1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

And I've already said elsewhere that that concerns me. They should be striving to make rich, complex, multifaceted characters and *not* to create talking heads to personalize their favorite morality conundrums.

Can you disassociate the two? Especially if you're in a situation where it IS a hot topic? (i.e. Kirkwall)

What I see as interesting characters are characters that have their perspectives and justifications for why they see the world the way they do in a manner that I think is appropriate.

Try as they might, I'm never going to really care much about the mage/templar issue

That's fine.  I don't see how this position is inconsistent with in game characters that do care about the issue.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 novembre 2013 - 07:35 .

[Allan Schumacher]

"Moderator Allan" post. This is tangential and I'd prefer to not have people continue on this discussion. If you want to discuss it further lets do it on comments or somewhere else.

I usually prefer to not discuss "Moderator Allan" tendencies (Developer Allan and Gamer Allan are much more fun), buuuuut someone made an excellent point and I wanted to echo it:

Honestly, some people here do come off just as rigid and staunch as a poster who has already received a lot of flaming in this thread.

I definitely agree with this statement. So I opt to not come down on someone because if I get on someone because they have a different perspective and can be uncompromisingly direct in the way they present it, I feel as though I'd probably have to ban several people in this thread (and in many ways large swaths of the whole board from time to time).

Doubly so because I'm a human being and you'll end up relying on MY impression over whether or not you're being too uncompromising in your perspective, and I do not think that that is fair. I don't feel comfortable coming down on a poster exclusively because he has a perspective that is unpopular (now unpopular opinions often do escalate to violations I think are more clearly violations, which is why I encourage people to disengage if they are getting frustrated).


And again, I think it's important to realize that the vast majority of statements made on the internet are simply opinions. I think it comes across as less aggressive when adding in things like "in my opinion" or "I think" and so forth, but ultimately if I say "This point is wrong" it's still analogous to "I think this point is wrong" in most cases.

And I say this as someone that has a lengthy history of Somebody is wrong on the internet responses.

[TheBlackBaron]

Not everyday you see a mod make a triple post. I think that's against site rules.

(I keed, I keed, I'll get back on topic ... whatever that is at this point)

[Catastrophy]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Whatever choice I make, I hope it doesn't include anything like this.

At least, meeting an npc like this would freak me out.

It's a matter of taste and setting. I could see this being part of great entertainment. That voice...

[JWvonGoethe]

crimzontearz wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Having attachments to a story though, is not something that should be done because the story is always changing. Always evolving. When the story doesn't go the way that the attached wants it to, the results can be catastrophic.

yep, which leads me to the only lesson ME3 taught me. Always go full spoiler on a game you have emotional investment in before buying it


 
Have been doing such since

There's another way to do it that I prefer: throw caution to the wind on your first playthrough and just see what happens. Then make one of your subsequent playthroughs the 'definitive' version and rely on meta-knowledge to shape the story in the way you see fit.

That way you avoid spoilers while still getting the satisfaction of getting the story you want to get (which, in my case, is usually a bittersweet story). Also, if you wait long enough, it means you can play all the DLC during your 'definitive' playthrough

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 01 novembre 2013 - 09:14 .

[Fredward]

TheBlackBaron wrote...
Not everyday you see a mod make a triple post. I think that's against site rules.

(I keed, I keed, I'll get back on topic ... whatever that is at this point)

Weirdly enough the BSN doesn't have any rules against double/triple/quadruple/octople posting. It's one of the only forums I've seen without it.

[Redbelle]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Forgive me if this sounds flippant, but how is "recruit the guy you hate and then destroy his soul" the most heroic option?

It's heroic for Loghain. He volunteers for it

"I have done...so much wrong.  Allow me to do one last thing right"

I don't say it's the "most heroic" or even teh "best" ending.  Arguments can be made for other endings.  But it's the ending that works best for me.  The price to be paid (strained relationship with Alistair, Morigan abandoning you, Loghain's treason fading into the background of his slaying the archdemon) are worth it.

That's what gets forgotten:  when people say there has to be a price for survival:  the price has to be worth it.

If you offer a number of prices to pay, you stand a better chance of finding one that's palatable to a given player.

Agreed.

I can easily see how someone could feel that allowing Loghain to atone for his prior actions is a positive thing.

While I don't like Loghain for what he's done, I do like that he can be brought into the party.

My bloodmage who is all about power, while trying to keep the fact secret from the party, then get's a guy who he can get things off his chest. Because who is Loghain to judge?

[Redbelle]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Heroic sacrifice or get hawke ending even my villain protagonists would take first option.  


On other hand if you want do for thedas i will tell that thedas isn't worth sacrifice because thedas is rotten so only someone naive would take that.

There's a point in the Patriot with Mel Gibson where the British force is routed and the Director talks in the commentary about how the hero has been defeated, but the army he is a part of runs ahead to win the war.

Then the hero ducks the decapitation strike. Spins around, and runs the villain through.

One scene that could have gone two ways and had two different set's of consequences from the hero's burial to the hero joining in later celebrations.

[crimzontearz]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Having attachments to a story though, is not something that should be done because the story is always changing. Always evolving. When the story doesn't go the way that the attached wants it to, the results can be catastrophic.

yep, which leads me to the only lesson ME3 taught me. Always go full spoiler on a game you have emotional investment in before buying it


 
Have been doing such since

There's another way to do it that I prefer: throw caution to the wind on your first playthrough and just see what happens. Then make one of your subsequent playthroughs the 'definitive' version and rely on meta-knowledge to shape the story in the way you see fit.

That way you avoid spoilers while still getting the satisfaction of getting the story you want to get (which, in my case, is usually a bittersweet story). Also, if you wait long enough, it means you can play all the DLC during your 'definitive' playthrough

that would NOT have helped me in a game like ME3 now would it?

[Xilizhra]

I may have biases because I'm a pretty prolific gamer and play a lot of games. If you're someone that ONLY plays BioWare games (or at least games similar), then we're coming at this from different contexts.

That would be me; Bioware games are definitely my favorite kind and the one that I play by far the most often (even Skyrim I didn't find hugely fun).

[Estelindis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I like escapism, but for me escapism in games is status quo.  Like literature, there's a split between escapism and interpretative narratives.  My favourite book is Heart of Darkness, because I found it fascinating and really made me think and frankly, I think made me mature and become a better person.

Interpretive stories in games are rarer, which innately makes them novel for me and it's the type of thing that gets me excited for a game because it's novel.  I feel oversaturation with escapism, so while I can still enjoy it, I like it when a game can make me think/reflect.  If the majority of game narratives were interpretive, I'd predict a preference for just making a game more escapist.

I may have biases because I'm a pretty prolific gamer and play a lot of games.  If you're someone that ONLY plays BioWare games (or at least games similar), then we're coming at this from different contexts.

This is a good point.  I tend to play only two genres of game: character-centred RPGs like Bioware's (and CD Projekt's and Obsidian's) and strategy games like Civilization.  (If anyone else like fantasy RPGs and Civ IV, btw, try this.)  If someone like me still wants an element of escapism from gaming, maybe I should learn to have broader tastes.  Not all games have to be escapist.  There are plenty others out there if the hunger for escapism needs to be satisfied.  It's just that I think most studios don't pay as much attention to good writing as Bioware and I'm not sure how satisfied I'd really feel playing their games.

Maybe that's part of the "catch 22"?  Bioware are good at writing because they try to find new ways of writing, rather than just replicating the same old thing, over and over again?  Some things won't always succeed, but at least they try.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I actually think it'd be really interesting if a companion that I really like questions a decision I make at one point, and despite getting along if I make a particular choice (that I think is the best choices to make) it may be an ultimate deal breaker for my friend.  How do I reconcile supporting a friend that has been with me through a lot, yet ultimately wants me to choose something that I think may not be the best decision.

I'd really like something like this.  In particular, what I'd love would be for a companion to challenge my protagonist and be right.  A lot of the time, companions are given very biased perspectives and it's easy to see that their judgement is flawed on a particular topic.  The PC is often given the opportunity (though not the obligation) to the be only "sane" person.  Of course, it's interesting to have flawed companions.  It's human (or elven/dwarven/qunari) to be imperfect.  But this has to apply to the protagonist too, and it could be that, at a time where the protagonist chooses to say something and the companion sees a very legitimate mistake, that they'd point out the problem.  It's one thing to have companion and PC disagree only to bring the companion around eventually to the PC's point of view, but I would like the opposite to be able to happen as well.

To be honest, I think this actually has happened a few times already, but the opposite way of doing things is prevalent and I'd like to see more balance.

And yes, of course, being "right" is subjective when it comes to a lot of things, but I think that a character who thinks a lot about ethics might be able to offer some very useful and pointed criticism to the PC.  I sometimes wonder if games that put a lot of stock in moral choices shouldn't have an ethical consultant on staff.  Maybe the horrendously unfortunate implications of the endings of ME3 could have been avoided that way.

[Xilizhra]

I'd really like something like this. In particular, what I'd love would be for a companion to challenge my protagonist and be right. A lot of the time, companions are given very biased perspectives and it's easy to see that their judgement is flawed on a particular topic. The PC is often given the opportunity (though not the obligation) to the be only "sane" person. Of course, it's interesting to have flawed companions. It's human (or elven/dwarven/qunari) to be imperfect. But this has to apply to the protagonist too, and it could be that, at a time where the protagonist chooses to say something and the companion sees a very legitimate mistake, that they'd point out the problem. It's one thing to have companion and PC disagree only to bring the companion around eventually to the PC's point of view, but I would like the opposite to be able to happen as well.

Doesn't this happen reasonably frequently in both DAO and 2? For instance, being called out for slaughtering the Dalish in O and siding with the templars at the end in 2.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

You know what I despise about giving the player the option of which companion to sacrifice at the climax of the game?

Too often, it gives the squadmate in question too much glory.

Suppose the ending of ME 3 made you pick a squadmate to die for some reason. I would pick Javik without hesitation. On top of being my leas favorite out of all 20 or so squadmates, he's resigned to kill himself anyway.

The problem is, giving Javik that moment makes him the ultimate martyr. In fact, you could even say it makes him the second most important character of the series. The crux of the entire conflict comes down to his actions.

That is nothing short of repulsive to me.

So basically you're saying that heroism is only a good thing when it involves characters you like, but as soon as a character you dislike would engage in a heroic action and display a huge amount of heroism, you would find it repulsive?

Figures...

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 01 novembre 2013 - 12:36 .

[Xilizhra]

So basically you're saying that heroism is only a good thing when it involves characters you like, and as soon as a character you dislike turns around and sacrifices himself in a blazing glory of heroism, you find it repulsive? Figures...

Well, that's a reason some dislike having Loghain make the ultimate sacrifice.

[The Heretic of Time]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, that's a reason some dislike having Loghain make the ultimate sacrifice.

Loghain is different. He's not just a charater that some choose the dislike, he's pretty much the antagonist for the majority of the game.

Still, I think having Loghain attoning for his past actions by sacrificing himself for the greater good is one of the most beautiful things in Dragon Age: Origins.

Though I have to say that in my "canon" playthrough, Loghain is still alive (I recruited him as a Grey Warden and I did the Dark Ritual).

[Xilizhra]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, that's a reason some dislike having Loghain make the ultimate sacrifice.

Loghain is different. He's not just a charater that some choose the dislike, he's pretty much the antagonist for the majority of the game.

Still, I think having Loghain attoning for his past actions by sacrificing himself for the greater good is one of the most beautiful things in Dragon Age: Origins.

Though I have to say that in my "canon" playthrough, Loghain is still alive (I recruited him as a Grey Warden and I did the Dark Ritual).

Morally speaking, I would not call Javik any better than Loghain; just because he's not opposing the player doesn't make him not a fairly terrible person.

[Estelindis]

Xilizhra wrote...

Doesn't this happen reasonably frequently in both DAO and 2? For instance, being called out for slaughtering the Dalish in O and siding with the templars at the end in 2.

I did say that it happens a few times already.  It depends on what you consider reasonably frequent.  However, perhaps I am just forgetting some things and would agree with "reasonably frequent" if I remembered them all.

[Xilizhra]

Estelindis wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Doesn't this happen reasonably frequently in both DAO and 2? For instance, being called out for slaughtering the Dalish in O and siding with the templars at the end in 2.

I did say that it happens a few times already.  It depends on what you consider reasonably frequent.  However, perhaps I am just forgetting some things and would agree with "reasonably frequent" if I remembered them all.

Well, how many times is a reasonable number for the player to be able to make a blatantly wrong decision?

[The Heretic of Time]

Xilizhra wrote...

Morally speaking, I would not call Javik any better than Loghain; just because he's not opposing the player doesn't make him not a fairly terrible person.

Neither Loghain nor Javik are terrible people. They're both smart guys.

Look, I can understand you dislike both characters, but thinking they're bot equally TERRIBLE? I don't get that. I just don't get that at all. Especially not with Javik. What did ever do wrong to you?


Loghain is actually my favorite DA:O character, and Javik is my favorite ME3 character.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 01 novembre 2013 - 12:51 .

[Plaintiff]

I expect to be able to determine 'right' and 'wrong' for myself, thanks.

My party members will never be 'right' when they criticize me. If I thought their opinion had any merit, I would've done what they wanted to begin with.

[Br3admax]

There we go again, talking about '"right" and "wrong" and throwing in the choices that you hate because the ones you hate are the "wrong" choices and everything you do is "right." .

[The Heretic of Time]

Plaintiff wrote...

I expect to be able to determine 'right' and 'wrong' for myself, thanks.

My party members will never be 'right' when they criticize me. If I thought their opinion had any merit, I would've done what they wanted to begin with.

Superiority complex much?

[Br3admax]

Plaintiff wrote...

I expect to be able to determine 'right' and 'wrong' for myself, thanks.

My party members will never be 'right' when they criticize me. If I thought their opinion had any merit, I would've done what they wanted to begin with.

Yeah, I can agree with this. 

[Estelindis]

David7204 wrote...

You know what I despise about giving the player the option of which companion to sacrifice at the climax of the game?

Too often, it gives the squadmate in question too much glory.

Suppose the ending of ME 3 made you pick a squadmate to die for some reason. I would pick Javik without hesitation. On top of being my leas favorite out of all 20 or so squadmates, he's resigned to kill himself anyway.

The problem is, giving Javik that moment makes him the ultimate martyr. In fact, you could even say it makes him the second most important character of the series. The crux of the entire conflict comes down to his actions.

That is nothing short of repulsive to me.

I have exactly the opposite point of view. If someone else sacrifices themselves, they deserve the glory. Why begrudge them? What matters more, glory or getting the job done?

If you don't want the glory to go to a companion, then sacrifice your protagonist instead, assuming that you have the option to do so.

If a companion does sacrifice themselves, I would actually want the option to let them take all the glory, to point to their heroism when other characters praise my protagonist. At the end of my first playthrough, when my character had intended to sacrifice herself but Alistair did it instead, I actually felt sick at the way so many people were praising my Warden when he was the one who had given up his life and maybe even his soul (still not 100% sure about that last bit). I wanted there to be a conversation option, every single time someone praised my Warden, for her to choose to say "Alistair was the real hero." As an option, not forced.

[Fast Jimmy]

I usually prefer to not discuss "Moderator Allan" tendencies (Developer Allan and Gamer Allan are much more fun), buuuuut

There is no Allan, only Zuul!