178 réponses à ce sujet

[wolfhowwl]

But it is the worst choice.

 

A morality system that is simply choosing between the telegraphed good and bad outcomes sure sounds stupid.

 

The poorly defined and inconsistently used Paragon/Renegade system should be scrapped.

[Bob from Accounting]

I don't recall anyone mentioning any morality system in this conversation. Perhaps you should stick to the topic at hand.

[Saints]

"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"?

No, not at all. Not once he mention about getting a reward for being a jerk.

[wolfhowwl]

I don't recall anyone mentioning any morality system in this conversation. Perhaps you should stick to the topic at hand.

 

Says the guy who was just talking about Renegade. LOL!

[Bob from Accounting]

Do you have anything to say at all to actually contribute to this conversation?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Absolutely. I'd also like to see good decisions fail, and bad decisions succeed, at least occasionally.

[Bob from Accounting]

On very sparse occasions. 

 

Of course, it's always a little more difficult to define what it means for a 'bad' decision to succeed.

[IC-07]

Bioware games are black and white, so no.

[wolfhowwl]

Do you have anything to say at all to actually contribute to this conversation?

 

Backpedaling already, David?

 

And yes I do.

 

The player should expect that some good deeds will backfire. Trust might be misplaced resulting in a betrayal, a reckless attempt to save everyone could fail resulting in negative consequences.

[Bob from Accounting]

Not wishing to avoiding a tedious, irrelevant, and off-topic issue is hardly 'backpedaling.'

 

Your argument holds little water.

 

The player, or rather protagonist is up against some overwhelmingly force. Many enemies. Civil War. End of the world. All that. They should 'expect' to fail. They should 'expect' for their head to end up on a pole. They should 'expect' to be dead and to not even amount to a footnote in history.

 

Obviously, none of those things are going to happen. And for very good reason. We all know the Inquisitor is going to succeed in some form or fashion. The same reasoning applies to choices working out true to the players intention, regardless of what the player character might 'expect.'

[wolfhowwl]

The same reasoning applies to choices working out true to the players intention, regardless of what the player character might 'expect.'

 

That sounds like a power fantasy, David.

[mousestalker]

Idina Menzel has something to say about this idea.

[shit's fucked cunts]

So fucking sick of the term "power fantasy."

[Innsmouth Dweller]

if good deed is hard too achieve, almost impossible, it's already "punished" i'd say. i think Crestwood would be good example (well i cannot say that for sure tho, obviously). i'm always happy if something you thought was good, comes back and bites you in the hindparts, i hope fixing Merrill's eluvian will be done like that.

[Bob from Accounting]

Quite the contrary. It seems to me 'power fantasy' would be a story where a supposed powerful and competent character is dragged down to failure. Such a failure elevates the audience up. Makes them better in comparison. It's completely natural people looking to fiction for a 'power fantasy' would delight in seeing a powerful character lose horribly. Look at the success of reality television and tabloid magazines.

 

Now, a heroic story, that's entirely different. It brings the flaws and shortcomings of the audience only further into the light. Which I imagine might be very offensive to some of the same people.

[wright1978]

I agree there should be occasions where the (paragon) action leads to a less optimal outcome than choosing a pragmatic option. However these should be a minority rather than trying to force a bleak where the idealistic player feels thwarted and punished at every turn.

[Bob from Accounting]

I agree there should be occasions where the (paragon) action leads to a less optimal outcome than choosing a pragmatic option. However these should be a minority rather than trying to force a bleak where the idealistic player feels thwarted and punished at every turn.

 

The idealistic options and the pragmatic options are one and the same.
 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

It should be balanced, I think. The pragmatic, but not necessarily good, choice should pay off sometimes. Going the extra way to do the generally accepted "right" thing should also pay off sometimes. I think the game should be designed so as not to greatly handicap either path, though. I think the majority of outcomes should have about the same amount of benefits and drawbacks. 

[renfrees]

I wonder if things like killing Anders could be considered good or bad.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

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.

 

Yeah, this is the style of gameplay that I'd like to see. I'm the kind of guy that doesn't base his decisions around a common morality or code of ethics. I just look at a goal in mind, look at the consequences of working toward the goal versus not working towards it, and decide in universe whether it's worth my characters time or not.

[Bob from Accounting]

It should be balanced, I think. The pragmatic, but not necessarily good, choice should pay off sometimes. Going the extra way to do the generally accepted "right" thing should also pay off sometimes. I think the game should be designed so as not to greatly handicap either path, though. I think the majority of outcomes should have about the same amount of benefits and drawbacks. 

This is also more or less true, if nothing else than for the reason of getting seriously screwed over for pretty much any choice as long as you were through isn't very fun, and making a story and game that's enjoyable comes first. If it's not fun, not much else matters.

 

So it's desirable to let 'evil' choices slide when the punishment really should be greater.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

The idealistic options and the pragmatic options are one and the same.
 

 

So the option to kill the Elven slaves to gain more power for your Warden is idealistic? Or keeping Loghain alive at the expense of your friendship with Alistair? Or letting Branka and Bhelen have the Golems?

 

This is a demonstration of failure on the subject of philosophy. I think you think too highly of your own judgement.