242 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Maria Caliban wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The idea shouldn't be to craft a difficult moral decision but to craft an interesting one.

A difficult moral decision can be interesting. Really what are the non-difficult moral choice used that are interesting?

Whether to kill Watcher X or not.

We clearly have different term on example of moral. How is  the option of killing someone you can think of as you're Friend for the sake of order on the mission or not being able to save some you think is you're friend not morally difficult?

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...

In Exile wrote...

One tradition that DA:O/ME really kicked off the ground for Bioware was the idea of difficult, grey moral choices. Not necessarily in execution - I would argue that most of their choice are still pretty black/white - but at least in intention. It became a design philosophy to try and have moral quandries.

Given that we've seen that DA:I will feature this type of choice - exemplified in the Keep vs. Village choice in the video (with the sub issue of what to do about the injured troops) - I thought it would be interesting to discuss structurally what makes a choice difficult and how a choice like that should work in the series. 

My favourite choice in DA - as a difficult one - is the Anvil of the Void. It's absolutely a horiffic thing that's done to dwarves to make them golems. That they are volunteers - if they actually know what sacrifice they're making - makes it mildly palpable, but the things they experience are still horrid. Still, extinction is the looming threat. I thought it was a very interesting choice. To me, that's the sort of ends-justifies-the-means type of choice that I think we should see more of, rather than things like the werewolves vs. Dalish choices (which, IMO, was morally wonky in how the Warden could pitch it and had all sorts of holes in terms of how it would even work out with the coalition you were building even *if* werewolves were somehow better than elves as troops). 

Thoughts? 

A "good" morally difficult choice is one where you can see both benefits and drawbacks to each situation.  And you have to make a choice between which one feels "best"

It does not have to mean deciding the lesser evil.  Or picking between two options that suck.  A difficult choice is one where you have a hard time deciding what to pick.  That too often gets mixed up with making a choice you don't want to pick.  "Sophie's Choice" is not the only kind of hard choice.

As long as there is any significant (i.e. more that cosmetic) drawback to an option at all, some people will inevitably see the decision as being about the lesser evil. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

leaguer of one wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Legion loyalty mission choice sucked and wasn't hard choice well it was because both options were stupid practically destroy useful machines and "brainwash" them into dangerous for us machines where was option to "brainwash" them to serve shepard and obey his every order this is example "stupidity is only option" in video games.

Every have own vision of "hard choice" i don't see killing children if it is useful as hard choice only obvious.however playing hero should have heavy and negative consequences simple because that how worlds work and often you have crush someone to get job done if you are too soft your choice.    

How does brain washing them side with the geth who want to help us make them dangerous? None that makes it stupid choices.

Well that short-term thinking and you asume that geth actually will or is on our side.So basically you are giving army to a robot we don't know , don't know we can trust and don't know his goals and frkinging tried kill us for entire first game and second giving him resources is just naive and stupid when we could just get resources for us and well we can't betray ourselves.  

aS Legion said may time. They just want there on furture and the only time organic will be involved is if we involve our selves. Say it dumb to trust them to fight on our is a base less point and counters trying to get them on our side. Thinking and acting like the geth will turn on us will really let that happen. Extending an invatation and trying to work with them increases the chances of that happening. Seeing all as enemies will make them enemies. It not a short term solution, being that both the geth and organics do not want to be controlled by the reapers, it smart to consider it. This is like saying having the choice curing the genophage is stupid because the Krogan may turn on us later on.

Well i say that im perfect being and always will respect ,love and never hurt you do you belive me ,well great send me your money.   They will sooner or later go against you as they did before and being traitor requires being on side that you betrayed or at least pretend that you were so excuse that they want go on your side is rather unconvincing.Nope with my solution you get and control completly not only great part of their army but also get chance to understand how geths works so that will allow you find solution how destroy them/control them entirely.

Curing krogans is stupid decision as well in long term very harmful but it is different situation that we we talked before simple because we need very badly krogans to not be destroyed when before we gained army of machines that we can't trust always we can lie to them that we cured them but if wrex is alive he is too competent for that but still we are desperate in third game.Krogans are by nature violent , agressive and have love for war so we know where it will lead lie them is sane option that may turn badly with wrex but curing them is naive and for sure they will make another war with galaxy because such is their nature.    

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 27 novembre 2013 - 10:32 .

[Maria Caliban]

leaguer of one wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The idea shouldn't be to craft a difficult moral decision but to craft an interesting one.

A difficult moral decision can be interesting. Really what are the non-difficult moral choice used that are interesting?

Whether to kill Watcher X or not.

We clearly have different term on example of moral. How is  the option of killing someone you can think of as you're Friend for the sake of order on the mission or not being able to save some you think is you're friend not morally difficult?

It's not morally difficult because I know what my PC is going to do about three seconds after being presented with the choice.

Not to mention that thinking of Watcher X as 'your friend' suggests a misreading of the relationship.

But you're right on: we have viewpoints. What you find difficult, I find trivial. Alternatively, the Watcher X choice does give you compelling reasons for both sides and pays off later in the storyline no matter which decision you take. That makes said choice interesting to me, something I value more than difficultly.

[Fast Jimmy]

Who is Watcher X?

[Zatche]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...
Dragon Age is a role-playing game. It is only when you look at the plot as the protagonist sees it will you ever feel conflicted with the choices presented to you.

I remember playing Origins and ME1 for the first time and looking at it through that lense. When the illusion finished melting away, i felt rather disappointed.

Not to say i didn't still enjoy them or that I felt the choices didn't matter at all, but I began to miss the feeling of tension and the "oh no, will this come back to haunt me?" that came along with the choices.

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Who is Watcher X?

He is a character in the Imperial Agent storyline whom the Empire has imprisoned for reasons that aren't clear when you meet him. He helps you through the Nar Shaddaa questline, functioning as a sort of adviser, but in the end he manipulates you into setting him free.

He says that if you give him time to escape, he'll provide you with information that the Empire is keeping from you.

Whether you end up killing him or not (he refuses to go back to his prison alive) he plays an important role in what happens later on in the storyline.

Edit: Letting him go free is the dark side choice while capturing and killing him is the light side choice. One of the nice things about the IA storyline is that's more than Kill = Dark Side, Let Live = Light Side.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 novembre 2013 - 10:58 .

[MrMrPendragon]

Something along the lines of
"Rescue LI from ruthless raiders bent on torturing your LI for information vs prevent a kid of a royal family from being assassinated"

[SgtSteel91]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

Something along the lines of
"Rescue LI from ruthless raiders bent on torturing your LI for information vs prevent a kid of a royal family from being assassinated"

Joke's on the raiders, my Inquisitor has no LI! 

[TheKomandorShepard]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

Something along the lines of
"Rescue LI from ruthless raiders bent on torturing your LI for information vs prevent a kid of a royal family from being assassinated"

How it is hard choice useless li that gives you nothing vs royal brat that gives you huge advantage if you are smart unless brat isn't worth it then i want option do something useful if not choice is obvious again companion over crappy brat that won't do anything.

[MrMrPendragon]

Zatche wrote...

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...
Dragon Age is a role-playing game. It is only when you look at the plot as the protagonist sees it will you ever feel conflicted with the choices presented to you.

I remember playing Origins and ME1 for the first time and looking at it through that lense. When the illusion finished melting away, i felt rather disappointed.

Not to say i didn't still enjoy them or that I felt the choices didn't matter at all, but I began to miss the feeling of tension and the "oh no, will this come back to haunt me?" that came along with the choices.

I also wrote (well typed) my thoughts on the lack of tension the plot brings (in the same post too).

Yes, sometimes, the feeling fades away. For example, letting Avernus continue his horrible experiments was a decision I've thought about a lot. But seeing as I haven't seen any of the consequences that came with that decision - seeing that the Warden's story is over - It just diminished the weight these kinds of decisions posses.

[MrMrPendragon]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

Something along the lines of
"Rescue LI from ruthless raiders bent on torturing your LI for information vs prevent a kid of a royal family from being assassinated"

How it is hard choice useless li that gives you nothing vs royal brat that gives you huge advantage if you are smart unless brat isn't worth it then i want option do something useful if not choice is obvious again companion over crappy brat that won't do anything.

Well good lord, I didn't say THAT  example is the one they should use. I said something like that.

Of course if you take it like that it won't matter as much. But if you put context, build ups, and their importance in the plot, then maybe you'd have a harder time making decisions.

My point is that it would be easier for Bioware to center some of  their hard decisions based on the fate of the supporting characters - because those are the elements of the game that's right in front of you, aspects of the game to which the consequences affect YOU directly. It's really hard to be concerned if the consequences for your decision will happen on the other side of the world, where you won't hear or see it.

[BlueMagitek]

Not so much a moral decision, but one based on greed; offer something the player wants in return for something the player has, but most would loathe to give up.

For example, if you want !SuperBloodMagic, like the suggestions I've seen on here as being able to use it in conversation as a sort of Jedi Mind Trick, maybe a demon can offer you that. In exchange for your Mage Companion's body. It takes it over you and you get the new abomination as your companion, who isn't really under you control and will ruin conversations/decisions by jumping ahead (Leeroy Jenkinsing?).

[TheKomandorShepard]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

Something along the lines of
"Rescue LI from ruthless raiders bent on torturing your LI for information vs prevent a kid of a royal family from being assassinated"

How it is hard choice useless li that gives you nothing vs royal brat that gives you huge advantage if you are smart unless brat isn't worth it then i want option do something useful if not choice is obvious again companion over crappy brat that won't do anything.

Well good lord, I didn't say THAT  example is the one they should use. I said something like that.

Of course if you take it like that it won't matter as much. But if you put context, build ups, and their importance in the plot, then maybe you'd have a harder time making decisions.

My point is that it would be easier for Bioware to center some of  their hard decisions based on the fate of the supporting characters - because those are the elements of the game that's right in front of you, aspects of the game to which the consequences affect YOU directly. It's really hard to be concerned if the consequences for your decision will happen on the other side of the world, where you won't hear or see it.

Well you pointed example which isn't hard choice and now you told that you said something like that so...

There is always more practical choice in such matters unless this is you are screwd vs you are screwd choice but then it doesn't matter.If characters is king child he could be used in many ways he is more useful than some crappy companion unless companion is even more valuable then still we have choice.I don't see point saving stupid pesants who can be easily replaced over keep what can't be replaced.      

Morality makes thing harder and limits you if you want moralize your choice then it may be hard choice but such things as tough choices don't exist only you are making your life harder for example trading one character for royal brat won't make that because pro-templars would gladly let him/her die if for example that was ander or promages if that was fenris. 

Im for that dragon age had practical choices rewarding not good or evil for example playing goody two shoes will end this  and this on other hand if you start burn peoples for fun that should bite you in as* if you aren't smart enough to avoid consequences.

[leaguer of one]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Legion loyalty mission choice sucked and wasn't hard choice well it was because both options were stupid practically destroy useful machines and "brainwash" them into dangerous for us machines where was option to "brainwash" them to serve shepard and obey his every order this is example "stupidity is only option" in video games.

Every have own vision of "hard choice" i don't see killing children if it is useful as hard choice only obvious.however playing hero should have heavy and negative consequences simple because that how worlds work and often you have crush someone to get job done if you are too soft your choice.    

How does brain washing them side with the geth who want to help us make them dangerous? None that makes it stupid choices.

Well that short-term thinking and you asume that geth actually will or is on our side.So basically you are giving army to a robot we don't know , don't know we can trust and don't know his goals and frkinging tried kill us for entire first game and second giving him resources is just naive and stupid when we could just get resources for us and well we can't betray ourselves.  

aS Legion said may time. They just want there on furture and the only time organic will be involved is if we involve our selves. Say it dumb to trust them to fight on our is a base less point and counters trying to get them on our side. Thinking and acting like the geth will turn on us will really let that happen. Extending an invatation and trying to work with them increases the chances of that happening. Seeing all as enemies will make them enemies. It not a short term solution, being that both the geth and organics do not want to be controlled by the reapers, it smart to consider it. This is like saying having the choice curing the genophage is stupid because the Krogan may turn on us later on.

Well i say that im perfect being and always will respect ,love and never hurt you do you belive me ,well great send me your money.   They will sooner or later go against you as they did before and being traitor requires being on side that you betrayed or at least pretend that you were so excuse that they want go on your side is rather unconvincing.Nope with my solution you get and control completly not only great part of their army but also get chance to understand how geths works so that will allow you find solution how destroy them/control them entirely.

Curing krogans is stupid decision as well in long term very harmful but it is different situation that we we talked before simple because we need very badly krogans to not be destroyed when before we gained army of machines that we can't trust always we can lie to them that we cured them but if wrex is alive he is too competent for that but still we are desperate in third game.Krogans are by nature violent , agressive and have love for war so we know where it will lead lie them is sane option that may turn badly with wrex but curing them is naive and for sure they will make another war with galaxy because such is their nature.    

Wow, you're horribly one sided. Thinking like that leads to more conflict.

[Plaintiff]

Of the Bioware games I've played, I've only been introduced to one decision that I would consider morally difficult, and it actually became easy once I had more information. But what's 'morally right' isn't the only factor in my decision-making.

Whether or not a decision is morally 'difficult' is always going to be subjective, and what a 'perfect' outcome looks like is subjective too. For instance, if there was an option to make peace between the mages and templars in DA2, I would never take it.

So Bioware might as well put 'perfact' outcomes in all their decisions. The only people who'll be bothered by that are the ones that can't keep their noses out of other people's games.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 novembre 2013 - 11:52 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

leaguer of one wrote...

Wow, you're horribly one sided. Thinking like that leads to more conflict.

Not thinking as well leads to more conflict being naive is terrible idea humans (and other beings) have nonflict in nature in reality your solution leads to point when you are screwd by your "allies" and unprepared well you will be leliana and your "allies" marjolene in my situation im winner who put down no... control entirely my enemies making them my tools.   

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 27 novembre 2013 - 11:52 .

[BlazingSpeed]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey cleary the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

While I think it should've been limited to someone who's already cleared the Circle, I don't see why it shouldn't be an option. There's no need to force the player into a lose-lose situation.

That's a very good point Sopa although I think the village should have at least gotten "abandoned" or attacked again (meaning Murdock and the militia crew would probably die...) if the player choose to go to the Circle after going to Redcliff.

[Dave of Canada]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Who is Watcher X?

He is a character in the Imperial Agent storyline whom the Empire has imprisoned for reasons that aren't clear when you meet him. He helps you through the Nar Shaddaa questline, functioning as a sort of adviser, but in the end he manipulates you into setting him free.

He says that if you give him time to escape, he'll provide you with information that the Empire is keeping from you.

Whether you end up killing him or not (he refuses to go back to his prison alive) he plays an important role in what happens later on in the storyline.

Edit: Letting him go free is the dark side choice while capturing and killing him is the light side choice. One of the nice things about the IA storyline is that's more than Kill = Dark Side, Let Live = Light Side.

Imperial Agent as a whole was brilliant, I'd love to see a game based off that entire experience.

[Zatche]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

Zatche wrote...

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...
Dragon Age is a role-playing game. It is only when you look at the plot as the protagonist sees it will you ever feel conflicted with the choices presented to you.

I remember playing Origins and ME1 for the first time and looking at it through that lense. When the illusion finished melting away, i felt rather disappointed.

Not to say i didn't still enjoy them or that I felt the choices didn't matter at all, but I began to miss the feeling of tension and the "oh no, will this come back to haunt me?" that came along with the choices.

I also wrote (well typed) my thoughts on the lack of tension the plot brings (in the same post too).

Yes, sometimes, the feeling fades away. For example, letting Avernus continue his horrible experiments was a decision I've thought about a lot. But seeing as I haven't seen any of the consequences that came with that decision - seeing that the Warden's story is over - It just diminished the weight these kinds of decisions posses.

Yeah, I read it, and I agree with you. I just didn't want to repost the whole thing.
.
About Avernus, that always seemed a purely moral choice over an actual consequence. Well, there was a consequence, but it never seemed to truly matter to the Warden, as we just kind of walk away afterwards. I think I'd prefer consequences that have an impact on your character or your companions on an immediate and personal level. That's what made certain parts of ME3 so memorable (Tali and Legion being attached to the Rannoch decision, Wrex and Mordin to Tuchanka). The purely moral choices, like with Avernus, can be interesting, but don't have that sense of urgency.

I think this also goes back to your other posts (LI vs royal brat).

[Hazegurl]

I think one of the main reasons why the choices in Dragon Age don't seem to matter is because the game just doesn't have that central PC like ME does. The Warden doesn't have to deal with any of the decisions he/she made and neither does Hawke (not like he ever had a choice in anything). I wonder if someone else will have to pick up the pieces of whatever the Inquisitor leaves behind.

[Paul E Dangerously]

BlazingSpeed wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey cleary the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

While I think it should've been limited to someone who's already cleared the Circle, I don't see why it shouldn't be an option. There's no need to force the player into a lose-lose situation.

That's a very good point Sopa although I think the village should have at least gotten "abandoned" or attacked again (meaning Murdock and the militia crew would probably die...) if the player choose to go to the Circle after going to Redcliff.

I really don't think so. Assuming the Knights are still alive and the militia is both well-equipped and reinforced, they should be able to hold. The Warden took out the majority of the undead, and they wouldn't be caught unaware.

[leaguer of one]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Wow, you're horribly one sided. Thinking like that leads to more conflict.

Not thinking as well leads to more conflict being naive is terrible idea humans (and other beings) have nonflict in nature in reality your solution leads to point when you are screwd by your "allies" and unprepared well you will be leliana and your "allies" marjolene in my situation im winner who put down no... control entirely my enemies making them my tools.   

You're still being one side. That does not mean trust no one nor am I say  trust everyone. It better to have one hand out to affer peice and arm the other one just in case.
Your was just makes more conflict downthe road.

[Zatche]

Hazegurl wrote...

I think one of the main reasons why the choices in Dragon Age don't seem to matter is because the game just doesn't have that central PC like ME does. The Warden doesn't have to deal with any of the decisions he/she made and neither does Hawke (not like he ever had a choice in anything). I wonder if someone else will have to pick up the pieces of whatever the Inquisitor leaves behind.

Well, I don't see why it couldn't just be that the Inquisitor has to clean up his mess later on in the game, or suffer the consequences of his actions immediately. Come to think of it, Shepherd doesn't really ever have to clean up his own mess either. Certainly not from previous games.

[Linkenski]

When I want something truly morally ambiguous I go to CDProject's games or Telltale's. I happen to like "bioware choices" ^^

To me it doesn't matter if choices are morally black and white, as long as the dialogue wheel doesn't always indicate which choice leads to the best outcome, which it does in Dragon Age 2 and ME Trilogy.