18 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

In dragon age 2 there seemed to be no shortage of extremes to be found in all the npc's and companions all thrusting their own ideas and agendas forward and polarizing everyone around them. And no better can that effect be demonstrated then right here on bioware's own forum, where ideological arguments are so common they've become a norm of the site at this point over the always classic and bloody debate between more liberty, or more security.

 

But what me, and I think many people like me, want to see come about isn't another extreme to push this duality perspective, but a moderate. More specifically a moderate who won't mind coming out and saying to the other extremist characters "That's stupid. Why would anyone think something like that?" and actually push their point of being in the middle ground and on compromising ideas forward, not just fade quietly into the background on these discussions like varric and aveline did. I can't help but think of characters like wynne or leiliana coming forward when a lot of the more evil or good or ideologically inclined characters had their say and bringing a more grounded view into the mix, and how whenever they had their moments of extremism, other characters reigned them in as well.

 

So for the love of the non-extremists bioware, please consider having a more proactive character to champion the banner of neutrality and cooperativeness. Being for a moderate position doesn't mean you have to be a doormat to everyone else.

[Allan Schumacher]

I hope you do know that answering question with question is not good.

 

I disagree, especially within the context of requesting clarification.  I mean, your own statement could be framed as a question ("Do you know that answering a question with a question is not good?") so it tends to be mostly semantics.

 

So lets not go down a semantics road.

[Allan Schumacher]

**** thst noise, we're already going to plenty of that from the npc's and I'd rather have at least 1 companion who wasn't a doormat to the others insane verbal vomit. We need a character who will look at both sides, not be afraid to tell them it's stupid and exactly why it's stupid, and not back down because it might hurt their feelings. If the PC doesn't like his view they can have the option to shut them down but having a characters those of the middle ground can be proud to look up to is long overdue.

 

To be honest this sounds less and less like a moderate approach.  It's still very aggressive and could be seen as extreme, but simply someone that is extremely pragmatic.

[Allan Schumacher]

This is why people were asking you for what you felt was extreme.

[Allan Schumacher]

Having a character be a badass neutral is just something I think hasn't been as touched upon as it could be. Between origins, awakening, and 2 I don't think there have been as many as there could be or should be to balance things out in a way that doesn't have them never address their comrades positions or voice an opinion on it, when so many other times, the extremes criticize them in every ambient dialogue opportunity they get.

 

By neutral do you mean someone that is indifferent to what is going on?  Or someone that is pragmatic?

[Allan Schumacher]

Just as a reminder to try to keep it within context of Dragon Age, since I find a topic like this can derail and escalate quickly as a result.

[Allan Schumacher]

This ultimately isn't even extremism, its pragmatism and practicality.

 

I don't think either pragmatism nor practicality are necessarily exempt from extreme takes.

[Allan Schumacher]

To be fair, they're only known to be unnecessary due to magical metaknowledge.  If only such advantages existed within the realm of any particular playthrough.

 

 

That being said, perhaps we should allow superior end game results in the wake of less than ideal middle game choices.

[Allan Schumacher]

Hardly impossible. Werewolves are just more melee fighters, a niche much covered already; the Dalish have a nice ranged specialization.

 

You lose no time at all defending Redcliffe.

 

Killing all mages, who can do things that literally no one else can, simply out of hand is complete idiocy and uselessly throwing away resources.

 

The only exception to this is possibly keeping the Anvil of the Void; that requires some concern about the dwarves' future instead of just seeing them as tools to help beat back this particular Blight.

 

Eh, easy to say as the observer player that isn't in the actual game world.  I think it's fair for people to disagree.  I think it's idiocy to attempt going to save Connor, though my position as the external game player knows that ultimately that's the best solution.

 

Though perhaps your right and we should have made it so that those particular choices come across as perhaps better ones to make, with respect to the goals of defeating the blight.

 

 

 

Possibly. Every gamer inevitably metagames if they play a 2nd time through, so it can be hard to try and make arguments about issues in the games like Connor in Redcliff when we already know the optimal solution. For example, on my very first playthrough, I let Jowan do his ritual and sacrificed Isolde as I held Connor to be the least responsible for the situation, and Isolde's comment on how much time it would take to go to the Circle had me thinking that I may very well lose part of the army meant to fight the blight.

 

I found it that isn't the case in a later playthrough, but that doesn't take away the choice I made in my first playthrough as I saw it at the time as the most expedient one. 

 

I agree that there's not much to do with respect to the fact that some people will use metaknowledge.  My statement is more an observation that some will judge others decisions, such as the one you (and I!) made at Redcliffe, and point to the metaknowledge that there's an ideal solution.

 

 

Also true, but not every gamer roleplays that way. Most casual gamers don't...or at least most casual gamers I know personally. 

 

Well, depending on the application of the term, it's possible that most casual gamers don't even make it through to a second playthrough (or maybe don't even finish one playthrough)

 

 

Would you mind clarifying that second sentence?  I'm not sure what you mean here. 

 

Just that ultimately the choices, in my opinion anyways, mostly just come out as different flavours.  That is, because of how they exist, we can use that metaknowledge to state that some choices are better than others, because we know the consequences of all choices.  And I definitely struggle with this myself.  It's actually why, particularly at the end of the game, I am okay with endings that provide much less closure.  Like the end of Deus Ex (original or Human Revolution), where I can know the immediate consequences of a decision, but don't know what the long term effects are.

 

If one of the choices has an epilogue that is clearly superior, it can feel a bit like "well you chose poorly."  Though I think I'm getting better at this, personally (for instance, I enjoyed the Kuei-jin ending in Bloodlines.  Although no ending in that game really goes into long term consequences either).

 

So maybe the idea of "this choice is clearly bad for the local situation, but makes solving the bigger quest easier" is something that might be more interesting?

 

Mostly just a philosophical point, really.  Food for thought of "what are interesting choices in an RPG."

[Allan Schumacher]

Why? Why would you weight things toward decisions like that?

 

Why not?

 

If there's clearly better, more optimal solutions, perhaps we didn't execute as well as we could have?

[Allan Schumacher]

Different people will have different optimal solutions. Many here, for instance, ride high on racism boners and find that slaughtering elves is a good end in and of itself. Some directly want Isolde dead, or will Annul Circles because they think mages bring everything on themselves. It's no failure of storytelling to have one option that's viewed as most commonly optimal, as you'll still always have different opinions regarding it.

 

 

You're right.  Different people will consider different choices optimal.  It's nice to see you acknowledge that.

 

However, if this outcome is inevitable, I don't actually see it as a counter argument to what I suggested, since we're already going to do it and we're already going to make some groups advantaged or disadvantaged.  If people are going to tear strips into other posters for being awful human beings, however, then maybe we're doing something wrong with the choices?

 

It doesn't strike me as being that difficult to point out, and ignore, those that run around those that feel eradicating the elves is a good solution simply because they hate the elves.

[Allan Schumacher]

Personally, I think Bioware went way too damned far to try to make the oppressed and their oppressors seem somehow morally equivalent, in some sort of golden mean fallacy. So I cannot and will not support any further efforts in this direction.

 

Can you elaborate?

From there, what's your solution?  Should we make it so that the best choices are the ones that are clearly siding with oppressed groups?  Does that make for a more interesting game experience?

[Allan Schumacher]

By no means would it necessarily make for a worse experience. Mass Effect wasn't diminished because you couldn't side with the Reapers, for instance. And then there are games like TOR, where the Empire is clearly the evil side, but the vast majority of its players don't mind because the choice was made clear from the beginning.

 

So that it may not necessarily make for a worse experience gives the implication that it still might make for a worse game.

 

I think the Reaper analogy is a poor one, since it'd be more akin to siding with the Darkspawn which you cannot do in Dragon Age (EDIT: though as people point out, you can actually work together and coexist with the reapers).  It'd probably be better served to use stuff like the Rachni or the Collector Base.  Though a lot of people feel that those choices were greatly underutilized and ultimately it compromised their enjoyment of the third game.

 

I think it's also important to note that when playing a video game, people can disassociate themselves from their character and play (and enjoy) behaving in a way that they wouldn't in real life without being real life monsters.  One of my all-time favourite gaming experiences was my playthrough of Knights of the Old Republic, in which I played a soldier that attempted to do good as much as possible, but allowed himself to do dark things in the greater good of helping others.  In the end, he succumbed to the dark side and ended up using the Starforge against the Republic.

 

I'll spare all the details, but many aspects of my character's evolution just ended up having such perfect timing that it was just a very entertaining and enjoyable experience.  One of those "influential moments" in my gaming history.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 mars 2014 - 11:14 .
Added Reaper compromise line after reading posts before mine.

[Allan Schumacher]

By itself, it wouldn't make for a worse game; it would have to be badly handled on top of that. Which could be the case for anything. And I have no problem with evil playthrough options; what I do have a problem with are allowing for the possibility of many people to think of them as good. Mass Effect had fewer of these because of the Paragon/Renegade thing, but it was still quite present.

There's nothing wrong with playing as a monster, so long as you acknowledge that that's what your playing.

 

Even then, prior to the end of the game I wouldn't say that I was playing as a monster either.  The character was fairly pragmatic and often did both lightside and darkside things.

 

 

But as you say, people will already draw their own conclusions as to what is considered ideal.

 

You and I can go "whoa, the destruction of that entire race is too much a cost" but someone coming along and going "Die race I don't like, you deserve this" and then believing that in doing so doesn't make them a monster.

 

Are you suggesting, then, that we should make it clearer in that "These are the bad guys" and "these are the good guys?"  I mean, even then I'm not even sure I'd agree that playing Renegade makes a player evil (although Paragon is certainly a very heroic playthrough).  Even my character, who was decidedly Paragon, still had no problems gaining some renegade points by giving the Admiral that tried killing me on the Geth Dreadnought a kidney shot.  It's certainly not an evil act as far as I'm concerned.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't agree at all

 

It is...bad...bad writing...or there is hidden bad intention....

 

I disagree.  I think part of why these games get rated M for Mature is because of an idea that people are able to disassociate what happens in game from any sort of messages.

 

By making a religious institution evil/grey in a video game, it's not a statement that I think ALL religion is evil/grey, or even that any real life example of religion is evil/grey.  The only statement is that, within this fictional universe, this religion is evil/grey.  Reading into intention when trying to create a compelling and interesting game setting is a risky thing leaving one open to making incorrect assumptions.

 

 

 

 

And making it clearer wouldn't truly harm anything, as far as I can tell, at least in the major cases

 

I disagree.  On a personal level if it's "well, you're clearly the good guys and if I just side with you, it makes no real difference" makes for a significantly less interesting game experience.  These games put me and my characters in places where non-trivial decisions need to be made and the consequences of those decisions need to be considered.

 

 

 

 

I believe, in any case, that it's fundamentally disrespectful to certain oppressed minorities IRL to position certain oppressors in-game as being as much in the right as those they crush.

 

I think that it can be.  But I also think that there's a reflection that it's still fiction, and there's attempts to place people in challenging circumstances.  As a gamer, I enjoy being put in situations where "doing what I believe in" comes with consequences.  It feels more rewarding and enjoyable as a game experience.  In real life, I certainly prefer that doing what I believe in come with minimal challenges to that position.  There's a disconnect in how I want my video game experiences and how I want my real life.

 

 

 

 

Mages can break free of mind control relatively easily, as shown in Enemies Among Us with a mage Hawke.

 

It's critical to note that the player character is almost always a special little snowflake.  It's why it's typically the player that accomplishes all the things in a game and not someone else

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 mars 2014 - 11:18 .
Added last quote and response

[Allan Schumacher]

Mage companions can do it too.  Though companions are still pretty snowflakey.

 

(I've missed the context to this, hopefullly it's not too off point)

 

This is true (and I agree that they are often unique too).

 

Part of it is balancing the narrative with the game player experience.  If we have two sides to a decision, for example, having all the party members end up dead because you happened to make one of those decisions can seriously impact one's enjoyment of the game because it may not be able to be completed and whatnot.

 

That said, having no consequence at all can be a bad thing too.  I think it's an interesting balancing act and challenge.

[Allan Schumacher]

then invent artificial and frankly somewhat uninspired reasons

 

Care to elaborate, because in a fictional world I find many people apply terms like "artificial" when they really just mean "I don't like it."  How does one apply the term artificial within the context of a fantasy, fictional world?

 

 

As gamist, immersion-breaking and frankly stupid as this trope is, I could accept it were it not made specifically different for mage Hawke.

 

Well, if you'd prefer we could just have it go "you lose" in some situations that are unique to Mage Hawke.  Or make it an extensive and elaborate ordeal that's unique to Mage Hawke.  Except that both of those have heavy risks associated with them (one for player experience, the other for content divergence and cost).  I suppose we could simply abstain from anything like that happening at all.  There's a much greater chance that it will be made specifically different for the protagonist, as simply killing the protagonist at the drop of a hat is a much more contentious act than killing an NPC.

 

 

Much the same way people deriding the "plausibility" of all the companions being bisexual is irrelevant because they too (as Wulfram stated) have a degree of special snowflake to them.  Or do you agree with the people who find that aspect gamist, immersion breaking, and frankly stupid, as well?

[Allan Schumacher]

Which "this" religion is evil/grey in Thedas?

 

As far i see, the portrayal about religion is mostly bad. Elven religion is neutral so far and we don't involve much in Elven religion.

 

So there are two evil/grey religion here, not one. In DA2 these two major religion play the most part to ruin everything we see in the game. The people of these religion suck so bad as if the religion teaching them to become so bad and crazy.

 

Still, DA2 is about religious extremism...i can sense that it is because of the current hype in real world at that time, isn't it? You can say i just only make an assumption, but as you can see i am not western, i am the people of the other part of the world, the way i think is not the same as your target audience in the west. The way i see it Bioware making a game attacking on religion.

 

There is no good side of religion being portrayed, so what is the other value we want to make comparison and as an option to choose? Players are still living in real world and using real world morality in their judgment. Bioware leave no room to the player to make a proper judgment. So either you choose an extremist type A or extremist type B in DA2

 

In DA:O, evil options are actually clear, players only use justifications to make evil look good, that is a matter of debate...that is where it become grey. Such as sacrificing peple making golems, that is evil, it only become grey because of player justifications when choosing it.

 

And you didn't answer why here is an option to defile religious figure remain in DA:O while that option don't actually give any impact in the game....

 

It's fair that it's a fault of the game if the player finds that acceptable choices along particular alignments are missing.  To state that we're sending a real world message, as opposed to trying to craft a story, however I think is maybe giving us a bit too much credit.  Granted, no act is completely apolitical, so I can understand your concern if you think it's irresponsible, even if it's a position that I do not agree with.

 

 

As for the option to defile, on some level simply to allow the player to do so?  Admittedly I wasn't working for BioWare when that quest was made available, but IIRC it is required to get the Reaver ability, and it's not entirely uncommon for BioWare games to have evil choices that exist simply for the sake of being evil.

[Allan Schumacher]

Site rule 3.Accusing Others of Trolling: Calling someone a troll or accusing them of trolling can also be a form of trolling.

 

I NEVER accuse anyone trolling as i remember since BSN....

 

Indeed.

 

If someone thinks a poster is intentionally trolling, please just report the post.  If that poster continues to aggravate you (whether trolling or not), the new forum software can block the posts of said poster.

 

Simply coming out and accusing someone of trolling, while it may or may not be accurate, is typically an express lane to thread derailment.  Those types of posts don't need to be made.