129 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

While I admit to wanting different choices sometimes, but you have to respect that story consideration are the purview of the media creator. I'd rather have clear distinctions than several options you might as well just throw them into a hat and pick one as they all end up nearly the same or are so generically cliche. Devs should not be hancuffed in how they make their games to fullfill the wishes of specific users. it can completely change the character of the games if they made middle of the road options plus lowered the distinction between what ever moral/repuation system they have in place. if the middle option had the worst outcomes because you abstain from any moral quandry or try to get by without choosing a side I doubt you'd find it of any value. The fact you make specific examples points to wanting to rewrite parts of the story to your liking. If they followed everyone's" make it like i want it" then the game would be very terrible indeed.

I don't necessarily disagree. If extreme choices appear natural to the story then by all means keep them! If moderate ones appear contrived then by all means don't put them in! The main thing I am criticizing is that all too often, options are contrived to be extreme for the sake of controversy. Bioware has actually admitted that they do that. They've also admitted that they increased the prevalence of insane blood mages in DA2 after their focus tests appeared to indicate that too many players would side with the mages. That didn't work out too well, did it?

What I'm advocating instead is: write your story and implement the choices that seem most appropriate for the story. If you add elements for a more balanced choice, that's ok, but only if it doesn't adversely affect story integrity. In addition, if it appears likely that players get frustrated by the choice because none of the options are even remotely likeable, for instance because every option appears to support an extremist faction, and your character would need to be an extremist to find satisfaction, then you might want to reconsider what kind of story you're creating here.

(Note that personally I wouldn't mind an extremist pro-mage choice, but I am still arguing against a setup with extreme options only if that's feasible from a storytelling viewpoint.)

[Sekou]

The one that was made incredibly easy by giving you the choice to save Connor, Isolde, or both, with no consequences whatsoever? I don't think that's a good example. Now the choices you were presented with in Orzammar or during the endgame are another matter entirely.

 

Agree to disagree on Connor, I suppose.  I mean, one of the options is to kill a child.  Yes, a demon-possessed one, but a child nonetheless. 

 

Yes, the endgame stuff is a good example as well.  ME good examples are Wrex from ME1 and all the genophage stuff.

[RosaAquafire]

See, the problem with having a "win" scenario is that it turns all other scenarios into a "lose" scenario.

 

I do agree that DA2's ending was perhaps too extreme, but what durasteel is advocating is basically what amounts to a marginalization of all other choices. Being challenged is fun for some people. The example I always use is the Connor/Isolde debate. Without the third option, it would be the hardest choice in both games easily. Isolde is innocent and Connor has killed hundreds of people and could very well be possessed again, but Connor is a child who isn't in control of his actions and Isolde is offering herself up to die. It's a really hard choice! A child who has killed and may kill again, or a mother who has done nothing wrong but is begging you to let it happen. I don't know what I would choose if this were an actual ethical debate, and roleplaying that would be a challenge that made me think about the value of life and HAHA nevermind you can just choose "everybody wins and nothing bad happens."

 

Can I just not take that option? Well, yes, but when it's there, it turns Connor or Isolde's deaths into a LOSS SCENARIO, as opposed to a moral choice. In my opinion if you are making a game where choices are supposed to matter and part of the mission statement is to make you ask hard questions -- which Dragon Age has ALWAYS been advertised as and is WHY I got into the series -- then no choice can ever be measurably and demonstrably BETTER than another. This is clearly the case some of the time. Whether the third "win" scenario is hard to get or not, the problem is that not choosing that option is then choosing an inferiour option, which undermines the value of a choice.

 

There are plenty of RPGs where you can "win" the story. Dragon Age was always marketed as a game of making hard choices, cutting losses, and a world of blacks and whites where you can't not have an opinion. I want it to stay that way.

 

That said, some third options are fine. I actually loved the Refuse option in ME3. Yeah, you can just walk away, but you're abandoning your responsibility and the Reapers are just going to win. But I like that it gave the option in the EC. Something like that in Kirkwall where you leave and everything goes to hell anyway would have been appreciated. Like, you walk away and let Kirkwall burn, equally non heroic as the other two options. I can see the value in that. Still no win.

 

But yeah. I actually like having to choose between mustard and mayo on my turd sandwich. That is literally the appeal to me. If I have a third sandwich that's a delicious tomato, bacon, cucumber, salami mix sitting beside the turds, then that takes the fun out of having to weigh the mayo or mustard option. No win scenarios are fun for some people. Experiencing frustration, sadness, anger, helplessness ... that's part of art. I might feel terrible afterwards, but I mean, Hamlet doesn't make me want to high-five the sun and party down either and it's stuck around for a reason.

[Xilizhra]

I do agree that DA2's ending was perhaps too extreme, but what durasteel is advocating is basically what amounts to a marginalization of all other choices. Being challenged is fun for some people. The example I always use is the Connor/Isolde debate. Without the third option, it would be the hardest choice in both games easily. Isolde is innocent and Connor has killed hundreds of people and could very well be possessed again, but Connor is a child who isn't in control of his actions and Isolde is offering herself up to die. It's a really hard choice! A child who has killed and may kill again, or a mother who has done nothing wrong but is begging you to let it happen. I don't know what I would choose if this were an actual ethical debate, and roleplaying that would be a challenge that made me think about the value of life and HAHA nevermind you can just choose "everybody wins and nothing bad happens."

Well, I release Jowan, so no choice would be available for me. So I'm glad for the third option.

 

As for the rest, I don't know. I understand your point (and, in fact, I did feel at least sort of heroic and triumphant at the end of DA2), but on the other hand, I really can't turn down an opportunity to make things better, IC or OOC.

[Nightdragon8]

Spoilers!!

 

I thought it was already talked about that that sort of thing wont happen in DAverse...

 

Honestly DA2's last choice wasn't that big of a choice. Support the Templars help kill the Mages, then take control over the city, then disapper. Or support the mages everyone dies, and leave the city. Not that big of a change. So really DA's choices at the end really didn't matter... The effects are going to be at most morle and how people talk. More than likly it will boil down to "Well the Champion of Kirkwall didn't think that way, and supported the X side." Because other than a moral boost the way it ended didn't really scream to me "World changing event"

 

Which is fine. Not every choice needs to be world changing. (Like in ME3 ending)