seems to be the red lyrium, not the war.

[AresKeith]

Xilizhra wrote...

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).

Ummm no, Wynne basically is Pro-Circle

And Pro-Circle means what it means, she's in favor of having the Circle for mages

[Cainhurst Crow]

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.

Oh please, all it does is add more roleplaying options. If you want to play an elf-hater, here's your chance. Want to kill all the mages? Here, go for it. Want to play a non-compromising character, you can ignore the option of compromise completely.

I happen to like middle ground options because in the real world they are what I would work for, not this bs "you have 2 choices becasue two is all the system can comprehend".

3 or more choice options for approaching scenarios, like ME2 had in a lot of loyalty missions, is what I would like to see in the game.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 12 septembre 2013 - 04:00 .

[lady_v23]

Ferretinabun wrote...

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.

Oh, I like the title of this one.

And no.  I disagree.  there should be CHOICES with DIFFERENT RESULTS.  Why does a choice has to bit me in my behind when I went the extra mile?  I want a reward, not something less worse than the other horrible solutions.

Modifié par lady_v23, 12 septembre 2013 - 04:05 .

[esper]

lady_v23 wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

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.

Oh, I like the title of this one.

And no.  I disagree.  there should be CHOICES with DIFFERENT RESULTS.  Why does a choice has to bit me in my behind when I went the extra mile?  I want a reward, not something less worse than the other horrible solutions.

Sometimes it should, because that extra mile was riducules to go.

That said, I do necessary think it is the case here. If you have fully upgraded the keep, send the soldiers there and the obvious elite group the players control, can manage to save the village and reach the keep in time it is fair game.
(Of course you should have to pay for reparing the keep afterwards, since it will obviously be damaged now).

I often don't like the third option or the save everyone in Redcliffe option, because it more or less tell the player that this is the way the game is suppossed to be played. That said not every good option should lead to the bad outcome, just as not every cynical option should lead to a positive outcome, that is just telling the player in another way that there is a right way to play.

[AutumnWitch]

I have never understood why people want video games that set them up to fail 100% of the time when they do the "right thing". That was my only complaint about DA2. No matter what you did Leandra is going to die. I refer to these situations as "Kobayashi Maru" quests. To me this situation is just as bad a typical Disney film when nothing bad happens. Any and all choices you make became meaningless because no matter what you do you will fail . That's no better than Cinderella always getting her Prince Charming IMO.

The only way in a game when I feel like what I choose is really important is when I know what I am doing matters. The first time I played "All That Remains" (and didn't know about the Kobayashi Maru feature) it mattered so much to me what I was doing. In subsequent run-throughs I just usually get it done as fast as I can just so that I can focus on the quest that have choices that matter.

I understand that for some reason the writers had to have her die. I wish she had just been killed in a very short discovery quest so that I didn't have to waist my time playing it and then they could have devoted all the time into making that rather long story arc into something that mattered.

I also understand that someone out there wants games that do not always give the protagonist a way to always succeed. Fine there is nothing wrong with that. I just don't personally like playing it that way when it takes up a significant amount of time in the game because I want my choices to matter.. (I know some people don't mind and again there is nothing wrong with that.) So either way when I KNOW that no matter what I do I will always fail or succeed the whole process becomes meaningless and no fun/entertaining.

When we make choices in game (IMO) (unless it's for very specific plot reasons) I would like my choices to always have the possibility of failing or not. That way I have to "think" and make tough choices when I have to. Because like I said with Leandra its just wasted time in game. I know that her dying was plot rather than a real game consequence but if that's really the case then just kill her quickly and let me spend all that time in game when I was dealing her to dealing with tracking down her killer or some other quest that actually matters in the end.

As the OP points out we often have to choose between a moral and pragmatic option BUT either one of those choices only matter when the consequences of those choices have a real possibility of at least two outcomes.

I understand that a lot of people want times in game when you have to fail no matter what you do. Again there is nothing wrong with that. But if you take that logic and turn it around and have times in games when you always succeed it becomes boring and IMO the reverse is also true, I find it terribly boring and tiresome when my choices don't matter. So again, what I want as far as in game play is choices that matter ever single time and in those times when for plot reasons failure is actually required then do it in such a way so that it's compelling from a story telling POV instead of making my choices meaningless.

[Adela]

Sigh... all these discussions about weather you want to be evil or not BW has already said that it WONT be easy to be the superhero and save everyone, a lot of the times you are gonna have bad consequences on your decision they have said numerous times that even if you want to be a goodie goodie it will be hard to achieve that goal please take a look at this interview

[Han Shot First]

Wulfram wrote...

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".

I agree.

While I do think choosing the most moral or "save everyone" approach should sometimes backfire on the player, likewise so should choosing the more ruthless approach in other scenarios. It should vary. What shouldn't happen is that the player walks into any dilemma knowing that a particular morality path is always the instant win button.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 12 septembre 2013 - 05:31 .

[lady_v23]

esper wrote...

lady_v23 wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

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.

Oh, I like the title of this one.

And no.  I disagree.  there should be CHOICES with DIFFERENT RESULTS.  Why does a choice has to bit me in my behind when I went the extra mile?  I want a reward, not something less worse than the other horrible solutions.

Sometimes it should, because that extra mile was riducules to go.

That said, I do necessary think it is the case here. If you have fully upgraded the keep, send the soldiers there and the obvious elite group the players control, can manage to save the village and reach the keep in time it is fair game.
(Of course you should have to pay for reparing the keep afterwards, since it will obviously be damaged now).

I often don't like the third option or the save everyone in Redcliffe option, because it more or less tell the player that this is the way the game is suppossed to be played. That said not every good option should lead to the bad outcome, just as not every cynical option should lead to a positive outcome, that is just telling the player in another way that there is a right way to play.

I agree with most except with the bold. 

Why is that ridiculous?  Why do we have to Chose between A or B?  Why no middle ground?
  why can't  there be A, B and C?


And no, DA never Implied a way a player should play.  It's  you choice to go to the circle for help, just like it's your choice to decide the risk is not worth it and kill connor.  Your way is the right way.

[Taleroth]

AutumnWitch wrote...

I have never understood why people want video games that set them up to fail 100% of the time when they do the "right thing". That was my only complaint about DA2. No matter what you did Leandra is going to die. I refer to these situations as "Kobayashi Maru" quests. To me this situation is just as bad a typical Disney film when nothing bad happens. Any and all choices you make became meaningless because no matter what you do you will fail . That's no better than Cinderella always getting her Prince Charming IMO.

I'm glad you brought up Kobayashi Maru.

The significance of the Kobayashi Maru was a test of character. And that's the kind of failure I can like. Where you lose, but you set the terms. You get to decide how you're going down. Do you fight at the front, do you protect the innocent, do you simply accept it, or do you rage and wail for every last second you can get. How do you face the loss? What are you willing to sacrifice? What are you willing to protect?

It was meaningful because it still showed Kirk's character. He doesn't believe in no win. But he still ends up facing one at the end of the film. And that's why Spock dies. To finally teach Kirk that lesson. (which he promptly ignores in following movies and loses yet more)

The problem with DA2's failure is that there's no test, there's no showing of character, tthere's no real choice, nothing you can protect, there's nothing but loss.

Modifié par Taleroth, 12 septembre 2013 - 05:53 .

[Maria Caliban]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

DA:O was all about restoring the status quo.

DA;I seems to be about protecting the world from the demons and stopping whoever opened tears in the Veil. The Templar/Mage war would appear to be a side-show.

[Xilizhra]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

DA:O was all about restoring the status quo.

DA;I seems to be about protecting the world from the demons and stopping whoever opened tears in the Veil. The Templar/Mage war would appear to be a side-show.

DAO was a different kind of story, not as much about changes in the world so much as a standard fantasy menace. And I'd be highly disappointed if the war really was relegated to sideshow territory.

[The Elder King]

I doubt it's going to have more relevance to DAI than the  treaties quest in DAO.

Modifié par hhh89, 12 septembre 2013 - 06:22 .

[esper]

lady_v23 wrote...

esper wrote...

lady_v23 wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

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.

Oh, I like the title of this one.

And no.  I disagree.  there should be CHOICES with DIFFERENT RESULTS.  Why does a choice has to bit me in my behind when I went the extra mile?  I want a reward, not something less worse than the other horrible solutions.

Sometimes it should, because that extra mile was riducules to go.

That said, I do necessary think it is the case here. If you have fully upgraded the keep, send the soldiers there and the obvious elite group the players control, can manage to save the village and reach the keep in time it is fair game.
(Of course you should have to pay for reparing the keep afterwards, since it will obviously be damaged now).

I often don't like the third option or the save everyone in Redcliffe option, because it more or less tell the player that this is the way the game is suppossed to be played. That said not every good option should lead to the bad outcome, just as not every cynical option should lead to a positive outcome, that is just telling the player in another way that there is a right way to play.

I agree with most except with the bold. 

Why is that ridiculous?  Why do we have to Chose between A or B?  Why no middle ground?
  why can't  there be A, B and C?


And no, DA never Implied a way a player should play.  It's  you choice to go to the circle for help, just like it's your choice to decide the risk is not worth it and kill connor.  Your way is the right way.

I will answer you critisism in reverse order because I want to [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

Yes, da. implies there was a certain way to play. Da:o is the worst offender wiht Nature of the Beast and Redcliffe were no matter what kind of selfish monster I would play, the mental hoop I would have to hop through to find a justification for not saving everyone in those two quest in game and on a metalevel this is even worse.

Also. Say you want to make a dark and cynical world. That is fine, but if every single time my character does something sefless or idealistic a child is possessed by a demon and dies a horrible death (<-obvious exgerattion), the game is simply telling me that being a cynical **** is the way the game is meant to play, just as the like the opposite scenerio where the ideal hero always gets the best outcome.

Sometimes that can't be an A,B and C because something two things are simplu opposite of each others. If group A wants white and group be wants black, you are not going to satisfy anyone by offering grey. In fact sometimes the mere mention of grey should put you on other both should earn your their disdain, since they have clearly stated to want white or black.

The other factor with the extra mile is time. Sometime it simply doesn't makes sense that you have the time to gather the resources necessary to walk that extra mile.

Sily example: If Miss Evil together with little Sister Innocent  assult fortress Good, and Innocent is only along because she is mind controled by Miss Evil. Then it is needless to say that now is not the time for the hero to go out and find that sword of plot advancement that can break the mindcontrol over Innocent. Sure he can go, but by the time he comes back Innocent and Evil have likely defeated the fortress, because the fortress protector wasn't there and Evil has killed Innocent because she knows that Innocent will be useless to Evil once the hero find the sword of plot advanchement.

Time is an important factor in that extra measure and sometimes you simply won't have the time and suggesting it should get you ridiculed because the enemy is attacking right now. 

Modifié par esper, 12 septembre 2013 - 06:24 .

[AresKeith]

Xilizhra wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

DA:O was all about restoring the status quo.

DA;I seems to be about protecting the world from the demons and stopping whoever opened tears in the Veil. The Templar/Mage war would appear to be a side-show.

DAO was a different kind of story, not as much about changes in the world so much as a standard fantasy menace. And I'd be highly disappointed if the war really was relegated to sideshow territory.

Unless the Mage/Templar war has something to do with the Veil tear, it's going to be a big side plot

[Maria Caliban]

Ferretinabun wrote...

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'.

I think that's fine.

Honestly, I don't understand the fixation with all choices being 'moral' or 'immoral.' It's like some players think all RPGs are DnD and every important decision needs give them good or evil points.

[lady_v23]

esper wrote...

lady_v23 wrote...

esper wrote...

lady_v23 wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

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.

Oh, I like the title of this one.

And no.  I disagree.  there should be CHOICES with DIFFERENT RESULTS.  Why does a choice has to bit me in my behind when I went the extra mile?  I want a reward, not something less worse than the other horrible solutions.

Sometimes it should, because that extra mile was riducules to go.

That said, I do necessary think it is the case here. If you have fully upgraded the keep, send the soldiers there and the obvious elite group the players control, can manage to save the village and reach the keep in time it is fair game.
(Of course you should have to pay for reparing the keep afterwards, since it will obviously be damaged now).

I often don't like the third option or the save everyone in Redcliffe option, because it more or less tell the player that this is the way the game is suppossed to be played. That said not every good option should lead to the bad outcome, just as not every cynical option should lead to a positive outcome, that is just telling the player in another way that there is a right way to play.

I agree with most except with the bold. 

Why is that ridiculous?  Why do we have to Chose between A or B?  Why no middle ground?
  why can't  there be A, B and C?


And no, DA never Implied a way a player should play.  It's  you choice to go to the circle for help, just like it's your choice to decide the risk is not worth it and kill connor.  Your way is the right way.

I will answer you critisism in reverse order because I want to [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

Yes, da. implies there was a certain way to play. Da:o is the worst offender wiht Nature of the Beast and Redcliffe were no matter what kind of selfish monster I would play, the mental hoop I would have to hop through to find a justification for not saving everyone in those two quest in game and on a metalevel this is even worse.

Also. Say you want to make a dark and cynical world. That is fine, but if every single time my character does something sefless or idealistic a child is possessed by a demon and dies a horrible death (<-obvious exgerattion), the game is simply telling me that being a cynical **** is the way the game is meant to play, just as the like the opposite scenerio where the ideal hero always gets the best outcome.

Sometimes that can't be an A,B and C because something two things are simplu opposite of each others. If group A wants white and group be wants black, you are not going to satisfy anyone by offering grey. In fact sometimes the mere mention of grey should put you on other both should earn your their disdain, since they have clearly stated to want white or black.

The other factor with the extra mile is time. Sometime it simply doesn't makes sense that you have the time to gather the resources necessary to walk that extra mile.

Sily example: If Miss Evil together with little Sister Innocent  assult fortress Good, and Innocent is only along because she is mind controled by Miss Evil. Then it is needless to say that now is not the time for the hero to go out and find that sword of plot advancement that can break the mindcontrol over Innocent. Sure he can go, but by the time he comes back Innocent and Evil have likely defeated the fortress, because the fortress protector wasn't there and Evil has killed Innocent because she knows that Innocent will be useless to Evil once the hero find the sword of plot advanchement.

Time is an important factor in that extra measure and sometimes you simply won't have the time and suggesting it should get you ridiculed because the enemy is attacking right now. 

..I think I get your point.  You mean like Amaranthine or Virgirls keep, yes?

[NYG1991]

Option 7: use blood magic on the wounded to overpower everyone and save both assets.

[esper]

lady_v23 wrote...

esper wrote...

lady_v23 wrote...

esper wrote...

lady_v23 wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

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.

Oh, I like the title of this one.

And no.  I disagree.  there should be CHOICES with DIFFERENT RESULTS.  Why does a choice has to bit me in my behind when I went the extra mile?  I want a reward, not something less worse than the other horrible solutions.

Sometimes it should, because that extra mile was riducules to go.

That said, I do necessary think it is the case here. If you have fully upgraded the keep, send the soldiers there and the obvious elite group the players control, can manage to save the village and reach the keep in time it is fair game.
(Of course you should have to pay for reparing the keep afterwards, since it will obviously be damaged now).

I often don't like the third option or the save everyone in Redcliffe option, because it more or less tell the player that this is the way the game is suppossed to be played. That said not every good option should lead to the bad outcome, just as not every cynical option should lead to a positive outcome, that is just telling the player in another way that there is a right way to play.

I agree with most except with the bold. 

Why is that ridiculous?  Why do we have to Chose between A or B?  Why no middle ground?
  why can't  there be A, B and C?


And no, DA never Implied a way a player should play.  It's  you choice to go to the circle for help, just like it's your choice to decide the risk is not worth it and kill connor.  Your way is the right way.

I will answer you critisism in reverse order because I want to [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

Yes, da. implies there was a certain way to play. Da:o is the worst offender wiht Nature of the Beast and Redcliffe were no matter what kind of selfish monster I would play, the mental hoop I would have to hop through to find a justification for not saving everyone in those two quest in game and on a metalevel this is even worse.

Also. Say you want to make a dark and cynical world. That is fine, but if every single time my character does something sefless or idealistic a child is possessed by a demon and dies a horrible death (<-obvious exgerattion), the game is simply telling me that being a cynical **** is the way the game is meant to play, just as the like the opposite scenerio where the ideal hero always gets the best outcome.

Sometimes that can't be an A,B and C because something two things are simplu opposite of each others. If group A wants white and group be wants black, you are not going to satisfy anyone by offering grey. In fact sometimes the mere mention of grey should put you on other both should earn your their disdain, since they have clearly stated to want white or black.

The other factor with the extra mile is time. Sometime it simply doesn't makes sense that you have the time to gather the resources necessary to walk that extra mile.

Sily example: If Miss Evil together with little Sister Innocent  assult fortress Good, and Innocent is only along because she is mind controled by Miss Evil. Then it is needless to say that now is not the time for the hero to go out and find that sword of plot advancement that can break the mindcontrol over Innocent. Sure he can go, but by the time he comes back Innocent and Evil have likely defeated the fortress, because the fortress protector wasn't there and Evil has killed Innocent because she knows that Innocent will be useless to Evil once the hero find the sword of plot advanchement.

Time is an important factor in that extra measure and sometimes you simply won't have the time and suggesting it should get you ridiculed because the enemy is attacking right now. 

..I think I get your point.  You mean like Amaranthine or Virgirls keep, yes?

Yes and no... Amaranthine and Virgil's keep were all right handled, though I do question how we got the upgrades working so fast it was okay.

It is just... sometimes depending on the danger, the hero simply don't have the time to save a 100 kittens stuck in trees even if that would give them the 100 sovereing needed to buy upgrade 3. Sometimes it is ridcules that they doesn't restrict themself to say... 50 kittens and let another deal wiht the other 50. You might only get enough for upgrade 2, but at least your hero showed responsibility by actually arriving at the crisis in time.

[lady_v23]

esper wrote...

lady_v23 wrote...

esper wrote...

lady_v23 wrote...

esper wrote...

lady_v23 wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

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.

Oh, I like the title of this one.

And no.  I disagree.  there should be CHOICES with DIFFERENT RESULTS.  Why does a choice has to bit me in my behind when I went the extra mile?  I want a reward, not something less worse than the other horrible solutions.

Sometimes it should, because that extra mile was riducules to go.

That said, I do necessary think it is the case here. If you have fully upgraded the keep, send the soldiers there and the obvious elite group the players control, can manage to save the village and reach the keep in time it is fair game.
(Of course you should have to pay for reparing the keep afterwards, since it will obviously be damaged now).

I often don't like the third option or the save everyone in Redcliffe option, because it more or less tell the player that this is the way the game is suppossed to be played. That said not every good option should lead to the bad outcome, just as not every cynical option should lead to a positive outcome, that is just telling the player in another way that there is a right way to play.

I agree with most except with the bold. 

Why is that ridiculous?  Why do we have to Chose between A or B?  Why no middle ground?
  why can't  there be A, B and C?


And no, DA never Implied a way a player should play.  It's  you choice to go to the circle for help, just like it's your choice to decide the risk is not worth it and kill connor.  Your way is the right way.

I will answer you critisism in reverse order because I want to [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

Yes, da. implies there was a certain way to play. Da:o is the worst offender wiht Nature of the Beast and Redcliffe were no matter what kind of selfish monster I would play, the mental hoop I would have to hop through to find a justification for not saving everyone in those two quest in game and on a metalevel this is even worse.

Also. Say you want to make a dark and cynical world. That is fine, but if every single time my character does something sefless or idealistic a child is possessed by a demon and dies a horrible death (<-obvious exgerattion), the game is simply telling me that being a cynical **** is the way the game is meant to play, just as the like the opposite scenerio where the ideal hero always gets the best outcome.

Sometimes that can't be an A,B and C because something two things are simplu opposite of each others. If group A wants white and group be wants black, you are not going to satisfy anyone by offering grey. In fact sometimes the mere mention of grey should put you on other both should earn your their disdain, since they have clearly stated to want white or black.

The other factor with the extra mile is time. Sometime it simply doesn't makes sense that you have the time to gather the resources necessary to walk that extra mile.

Sily example: If Miss Evil together with little Sister Innocent  assult fortress Good, and Innocent is only along because she is mind controled by Miss Evil. Then it is needless to say that now is not the time for the hero to go out and find that sword of plot advancement that can break the mindcontrol over Innocent. Sure he can go, but by the time he comes back Innocent and Evil have likely defeated the fortress, because the fortress protector wasn't there and Evil has killed Innocent because she knows that Innocent will be useless to Evil once the hero find the sword of plot advanchement.

Time is an important factor in that extra measure and sometimes you simply won't have the time and suggesting it should get you ridiculed because the enemy is attacking right now. 

..I think I get your point.  You mean like Amaranthine or Virgirls keep, yes?

Yes and no... Amaranthine and Virgil's keep were all right handled, though I do question how we got the upgrades working so fast it was okay.

It is just... sometimes depending on the danger, the hero simply don't have the time to save a 100 kittens stuck in trees even if that would give them the 100 sovereing needed to buy upgrade 3. Sometimes it is ridcules that they doesn't restrict themself to say... 50 kittens and let another deal wiht the other 50. You might only get enough for upgrade 2, but at least your hero showed responsibility by actually arriving at the crisis in time.

..you would leave 100 kittens in a tree to go save a burning village?<_<

lol I am kidding. I completely agree with you now.

[Knight of Dane]

I'm in Egypt!

[Eveangaline]

I'm sure that attempting to save both will require more resources/effort than not trying to save both.

[BraveVesperia]

I would definitely love a variety of consequences to different choices. I prefer it when we're going through the moral choice thinking "have I just doomed everyone while trying to save everyone?" or going through the ruthless choice thinking "what if I could have saved everyone?" Or thoughts to that effect.

Anything other than ME's way - constantly telling you you're going to have to make 'hard decisions' and 'ruthless choices' if you want to succeed - and then making the moral choice the most successful the majority of times. Because no one you ever take a chance on would stab you in the back... not in this dark, cynical game. Divorcing the ruthless choice from the stupid choice is also good. If there's a stupid choice, it should be a third option, like with Jade Empire's ending choices.