Guest_simfamUP_*
Well... not ALL of them, but I hope Inquisition will take into consideration that being good all the time wont really let you 'win' at life either.
So I hope that once in a while it'll play the Behlen card, being far more realistic about the consequences.
Yep. that's all. I don't think there is any need to go further than this.
Now I'm getting a sense of Deja Vu.
I hate that feeling; especially when it involves people.
And numbers.
Yeah.
**** maths.
Ah! this thread again. I would argue that if you put in the effort to do the right thing then it should be rewarded, in Bioware games if often takes far more effort to do the right thing.
We already got an example of this in the demo. You can be the good guy and have your troops stay with the wounded but that will leave crestwood village to burn while also letting your keep be taken. We were told that the game will be made up of these hard decisions
Well... not ALL of them, but I hope Inquisition will take into consideration that being good all the time wont really let you 'win' at life either.
Sorry, but I've had enough of "always fail" scenarios. In DA 2, I tried playing the good guy non-extremist Hawke, but all the game ever did was spit on my choices and have people turn on me regardless of what I did to/for them. DA 2 felt like a bloody real life simulator.
Not saying being good should not have some losses to choosing that path, but I would like to be able to find a diplomatic solution to things if I just take more care of how I do things instead of utterly failing like in DA 2.
By doing good deeds, I already win at life.
But honestly, Bioware already follows in GoT's "so edgy" footsteps by making the bad guys win virtually all the time, even when their actions are categorically stupid.
There is something to be said for making the occassional "bad choice" in order to achieve the end you want. But the ones I enjoy the most are putting in the work to make the ideal outcome.
For example - Crestwood, where we're told that you can save both the village and the keep - it's just difficult to do.
Sorry, but I've had enough of "always fail" scenarios. In DA 2, I tried playing the good guy non-extremist Hawke, but all the game ever did was spit on my choices and have people turn on me regardless of what I did to/for them. DA 2 felt like a bloody real life simulator.
Not saying being good should not have some losses to choosing that path, but I would like to be able to find a diplomatic solution to things if I just take more care of how I do things instead of utterly failing like in DA 2.
Lol. People are constantly betraying you in real life?
Lol. People are constantly betraying you in real life?
No, it's mostly bad luck and misimpressions.
In any case, I think if people are willing to put effort into finding a diplomatic solution, they should get one, in most cases at least. The problem doesn't lie with providing a solution itself, but how the reward system works. I think this time there won't be that problem since trying to save everyone will most likely lead to more resource spending than picking a side and swiftly ending it.
DA 2 never made me feel like I was winning. Being ahead in that game meant that you were at least one step behind the "bad" guys.
Oh so true! Most of the time it felt like you were 20 steps behind and waiting for the next shoe to fall!
At OP Also I agree with others in that choosing the good option usually requires more work thus giving you a consequence already.
The whole of DA2 was Hawke being pingpong'd between unsolveable messes. More or less.
The whole of DA2 was Hawke being pingpong'd between unsolveable messes. More or less.
Basically. The biggest problem about Hawke and Dragon Age II was the fact that no one mess or conflict drove the story.
On topic, rewards might not be such a bad idea for performing good deeds.
Rewards are quite important. We just had a lecture on this in my Level Design module two weeks ago, but a reward is not just getting XP, money or stuff.
Basically more often than not too many surprises or unpredicatble outcomes will make a player less likely to enjoy the game.
If it makes sense, going for the "nice" option should have some undesired consequences. I still think going to the Circle for the Redcliffe quest should have resulted in more casualties in the village, because expecting a demon to just sit and wait nicely for two or four days or more does not make sense.
"Goody too shoes"? Hell, I just want to run around like Natsu Dragneel and save everyone by beating up all the bad guys at once.
So this OP is, "I want a reward for being a complete and utter douchebag"?
There should be potential negative consequences for doing the "bad" things as well as the "good" things, if doing good is going to cause bad things to happen. But in general, in Dragon Age, doing good things takes more effort. In DA:O you could also decline rewards, doing good deeds out of the goodness of your heart, but if you decline a reward, don't expect anyone to give it to you anyway. So I don't really see an issue; if you go the extra mile to find that better solution, then the better solution should have a good chance of working out.
Others are right, too. I played a very good-hearted Hawke in DA2, and it felt like the game just stomped on my goodness. So I don't want that. Doing good deeds shouldn't be treated like it's a stupid thing to do. And in all honesty, I'd rather the kinder decisions have greater long-term rewards than the cruel ones. But maybe that's just me.
Don't get me wrong, I like George R.R. Martin quite well, but I don't think all fantasy should be quite so grim. Doing good deeds shouldn't result in automatic failure, and being ruthless should only have good results if there's no other sensible option.
Or, it could take a different tone, and the more ruthless you are, the better your outcomes get from being ruthless. The more merciful and good you are, the better your outcomes are for being merciful and good. That would make the most sense to me, without making players suffer for their preferred style of roleplaying through the game.
Rather than being tied by morality, i'd pretty much prefer a Reckless versus prudent actions kind of thing.
Sometimes being bold and reckless can pay off, and sometimes waiting for the right opportunity can be better (or worse)
All this regardless of the player's morality.
I don't want another mass effect where it seemed renegade always ends up being the worse choice.
Sure you can kill the queen but shes back anyway and no war asset, sure you can kill the brainwashed asari but weaker war asset, ect
Couldn't killing the queen get rid of the reaper aracni reaper enemies?
Renegade wasn't always the worst choice. They did a better job of that in ME3, with the things going on at the Citadel. Sometimes, paragon lost you assets.
And DA2 isn't the model I want to see used, where being nice to the mages ended up causing them to turn to blood magic, etc.
So, I repeat, I'd prefer how the game reacts to your actions to be based on how consistent you are with those actions. I don't think that's likely, though, so, a balance is the next best thing.
And, I repeat, doing good deeds in DA:O, at least, took more effort than just killing everyone/everything. Since you had to put in more effort, I do believe that the effort should be rewarded, not punished.
I see enough of good deeds being punished and the bad guys winning in the real world every day. Why would I want to see that depressingly reflected in a video game?
OP, you'd have a far stronger argument by not branding good consequences for good actions 'unrealistic.'
I see enough of good deeds being punished and the bad guys winning in the real world every day. Why would I want to see that depressingly reflected in a video game?
As would you. Your intentions are noble, but righteousness is not to be argued on your knees, from a position of begging and supplication. You've practically already admitted defeat. Stand when you speak.
As to the topic, for choices to be meaningful, the player has to have a reasonable idea of the consequences of the choice when they make it, and the narrative must follow through with those consequences. Thus, 'good' choices generally need to be lead to 'good' outcomes and vice-versa.
It's acceptable to have a very small minority of choices turn out in ways that betray the players intention, but overwhelmingly, they need to hold true. Otherwise, what point is there in making 'choices' at all? The player might as well suspend any thought and flip a coin. That's as likely as any tactic to lead them down the correct path.
I don't want another mass effect where it seemed renegade always ends up being the worse choice.
But it is the worst choice.
And, I repeat, doing good deeds in DA:O, at least, took more effort than just killing everyone/everything. Since you had to put in more effort, I do believe that the effort should be rewarded, not punished.
I disagree. Forcing Zathrian to break the curse requires no more effort than killing Witherfang. Getting the happy Redcliffe solution for the Connor situation only takes a trip to the Circle and back. That's hardly what I would call an "effort". Only saving Recliffe from the undead poses a greater challenge.
Retour en haut
