178 réponses à ce sujet

[Nefla]

Right. That's a problem with how Bio handles ruthless characters, not a principle of sound design. They can handle RARR EVIL types, but they have trouble with more sophisticated versions.

 

ME handled this a bit better, but that's because Renegades aren't supposed to be evil in the first place.

I don't know about you, but in real life if I knew someone who let whole foundries full of slaves burn to death because they wanted to kill one guy, beat down a woman on camera, gave a tortured, mutilated mentally handicapped man to a terrorist organization so they could continue to torture him, etc...I really wouldn't care what his motivations or intentions were. As your average citizen I'd be terrified and I'd want to stay the heck away. Someone selfless and heroic I would want to greet and be friendly to.

[naddaya]

If you pickpocket people in a certain area, others will come to kill you for it, if you kill the mages in the harrowing chamber, Wynne basically calls you a monster in awakening and wont talk to you, Isolde's and Alistair's reaction if you kill Connor, Wynne's and Leliana's reaction if you poison the Urn of Sacred ashes, general reactions from people if you decide to kill them, extort from them, leave them to die, stuff like that. SWtOR does it to a higher degree and I think it's awesome and adds variety to your multiple playthroughs. 

 

Isolde said she didn't blame me for killing Connor in the end. Nor do Teagan and Eamon, and they were the most affected. Alistair is a naive manchild who if unhardened can't make a choice to save his life and then blames others for solving situations in a way he doesn't like. Wynne and Leliana are angry because you're violating the ashes of the prophet of the religion they believe in. It's all rather personal for them. Wynne is a member of the offended party if you don't use the Litany (I always do, but characters who fear magic could be too afraid of possession to let the mages live), Greagoir and the templars don't blame you. It's all relative.

[Fetunche]

Having the good guy get ahead would make a refreshing change from all the so called 'edgy' douchebaggery that is so fashionable these days.

[naddaya]

Having the good guy get ahead would make a refreshing change from all the so called 'edgy' douchebaggery that is so fashionable these days.

 

Nobody wants "douchbag choices" to have better outcomes here. We want reasoned, sensible choices. They don't have to be amoral or ruthless, but sometimes the line is thin. "Good" choices are ofter naive and recklesss, and if they are, people want occasional bad consequences from those too. "Evil" choices can be reckless too.

 

Take the Hammer of the Void choice. Destroying it is considered the good solution, and to me it was also the most sensible one. We wouldn't get to keep the Hammer if we didn't want to destroy it, Branka would have used it. Or Bhelen/Harrowmont if they could get their hands on it (yeah, good luck with that). Could you really trust them with such power? It would seem the ruthless choice, golems are powerful, they would be a great asset against the darkspawn, right? But it's a gamble.

 

So it really becomes a debate about safe/reasoned vs reckless/wildcard/plain dumb choices. A "safe" choice can bit you in the ass too, but half-assed decisions are usually much worse.

 

Convincing Zathrian to uplift the curse was the "moral" choice, and it was also quite sensible. Leaving Connor alone in the tower, free to use Teagan as his personal jester, guarded by might Jowan, wasn't. Harrowmont/Bhelen is a bit trickier. Harrowmont seems safe because he's conservative and honorable (loosely), but he's weaker than Bhelen. What the Grey Wardens need now is a king that will stay true to his deal of granting us his troops, but also won't die in a conjure any time soon. 

 

So, in the end, good choices can have good outcomes, but it shouldn't go well just because "we're the good guys". It would be interesting if they required some tactical reasoning.

Modifié par naddaya, 31 mars 2014 - 05:58 .

[Fredward]

Having the good guy get ahead would make a refreshing change from all the so called 'edgy' douchebaggery that is so fashionable these days.

 

No it wouldn't. I want to be rewarded for making smart decisions, not for being a nice person. Or punished for being a bad one. Or rewarded for being a bad person because dark & edgy. With ME3 the one example that always springs to my mind is choosing to betray the krogan. That made sense, that was elegant. Yet somehow straightforward and aggressive Wrex turned into a master of espionage when I wasn't looking and ferreted it out. What? But the entire game is set up out of these contrived situation that consistently give you a better result if you were nice. It's very annoying.

 

But again I don't really think this criticism applies to DA. With the exception of Connor ofc. The consequences of your actions (or lack thereof) flow logically, there's no feel of an outside source slapping you on the wrist, waggling a finger and going "tut, tut."

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Life is full of **holes, there is no need to roleplay as one in an RPG, go out in the street irl and throw a stone you will hit one.

[KaiserShep]

But being able to roleplay a jerk is part of the fun.

[naddaya]

But being able to roleplay a jerk is part of the fun.

 

But you can be a jerk and make smart choices

[naddaya]

And to be fair, "smart" choices can bite you in the ass too. I'm all for variety, as long as it's justified

[Ryzaki]

No it wouldn't. I want to be rewarded for making smart decisions, not for being a nice person. Or punished for being a bad one. Or rewarded for being a bad person because dark & edgy. With ME3 the one example that always springs to my mind is choosing to betray the krogan. That made sense, that was elegant. Yet somehow straightforward and aggressive Wrex turned into a master of espionage when I wasn't looking and ferreted it out. What? But the entire game is set up out of these contrived situation that consistently give you a better result if you were nice. It's very annoying.

 

But again I don't really think this criticism applies to DA. With the exception of Connor ofc. The consequences of your actions (or lack thereof) flow logically, there's no feel of an outside source slapping you on the wrist, waggling a finger and going "tut, tut."

 

No. The game gives you a better result if you're consistent. Killing Wrex is the anti- krogan solution destroying the cure is the anti Krogan solution and then you turn on Wreav and get both the Krogan and the Salarians and you can get Mordin if you pass the persuade.

 

Meanwhile saving Wrex and saving the cure gives you the best pro-krogan outcome. (You get Eve, Eve's boosted assets, Wrex though you lose the Salarian assets).

 

Much like killing to Rachni Queen in one and then trying to save her clone blows up in Shep's face but killing it both times gives you Aralak company and saving her both times gives you the Rachni troops.

 

And saving the Geth after destroying the heretics gives you less assets than saving the Quarians. While if you overwrite the heretics you get less Quarian assets.

 

Could the numbers have been better? Yep.

[Red Panda]

Sometimes, the results should be unpredictable.

 

 

What if there was a randomness factor involved. Making wise choices could mitigate risk, but if you get really unlucky, a party member gets randomly decapitated and permakilled.

 

 

Troubled times should be unpredictable but controllable.

[Ryzaki]

Sometimes, the results should be unpredictable.

 

 

What if there was a randomness factor involved. Making wise choices could mitigate risk, but if you get really unlucky, a party member gets randomly decapitated and permakilled.

 

 

Troubled times should be unpredictable but controllable.

 

That would just lead to frustration and reloading.

[Red Panda]

^ What if the seed was unchanging and no amount of reloads could change it.

 

The player would then be forced to accept the dynamic of randomness tailored uniquely for their play through.

 

 

 

My example was a wee bit extreme though. If anyone should be randomly murdered, it should be the player's LI with a really low chance right at the end of the game. (totally sarcastic... maybe)

[Han Shot First]

I agree with the OP, and this is from someone who more often than not roleplays their RPG protagonists as somewhere on the good spectrum. Far too often in RPGs the good choice is almost always the correct choice, with morally questionable (or outright evil) options being far more likely to backfire or have negative consequences. There should be a bit more balance with morality choices. 

[AlanC9]

I don't know about you, but in real life if I knew someone who let whole foundries full of slaves burn to death because they wanted to kill one guy, beat down a woman on camera, gave a tortured, mutilated mentally handicapped man to a terrorist organization so they could continue to torture him, etc...I really wouldn't care what his motivations or intentions were. As your average citizen I'd be terrified and I'd want to stay the heck away. Someone selfless and heroic I would want to greet and be friendly to.

 

You probably shouldn't use the ME examples there, since people don't actually react badly to Shepard's actions.

 

I should have been clearer, though. The problem is with the kinds of evil choices they give us more than a problem with the reactions.

[AlanC9]

 

What if there was a randomness factor involved. Making wise choices could mitigate risk, but if you get really unlucky, a party member gets randomly decapitated and permakilled.

 

 

I wanted something like this for Redcliffe. Maybe going to the Circle works out, maybe it doesn't and you get the same outcome as if the Warden didn't stay to fight for the town in the first place. Almost free to script since the consequence was already in the game.

[mopotter]

Renegade/Paragion - Every time I played ME1 the whole renegade vs paragon thing to me,  was about style.  A renegade did whatever they felt necessary to get the job done.  The paragon got the job done but some things should have taken longer.  I never felt that either choice was wrong, just different.  That changed through the series.

 

I liked the Orzammar quest in DA:O.  It wasn't clear cut. I liked Harrowmont but he turned out to be a worse king than Bhelen.  I wouldn't mind a quest with this type of outcome.  It shows that the future is fluid and even it you do something you think it right, it may not have the results you had hoped for.

 

Can't say I want to pick an evil vs good character, I'm hoping for a normal character that tries for the best but doesn't always make it. But, if I have to choose between someone who is a unpleasant twit that I wouldn't like, I'll just play the one who sees the good in people, but has their knife behind their back in case they are wrong.  

[O_OotherSide]

Life is full of **holes, there is no need to roleplay as one in an RPG, go out in the street irl and throw a stone you will hit one.

 

Thats the problem, most people don't want to play as jerks, so whats the point of putting in "Evil" choices if you get nothing from them? I see nothing wrong with Origins style at all. I played good the first time and didn't want anything special for giving the women her husbands locket, convincing the merchant to lower prices, or curing the wolves. It meant that I lost out on some lame items and lost a bit of gold. It was still very possible to save everyone and be good.

 

I like dragon age because it doesn't try to fit everything into good and evil. It just has choices with out some stupid bar.

[Bob from Accounting]

Thats the problem, most people don't want to play as jerks, so whats the point of putting in "Evil" choices if you get nothing from them? I see nothing wrong with Origins style at all. I played good the first time and didn't want anything special for giving the women her husbands locket, convincing the merchant to lower prices, or curing the wolves. It meant that I lost out on some lame items and lost a bit of gold. It was still very possible to save everyone and be good.

 

I like dragon age because it doesn't try to fit everything into good and evil. It just has choices with out some stupid bar.

 

That is completely not true.

 

I'm as a strong of a defender of 'good' choices as anyone I've seen on this forum, and I still enjoy 'evil' decisions and playthroughs where I murder everyone. I fact, I enjoy them in my good playthroughs as well, since they provide contrast to my character's good actions.

 

The difference from many people is that I fully acknowledge that when I commit horrible things in games, I have no moral standing whatsoever. But that's totally okay, since I'm just messing around in a video game.

[naddaya]

The thing is, some actions just can't be fit into good and evil. There are too many variables. Upbringing, personal fears, amount of confidence, trust in others, naiveté.

 

Dragon Age has been good at this so far. The only exception is Connor's circle tower route, imo. I'm not against a win-win scenario, I just wish it was handled better. Again, if we could bring Connor to the tower with us, with Morrigan keeping him asleep with some of her entropy abracadabra, I'd be happy. Or other plausible solutions.

 

It's a minor complaint though, I liked the ambiguity of the other choices. The hammer, the dwarven king, the landsmeet business, amaranthin.. well, everything.

[Bob from Accounting]

There's always 'variables.' Making the right choices doesn't make us mind readers and fortune tellers.

 

Making an evil or stupid decision (which are ultimately one and the same) and having it turn out well doesn't make it right. It just makes you lucky.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That would just lead to frustration and reloading.

Those don't necessarily go together.  If I'm doing something that I know is a long shot, but that long shot is in character, I may well want that long shot to succeed, without changing the fact that it is a long shot.

 

Reloading is a choice.  No one should choose frustration.  If reloading is frustrating, don't reload.

[Bob from Accounting]

The problem is that losing on the basis of a random number generator instead of any meaningful choice or action by the player is even more frustrating. It's frustration vs. frustration.

[Medhia_Nox]

I think "some" good choices should require sacrifice.

 

I think "some" bad choices should entice with reward.

 

Ultimately - I think good choices should provide greater NPC agency - while bad choices provide greater Story Agency.  Not always, not exclusively - but I think these would be stronger areas to focus on than banal, diplomatic goodies and imbecilic, jerkwad baddies.

 

I think one of the major challenges with morality in interactive storytelling is that the motive is entirely player driven.  Video games very rarely take the time to make you care about "why" you want to solve the problem.