207 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

OdanUrr wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

KotOR II is a terrible example, IMO. Obsidian has (or had, I suppose--or the writer had) a major bug up its rump about being good to people. They're more preachy, again IMO, than the supposed ME+Paragon slant.

Though, to be fair, you CAN play the "good" character if you want. The game doesn't prevent it. Just fights you every.step.of.the.way.

I did mention a very specific example within Kotor 2 because it's used by Kreia to teach you a lesson. In any event, it's far more than what I've seen in DA2.

That's not saying much 

[KainD]

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...
At least in Dragon Age, those choices will have some form of negative consequence, even if it's only the reaction of your companions.

That's not a negative consequance, it's a helpful warning sign that I need to part ways with some of my companions to avoid a less pleasant train wreck latter on.

[Vit246]

OdanUrr wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

KotOR II is a terrible example, IMO. Obsidian has (or had, I suppose--or the writer had) a major bug up its rump about being good to people. They're more preachy, again IMO, than the supposed ME+Paragon slant.

Though, to be fair, you CAN play the "good" character if you want. The game doesn't prevent it. Just fights you every.step.of.the.way.

I did mention a very specific example within Kotor 2 because it's used by Kreia to teach you a lesson. In any event, it's far more than what I've seen in DA2.

Kreia's lessons are so underrated. It makes you think. The "moral" thing to do is not always the "right" thing to do.

But I'm not against being and doing good. I just want ethics and morals to be more complex than Bioware usually does them.

Modifié par Vit246, 08 janvier 2014 - 05:18 .

[KainD]

Vit246 wrote...

But I'm not against being and doing good. I just want ethics and morals to be more complex than Bioware usually does them.

The sad thing is they don't even go the full way with the ''simple'' moral choices.
Like why couldn't a mage Hawke support Tyrohne in her quest to destroy the templars and rule the city Tevinter style? 
No better way to become wealthy and high status imo, something that Hawke strived for half of the game. 

[Dave of Canada]

Think of the situation with logic.

Anvil in the Deep Roads for example, I don't see any reason to not keep it because it's an effective tool for it's purpose.

Though I sometimes do characters which find it repulsive and destroy it out of disgust, they're not my usual characters.

EntropicAngel wrote...

KotOR II is a terrible example, IMO. Obsidian has (or had, I suppose--or the writer had) a major bug up its rump about being good to people. They're more preachy, again IMO, than the supposed ME+Paragon slant.

Though, to be fair, you CAN play the "good" character if you want. The game doesn't prevent it. Just fights you every.step.of.the.way.

It also fights you for being a ****** too, Kreia's entire point was that the world isn't black and white.

Giving money to the homeless leads to him being robbed.
Refusing to give money to the homeless leads to him robbing someone else.

Actions have consequences.

Apathy is death.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 janvier 2014 - 05:29 .

[Nightdragon8]

basicly "he wants his cake and eat it too" right?

Honestly as for Feneryal... its a mixed bag if you think about it. Hand him over the the Treventor empire to give them a mage that can kill people in there dreams. Or cause him to go tranquil.. so he doesn't murder people in there sleep... kinda a big grey area really... or hand him over to the circle...

[AltanIV]

I usually consider what my character would do more than what I would do.

Concerning my canon Hawke, concerning Fenryel it wasn't about what is right or wrong but more about was is best for himself. Making Fenryel tranquil would be the grey area. But in the end he refused the demon's offer and sent Fen to the Tevinter, considering that if his studies went well he could become a good ally. (I won't play that part obviously, but that was how he made his mind.)

As for Kotor II which is out of topic I would agree with Dave, Kreia was never good or evil while being at your side. She stayed on a grey area all along. Even at the final encounter I wouldn't consider her as a "true Sith"

[KainD]

Dave of Canada wrote...

It also fights you for being a ****** too, Kreia's entire point was that the world isn't black and white.

Giving money to the homeless leads to him being robbed.
Refusing to give money to the homeless leads to him robbing someone else.

Actions have consequences.

Apathy is death.

Kreia was annoying as hell, more so by the lack of sufficient responses to her preachings. 
There is this simple concept of the self, and it is very black and white, and it also involves apathy in it - there is YOU and then there are THEY, and that's it. Everything that is good is what YOU want, everything that is bad is what hurts and deprives you of it, and the rest is apathy.
I don't need any excuses or deep thoughts behind giving my money away or not, I can do it just because I can, just because I want to, or I simply I don't give a damn. 

[AresKeith]

KainD wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

It also fights you for being a ****** too, Kreia's entire point was that the world isn't black and white.

Giving money to the homeless leads to him being robbed.
Refusing to give money to the homeless leads to him robbing someone else.

Actions have consequences.

Apathy is death.

Kreia was annoying as hell, more so by the lack of sufficient responses to her preachings. 
There is this simple concept of the self, and it is very black and white, and it also involves apathy in it - there is YOU and then there are THEY, and that's it. Everything that is good is what YOU want, everything that is bad is what hurts and deprives you of it, and the rest is apathy.
I don't need any excuses or deep thoughts behind giving my money away or not, I can do it just because I can, just because I want to, or I simply I don't give a damn. 

Ok?

[KainD]

AresKeith wrote...

Ok?

Dunno, ok? 

[O_OotherSide]

^He is an uberman

[Fredward]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Apathy is death.

And it totally ****ing sucks that balance translates into apathy. She's trying to teach me the world isn't black and white but as soon as I'm not black or white I can't even choose a prestige class. Bloody jedi and their bloody... *grumblemumblegrumble*


Bioware morality has a tendency to punish bad behaviour (ME3), reward good behaviour, neutralize any need for a pragmatic decision by making the [SAVE BOTH] option available and sometimes the bad guy decisions are just stupid. There is no reason to take it unless you're playing a moustache twirling villain. The DA series is better in this regard but it could still use some work.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 08 janvier 2014 - 06:18 .

[Fredward]

EntropicAngel wrote...
How could the DA series use some work? The only thing the DA series seems "guilty" of is offering a "save both" option. I don't agree that that is bad, but do you have any other, specific to a circumstance, complaints about DA's morals+ethics?

Now that you've taken away the option of mentioning my main gripe with DA not really, no. I COULD argue that going with the werewolves leads to a ****tier ending and thus = punishment but it's also a stupid decision so not really. I could also mention allowing Branka to keep the Anvil results in her going rogue but leaving the Anvil in the hands of a crazy lady was always going to be questionable. Then there is the city elf origin where if you take the money from whatshisface you don't get the dagger later on buuuuuut it's completely in character for Soris to let that slip.

There probably is one somewhere but I can't think of it. My main gripe with DA is the [SAVE BOTH] option. It works sometimes, if you've done the prep work and whatever but ALWAYS adding in the option cheapens the choice.

[Fredward]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I don't agree. I would say that if the option is equally as easy as the others, then sure it cheapens the choice. But if it's realistically as difficult as it would seem for a "save both" option, then it doesn't cheapen it. IMO.

The key is doing it in a way that genuinely IS difficult, and not simply the difference between a completionist and someone who plays main plot alone.

So out of curiousity what do you think about how they handled Connor?

[Hellion Rex]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

So out of curiousity what do you think about how they handled Connor?

I think the Connor choice should have worked if you'd already cleared the tower, but should NOT have worked if you had to go through it.

So if the tower hadn't been cleared ahead of time, you would prefer a more negative consequence for Connor?

[Hellion Rex]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Think of the situation with logic.

Anvil in the Deep Roads for example, I don't see any reason to not keep it because it's an effective tool for it's purpose.

Though I sometimes do characters which find it repulsive and destroy it out of disgust, they're not my usual characters.

EntropicAngel wrote...

KotOR II is a terrible example, IMO. Obsidian has (or had, I suppose--or the writer had) a major bug up its rump about being good to people. They're more preachy, again IMO, than the supposed ME+Paragon slant.

Though, to be fair, you CAN play the "good" character if you want. The game doesn't prevent it. Just fights you every.step.of.the.way.

It also fights you for being a ****** too, Kreia's entire point was that the world isn't black and white.

Giving money to the homeless leads to him being robbed.
Refusing to give money to the homeless leads to him robbing someone else.

Actions have consequences.

Apathy is death.

Great quote, man.

[Ieldra]

@OP:
The decision about Feynriel is three-pronged. You can:

(1) Make him confident in his abilities as a Dreamer.
(2) Kill him within the Fade, making him Tranquil
(3) Giving him over to the demon.

I don't know what you gain if you give him over, since I never did that, but it is very appropriate that you gain something significant over and above any other decision, since if you don't, why would you ever want to do it? The other two decisions are of a different kind and depend more on what you  (or rather your Hawke) believes is the right way to deal with the situation. Between (1) and (2) there is no clear good or bad, even though you need to believe that the ends justify the means if you make him Tranquil because of the danger he might pose. 

I think the Feynriel decision actually illustrates what's good about such choices in Bioware games: you have the choice of doing something bad for self-interest or not, which is plausible, *and* you have the choice between two options you can use to illustrate what your Hawke believes about these things. Both kinds of choices are good for roleplaying, and I would like to see more of them. The only criticism I would level at option (3) is that it's stupid if a Dreamer-abomination is really as powerful as Marethari says. Of course the game should not prevent you from making a stupid decision if it fits the situation, but there's a problem in that the DA team probably won't be able to follow up on option (3) in a satisfactory manner.

The important thing about such choices is that people rarely do something "for the evulz". Yes, there are people who enjoy harming others, and those who just "want to see the world burn", but we don't need to give those any kind of consideration, we can gun them down with no regret, in video games if not in RL, and decisions about them are never difficult. Apart from crimes of passion, which are another beast altogether, realistic "evil" has a strong rational motivation, usually in the form of greed, either for money or power.

[ManOfSteel]

SergeantSnookie wrote...

I never project myself into my characters, so I consider what the character I'm playing would do rather than myself. So if he/she does something absolutely despicable it's on them not me. :S

I'm the same. I go for what suits the character I'm playing, not what I think is right/wrong.

[David7204]

'Apathy is death'...?

Sounds to me like someone trying to condemn the thing they have no weapons against.

After all, you can fight and beat hate. You can fight and beat competition. But what can you do against the man who is self-concerned and self-sufficient? What weapons do you have against him?

Sounds like nothing more than a somewhat elegant plea for attention.

Modifié par David7204, 08 janvier 2014 - 09:51 .

[Dave of Canada]

David7204 wrote...

'Apathy is death'...?

http://www.youtube.c...Kcdlrg0bh4]Here[/url] you go, a scene from one of my favorite games writing-wise.