85 réponses à ce sujet

[Magdalena11]

My first playthrough I'm going to try very hard not to spoil it for myself - I usually read the last chapter of a mystery right after the first. I'll go with whatever feels right at the time. After that I'll have a few different PCs going so I can explore different character types.

[Ieldra]

As for the OP's question, I'll try to earn respect from those who I feel deserve *my* respect, and demand respect from everyone else.

[wiccame]

I'll want so much to demand it and be hard and mean and cruel, but I know I wont manage it. I always end up good. It'll probably take me a year of playing and several play throughs.

[Aolbain]

Ruthlessly pragmatic.

Modifié par Aolbain, 18 septembre 2013 - 03:17 .

[Navasha]

I pretty much have decided that my first playthrough of any game is that of a fairly 'good' individual. I have tried it the other way and I usually end up feeling disconnected from my character about halfway through. That said I choose "good" as I perceive it, which isn't always what the game considers good.

Best example I can think of right off the top of my head is a quest in SWTOR where you are supposed to be rescuing someones daughter from the mind-domineering insectoids. Shes brain-washed and doesn't want to go. You earn darkside points for demanding she leave with you, but to me that is the only 'good' decision.

[Norsky]

For my first run, I'm probably going to be a hopelessly blue-eyed goody two-shoes. Then I'll try to be a hard-ass for the next playthrough. Which will probably only last five minutes before I start making the exact same choices as my first run.

[Kalas Magnus]

demand it.

anyone who opposes me will be used as fuel for blood magic.

[Vortex13]

I will be going with the pragmatic Inquisitor myself.

Sure, it would be nice if I could get both opposed parties to kiss and make up, and then head to battle to confront the big bad with an even bigger army; but, in reality, that orphanage is not going to provide me with nearly the amount of manpower as I would get be siding with the Hunger Demon possessed 'vampires'.

The thing is though the game should actually acknowledge such a choice as a PRAGMATIC one instead of a MUSTACHE TWIRLING PSYCHOTIC EVIL choice. Sacrifices have to be made in a world threatening scenario, and little Timmy is not going to help me win battles.

[DarthLaxian]

Vortex13 wrote...

I will be going with the pragmatic Inquisitor myself.

Sure, it would be nice if I could get both opposed parties to kiss and make up, and then head to battle to confront the big bad with an even bigger army; but, in reality, that orphanage is not going to provide me with nearly the amount of manpower as I would get be siding with the Hunger Demon possessed 'vampires'.

The thing is though the game should actually acknowledge such a choice as a PRAGMATIC one instead of a MUSTACHE TWIRLING PSYCHOTIC EVIL choice. Sacrifices have to be made in a world threatening scenario, and little Timmy is not going to help me win battles.

little Timmy might not, but people who saw you helping him (say someone from the Chantry or a mage etc.) might (and he or she might be pretty darn powerfull - after all, helping the poor and downtrodden gives you a good reputation, being a dickwad does not IMHO...it gives you a ruthless reputation, but that's something i do not want to have...i want to be admired, not feared!)

greetings LAX

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 18 septembre 2013 - 04:42 .

[Eterna]

Demand it or force them to help me. Diplomacy only if my character sympathizes with the group she is trying to convince.

[General TSAR]

It is better to be feared than loved.

[Eterna]

General TSAR wrote...

It is better to be feared than loved.

Yes!!!

[agonis]

Vortex13 wrote...

I will be going with the pragmatic Inquisitor myself.

The thing is though the game should actually acknowledge such a choice as a PRAGMATIC one instead of a MUSTACHE TWIRLING PSYCHOTIC EVIL choice. Sacrifices have to be made in a world threatening scenario, and little Timmy is not going to help me win battles.

Agreed. Psychotic evil is no fun anyway if one doesn´t have a white fluffy cat.

[The Spirit of Dance]

Demand it; my first Inquisitor is gonna be a dick.

[Zkyire]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I really hope Bioware actually doesn't give the "happiest" endings to always choosing blue dialogue options in this game.

This is war, war on a worldwide level... even a multi-dimension level, given that we are entering the Fade. Saying that trying to save every innocent or picking only the allies you 100% agree with instead of the allies who may be the most likely to help you should be options, but it should not result in the best outcomes.

The real question is whether people would choose these "nicer" options because they actually believe in these principles, or because it makes things the rosiest for themsves, their friends and the world. When you stop conflating the two and, instead, make people choose the greater good over their individual principles, THAT'S when a game gets interesting.

Half the reason I play lawful good characters is because I know it wont backfire.

..which is kind of sad, really.

[badboy64]

Demand it.

[Vortex13]

DarthLaxian wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

I will be going with the pragmatic Inquisitor myself.

Sure, it would be nice if I could get both opposed parties to kiss and make up, and then head to battle to confront the big bad with an even bigger army; but, in reality, that orphanage is not going to provide me with nearly the amount of manpower as I would get be siding with the Hunger Demon possessed 'vampires'.

The thing is though the game should actually acknowledge such a choice as a PRAGMATIC one instead of a MUSTACHE TWIRLING PSYCHOTIC EVIL choice. Sacrifices have to be made in a world threatening scenario, and little Timmy is not going to help me win battles.

little Timmy might not, but people who saw you helping him (say someone from the Chantry or a mage etc.) might (and he or she might be pretty darn powerfull - after all, helping the poor and downtrodden gives you a good reputation, being a dickwad does not IMHO...it gives you a ruthless reputation, but that's something i do not want to have...i want to be admired, not feared!)

greetings LAX

The problem with helping little timmy and then getting the support of the Chantry and/or the Mage is that that carries a whole load of other political strings I could (potentially) have to deal with. So does getting the Chantry or Mages on my side mean that I now have to argree with their views? Does helping the orphanage because it's the 'good' thing to do mean that I now have to take care of the little terrors, or do I dump them on someone else to handle?

The Chantry or that one stoutly 'anti-Circle' Mage may indeed be powerful, but if their accompanying baggage is going to cause issues with how I go about saving the world, I would much rather side with the straight forward monsters then have to deal with politics.

[mopotter]

First time i just make decisions that make sense to me and my character has my outlook so I'm usually polite with an occasional snide remark thrown in if it feels right.

Since I don't just play one time, future plays will vary somewhat. I could leave my LI behind in one game, as long as in another one they can survive with me, or in one, not have a LI. I don't play evil, to me it makes no sense, but I will play a character focused on the end results, up to a point and make some decisions based on the "good for many vs good for a few" idea.

[Fast Jimmy]

Zkyire wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I really hope Bioware actually doesn't give the "happiest" endings to always choosing blue dialogue options in this game. 

This is war, war on a worldwide level... even a multi-dimension level, given that we are entering the Fade. Saying that trying to save every innocent or picking only the allies you 100% agree with instead of the allies who may be the most likely to help you should be options, but it should not result in the best outcomes. 

The real question is whether people would choose these "nicer" options because they actually believe in these principles, or because it makes things the rosiest for themsves, their friends and the world. When you stop conflating the two and, instead, make people choose the greater good over their individual principles, THAT'S when a game gets interesting.

Half the reason I play lawful good characters is because I know it wont backfire.

..which is kind of sad, really.

Well, I don't think it is sad for any player. Not many would willfully roam into choices where, way more often than not, the player is punished. 

I think it IS sad for the industry, that morality and mindsets that say the player should almost always be the white knight if given a choice, and it is something that I would be very interested in seeing a company challenge. 

[mopotter]

Vortex13 wrote...

I will be going with the pragmatic Inquisitor myself.

Sure, it would be nice if I could get both opposed parties to kiss and make up, and then head to battle to confront the big bad with an even bigger army; but, in reality, that orphanage is not going to provide me with nearly the amount of manpower as I would get be siding with the Hunger Demon possessed 'vampires'.

The thing is though the game should actually acknowledge such a choice as a PRAGMATIC one instead of a MUSTACHE TWIRLING PSYCHOTIC EVIL choice. Sacrifices have to be made in a world threatening scenario, and little Timmy is not going to help me win battles.

I also prefer the pragmatic idea as an option instead of the Dastardly Whiplash.  Playing an evil character has no interest for me, but a pragmatic one probably would.    A combination for me is even better. 

It all depends on my character.  If wishes were an option,  I'd like at least 3 ending options that make sense for the character I'm playing.  Side with mages, side with templars and also have a group of both who will work together.   I just don't care for the idea that it has to be one or the other.  

[JimmyBazooka]

it's going to be a bloodbath

[Jaulen]

crimzontearz wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I really hope Bioware actually doesn't give the "happiest" endings to always choosing blue dialogue options in this game.

This is war, war on a worldwide level... even a multi-dimension level, given that we are entering the Fade. Saying that trying to save every innocent or picking only the allies you 100% agree with instead of the allies who may be the most likely to help you should be options, but it should not result in the best outcomes.

The real question is whether people would choose these "nicer" options because they actually believe in these principles, or because it makes things the rosiest for themsves, their friends and the world. When you stop conflating the two and, instead, make people choose the greater good over their individual principles, THAT'S when a game gets interesting.

and THAT is why I am going to metagame the hell out of it

My first playthrough I usually play as myself, which is the type to think "What's going to be make me happy, but also be the best thing for the world/everyone else?" And if the choice is my happiness over being good for everyone else? I'll pretend to agonize over the decision.....but then pick what's best for everyone else.

Hey.....I'm a people pleaser.

Then I'll go through and play again and pick based on the motivations for my character that my head-info states are their motivations. And THEN I'll go through and play a scorched eath type...."Kill em all!" and then have to go back to playing a goody two shoes to make myself feel better.

Modifié par Jaulen, 18 septembre 2013 - 06:42 .

[Iron Star]

On my first playhtrough I always follow my own convictions, and do what I think is right or necessary in that moment. It feels much more rewarding and suspenseful than when you've read up how the make the perfect win beforehand, and just follow a guid to reach it.

[Mullins the Great]

I have been, am going to be, and will always be the most charismatic, kind, honorable, diplomatic, solve all problems kind of guy in this and all other rpgs . . . so yea a good guy *grin*