115 réponses à ce sujet

[Swoopdogg]

Too often in decision-making games we are given a clear-cut choice between good and evil--the dark side and the light side, paragon vs renegade, so on, and so on. In dragon age, admittedly, there is less of this, yet it's still there.

 

In Origins, I felt like there were a lot of black and white decisions, and it was obvious which was wrong and which was right. Even the more "grey" ones were still obvious (destroying the anvil vs. using it for the war, killing the elves/werewolves or ending the curse, performing the blood ritual or using mages and lyrium to exorcise conner, killing all the mages or saving them)

 

In DA2, it was a little less clear which side was the "good" side (mages vs. templars), but by and large, you could still pick out what decision was the "right" one in many individual encounters.

 

Which brings me to my point: we need more grey, and less "golden awesome best option good job" (I'm looking at you, Redcliffe)

 

Based on the demo, this will likely be the case, as we can choose to save Crestwood or abandon it and doom the villagers to die, yet save our fort and possibly more lives in the long run. Yet, there is still a "golden" option, if you can somehow manage to save both crestwood and the fort (bonus points if you do it all while leaving the soldiers to tend to their wounded). Yet this "golden" scenario seems like a sort of extra challenge reward than a "oh, you just have to go to this place that you were already gonna go to and come back and oh look no one died while you were gone huh"

 

Anyway, TL;DR, what do you think? Do you think we should have lots of true grey decisions, or do you think it's good to have clear-cut black and white decisions (for roleplaying purposes, perhaps)?

 

Personally, I like a mix of both, but I do find the grey decisions to be more intense and thus interesting, as it forces me to decide for myself which choice is the right one.

 

Thoughts?

[Steelcan]

inb4 "meaningful heroism"

[Saints]

If there is a golden option, let it be much more difficult to achieve.

[LobselVith8]

In Origins, I felt like there were a lot of black and white decisions, and it was obvious which was wrong and which was right. Even the more "grey" ones were still obvious (destroying the anvil vs. using it for the war, killing the elves/werewolves or ending the curse, performing the blood ritual or using mages and lyrium to exorcise conner, killing all the mages or saving them)

I actually saw sparing the Anvil as a pragmatic choice that could help dwarven society.

Which brings me to my point: we need more grey, and less "golden awesome best option good job" (I'm looking at you, Redcliffe)

Based on the demo, this will likely be the case, as we can choose to save Crestwood or abandon it and doom the villagers to die, yet save our fort and possibly more lives in the long run. Yet, there is still a "golden" option, if you can somehow manage to save both crestwood and the fort (bonus points if you do it all while leaving the soldiers to tend to their wounded). Yet this "golden" scenario seems like a sort of extra challenge reward than a "oh, you just have to go to this place that you were already gonna go to and come back and oh look no one died while you were gone huh"

Anyway, TL;DR, what do you think? Do you think we should have lots of true grey decisions, or do you think it's good to have clear-cut black and white decisions (for roleplaying purposes, perhaps)?

Personally, I like a mix of both, but I do find the grey decisions to be more intense and thus interesting, as it forces me to decide for myself which choice is the right one.

Thoughts?

The morally difficult decisions can be quite interesting, like sparing Avernus because of the value of his research against the darkspawn. The developers have said there are supposed to be more choices (like Crestwood), but without the option to get a "golden option" in saving both places). New Vegas had a few of these as well. I'm curious how those choices unfold, because they interest me more than the morally simplistic decisions.

I'm also wondering if the Crestwood choice will force us to abandon the wounded soldiers in order to save both (if the player is aiming for the optimal outcome).

[In Exile]

It's confirmed at least for crestwood that you can have your cake and eat if too if you're fast enough.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I love that DA doesn't have any sort of morality system, like most games seem to go with. I think it makes the choices seem more organic. It's extremely rare that your choices will ever truly be "good" vs "evil" in a fully fleshed out world. Things are always more complex than that. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Bio can try and write grey choices. But to some people some choices will be black and white. Personal priorities and logic comes into play.

 

A clear choice for me might be a difficult moral dilemma for you.

 

that said...yes, less "perfect golden solutions" please.

[elyu]

I love and hate choices where there is no right or wrong, or where you have to chose between two wrongs. They are interesting and good storywise but on the other hand I always try to make choices that benefit everyone and it's quite maddening when you can't do that (like me3 ending).

The more fleshed out my character is the easier the choices are because then I make them based on my characters personality and not on what I think is right.

[Gervaise]

Actually I feel the previous games have had plenty of "grey" options, it is just that initially you might not view them that way.  

 

• Choosing Bhelen or Harrowmount.   You know the former is likely to become a dictator but, as Zevran points out, the latter seems too weak to be a leader if he cannot even maintain the loyalty of his own soldiers and has to get an outsider to fight for him.   Bhelen is for change and greater contact with the outside world, Harrowmount is for tradition and remaining isolated.    Even the epilogue leaves you wondering whether the choice you made was better than the alternative.
• Choosing to spare Loghain.   Much might depend on your character's origins and relationship with Alistair, particularly if you didn't have the Return to Ostagar DLC, but if your character can justify this, then actually it almost becomes the "golden option" since he will volunteer to make the sacrifice, so you can keep the Warden and Alistair alive and refuse Morrigan.   At the end Alistair, as king, even grudgingly admits that may be you made the right call.   However, you only discover this at the end.   At the time it can seem like you are just a ruthless opportunist, particularly if you are male and planning on marrying Anora and becoming king yourself.
• Agreeing or refusing the ritual.   There are valid arguments for either course of action.   Again, much will depend on your particular Warden but definitely a "grey" decision.
• Sparing or killing the Architect.   Since I hadn't read the Calling, I didn't know what his previous actions had been.   An argument for not reading the books prior to playing the game.   Still, the Grey Wardens were apparently appalled if you spare him, so they at least thing it is a bad thing but he seemed to give a very reasoned argument for why you should not, so to my mind it is another "grey" area.
• There were less obviously "grey" areas in DA2, at least so far as I was concerned.   I had steadfastly maintained neutrality on the mage/Templar issue until Act 3, only to be forced into taking sides.   Since I don't believe people should be punished for something they didn't do, I invariably backed the mages, apart from once when I did the opposite, just to see what difference it would make - as it turned out precious little.

These are just a few examples, but I'd say I was pretty happy with the balance of the choices as presented in Origins.  

• The Connor choice might have seemed less black/white if by delaying dealing with the issue, more people in the village died.   On the face of it, you did seem to be taking one hell of a chance that Isolde and Teagan could keep Connor under control until you got back with mages from the Circle, particularly if you hadn't been to the Circle first, so you would have heard rumours of trouble there and then when you get there, you are delayed while you deal with the problem.    So this was an example of a "golden choice" because by taking the least logical option/chance, you got the optimal outcome.

Where I feel happier with a black/white breakdown is in the final ending.   I am an old fashioned fantasy gamer who likes to see good triumph over evil.     

 

In Origins the ultimate aim was to destroy the Archdemon and defeat the darkspawn - nice and clear cut.   

 

Then in Awakening we are introduced to the Architect and intelligent darkspawn and it becomes less so.

 

In DA2 I echoed Varric at the end: "I'm sick of mages and Templars".   My supposed ally blew up a public building, the surviving authority figure sought revenge on all mages, not just the one responsible for the act, the First Enchanter went nuts for no good reason (since I had just saved the mages with him), and finally Meredith was revealed as a steaming great hypocrite and insane to boot.   I suppose you could call that "grey".

 

I would also draw attention to the controversy over the ending choices to ME3.   There was no black/white choice there but only varying shades of grey (no matter what the colour system seemed to suggest) and look how people responded to that.   Would you really want the same at the end of Inquisition?

[Ieldra]

I think there should be decisions of all kinds, and no pattern should dominate the picture. Grey decisions are usually the most interesting, but there should be the occasional decision with several good outcomes, and - rarely - one with only bad options.

 

The main problem is that people think differently about what comprises a "grey" or "black and white" decision. This is because they value different moral domains differently, and because of different meta-ethics. Examples for moral domains are individual welfare, communal welfare and sacred principles. Example conflicting meta-ethics are consequentialism (outcome-oriented) vs. deontology (principle- and intent-oriented). Decisions often pit options driven by different moral concerns against each other, but if there is one concern a player doesn't value at all, the decision becomes more black and white.

 

Prime example: saving the Anvil of the Void. You can have the opinion that people's souls are sacrosanct, and condemn the anvil in principle. You can see its potential for good and bad and make saving it dependant on who controls it (this would favor destroying the thing, given Branka). You can value its potential for preserving dwarven civilization as too high to disregard for a temporary downside like Branka controlling it and preserve it. You can value it as a technological achievement that shouldn't be lost no matter what.

 

Is this a good setup? Taken by itself, it is. Somewhat, at least. If you preserve the anvil, both the good and the bad that could come from it manifest. The dwarves will push the darkspawn back with its help, but it is also misused. Still, one aspect is not satisfactory for me: if I want to preserve it, the game presents me with a non-intrinsic added downsided: I have to side with an evil madwoman. That is something I would not wish to be repeated. This is added to give weight to the intuitively good option that disregards any possible pragmatic benefit, and thus sends a message about a moral preference to the player. In addition, it sends the message that technological (or magical) advancement is always paired with evil. I think such messages should be avoided. 

[KainD]

All choices are always morally ambiguous. 

[Wolfen09]

if i remember correctly in one of the mass effects, there was a planet where someone was launching missiles and you only had time to warn one group, a military base or a residential district...  yeah, always did the residential, cause there was truly no backlash except admiral hackett bitching at you...  but as da2 appeared, i found that i wound up changing my sides multiple times, because each mission was different in terms of who was in the right... when it came down to the end in act 3, i just wanted to bash meredith, orsino, cullen, and anders heads in and tell everyone to behave or meet the same fate

[Mistic]

Actually I feel the previous games have had plenty of "grey" options, it is just that initially you might not view them that way.  

 

• Choosing Bhelen or Harrowmount.   You know the former is likely to become a dictator but, as Zevran points out, the latter seems too weak to be a leader if he cannot even maintain the loyalty of his own soldiers and has to get an outsider to fight for him.   Bhelen is for change and greater contact with the outside world, Harrowmount is for tradition and remaining isolated.    Even the epilogue leaves you wondering whether the choice you made was better than the alternative.
• Choosing to spare Loghain.   Much might depend on your character's origins and relationship with Alistair, particularly if you didn't have the Return to Ostagar DLC, but if your character can justify this, then actually it almost becomes the "golden option" since he will volunteer to make the sacrifice, so you can keep the Warden and Alistair alive and refuse Morrigan.   At the end Alistair, as king, even grudgingly admits that may be you made the right call.   However, you only discover this at the end.   At the time it can seem like you are just a ruthless opportunist, particularly if you are male and planning on marrying Anora and becoming king yourself.
• Agreeing or refusing the ritual.   There are valid arguments for either course of action.   Again, much will depend on your particular Warden but definitely a "grey" decision.
• Sparing or killing the Architect.   Since I hadn't read the Calling, I didn't know what his previous actions had been.   An argument for not reading the books prior to playing the game.   Still, the Grey Wardens were apparently appalled if you spare him, so they at least thing it is a bad thing but he seemed to give a very reasoned argument for why you should not, so to my mind it is another "grey" area.
• There were less obviously "grey" areas in DA2, at least so far as I was concerned.   I had steadfastly maintained neutrality on the mage/Templar issue until Act 3, only to be forced into taking sides.   Since I don't believe people should be punished for something they didn't do, I invariably backed the mages, apart from once when I did the opposite, just to see what difference it would make - as it turned out precious little.

These are just a few examples, but I'd say I was pretty happy with the balance of the choices as presented in Origins.  

• The Connor choice might have seemed less black/white if by delaying dealing with the issue, more people in the village died.   On the face of it, you did seem to be taking one hell of a chance that Isolde and Teagan could keep Connor under control until you got back with mages from the Circle, particularly if you hadn't been to the Circle first, so you would have heard rumours of trouble there and then when you get there, you are delayed while you deal with the problem.    So this was an example of a "golden choice" because by taking the least logical option/chance, you got the optimal outcome.

Where I feel happier with a black/white breakdown is in the final ending.   I am an old fashioned fantasy gamer who likes to see good triumph over evil.     

 

In Origins the ultimate aim was to destroy the Archdemon and defeat the darkspawn - nice and clear cut.   

 

Then in Awakening we are introduced to the Architect and intelligent darkspawn and it becomes less so.

 

In DA2 I echoed Varric at the end: "I'm sick of mages and Templars".   My supposed ally blew up a public building, the surviving authority figure sought revenge on all mages, not just the one responsible for the act, the First Enchanter went nuts for no good reason (since I had just saved the mages with him), and finally Meredith was revealed as a steaming great hypocrite and insane to boot.   I suppose you could call that "grey".

 

I would also draw attention to the controversy over the ending choices to ME3.   There was no black/white choice there but only varying shades of grey (no matter what the colour system seemed to suggest) and look how people responded to that.   Would you really want the same at the end of Inquisition?

 

I have to agree with you on almost everything. The epilogues in DA:O showed that our choices weren't as black/white as we thought. And then things got muddier.

 

The thing is, I don't think people want what they feel as crappy choices. "No matter your choice, you lose". The (original) endings in ME3 were felt that way by many, and the final showdown in DA2 left no one standing. You supported the mages? Too bad, Orsino was friends with a blood mage and now has become a hideous monster for no reason. You supported the templars? Too bad, Meredith has had her mind poisoned by red lyrium and now is an insane golem-maker.

 

That said, DA:O had interesting choices. And since there wasn't any Paragon-Renegade matter, you and your companions were the only ones to judge your decisions. And since each companion is different and each player is different, that opens many posibilities.

 

Grey choices are good. But as people in this forum prove everyday, each one has their own definition of "grey". And call me old-fashioned, but in an epic game I want to save the world.

[Mockingword]

I have almost never encountered a supposedly "morally ambiguous" dilemma in which I was unable to see the clearly correct path.

 

But since spending even a minute on this forum demonstrates that not everyone agrees with me about the clearly correct path, clearly the choices Bioware offers aren't as "black and white" as you claim.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

morally ambiguous? that... depends on one's morality.

 

decisions in DA were more of a pragmatic vs dogmatic nature, well for me at least.

[KainD]

I have almost never encountered a supposedly "morally ambiguous" dilemma in which I was unable to see the clearly correct path.

 

Everybody sees the correct path, only they make different choices and see different paths. 

[Mockingword]

Everybody sees the correct path, only they make different choices and see different paths. 

Yes, that was the point of what I went on to say. Good work.

[ajramsey]

I always felt that the games were more grey or good, especially in origins. I tried to do evil things in that game and everyone ended up turning on me so i had to go goody goody just to keep my party members. I would like to have something similar to the fallout games, and something like new Vegas where you can play everyone till the end and never pick a side and just killing everyone off and you end up running the show.

[Mihura]

I agree with the OP on some things. Personally I would prefers a mix of them. 

Many things in life are black and white, others not much. There are some occasions when you can have everything and others when whatever you do, you fail either way.

The problem is when you always have a perfect solution to everyone problems all the time. I believe that even on DA:O that was not possible. I think DA 2 did it nicely with the tones in the dialogue too, a more aggressive tone does not mean you could not help someone just for the sake of it, they separated the moral of the decisions out of the tone of the characters.

I found DA 2 concept really cool, at least when it touched the dialogue and choices. You could be an uneducated ****** that did the more sensible thing.  

[Bob from Accounting]

Grey decisions do not 'force/allow the player to decide for themselves' any more than clear decisions do. In fact, they 'restrict' the player a great deal more.

[AresKeith]

Grey decisions do not 'force/allow the player to decide for themselves' any more than clear decisions do. In fact, they 'restrict' the player a great deal more.

 

How so?

[TheJediSaint]

You need choices to fall all along the moral spectrum.  If they all the same shade of grey, then they lack meaningful difference.

[Bob from Accounting]

Hmm. You want the short or long answer to that question?

[Steelcan]

Grey decisions do not 'force/allow the player to decide for themselves' any more than clear decisions do. In fact, they 'restrict' the player a great deal more.

called it

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Hmm. You want the short or long answer to that question?

 

Whatever it is, it's the wrong one.