115 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

I prefer stabbing them with sharp things. Blood Magic just looks like work.

Well yeah if you just want to kill them, then a quick telekinetic blast to the face to break their neck will do the trick.

[Ello Naver]

What we define as "good" and "evil" are simply a matter of perspective. What many of us might view as the "good" choice at first glance might actually be the selfish choice! And I love how two people can play a Bioware game and have a completely different belief on what is right and what is wrong.

I just went back and replayed KotOR (which before that playthrough were my favorite game) and how disappointed was I when I saw what classified as lightside (aka "good") and darkside (aka "evil") choices.That is a reason why DA is such a great game, Bioware haven't proclaimed what is good and evil beforehand. Cause it is ultimately a matter of perspective.
For example
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=MjInPPVz7oo
at 4:30

The choice to save the city might seem as the "good" choice at first glance, rushing in and saving people. However, the choice to sacrifice people to stop a war,and thereby saving countless more people is what I would deem as the "good" choice in that situation. The choice were you save the city is actually a selfish one, you don't want the death of those people on your conscience so you choose to save the people, continue the war and thereby sacrificing countless more lives. Just because you didn't want to have to live with a guilty conscience.
The personal sacrifice (which equals goodness to most people) is actually the sacrifice of the city.

So whilst choices in DA might seam like black and white they might actually be more gray, when you can argue for every different side of the choice.
And choices where one can not win whatever one choices are as mentioned above very appealing.

[Sifr]

I actually enjoyed the Kashyyk part if you're playing Light Side, because in retrospect, it really showed a good example of who Revan was and who they were now.

 

But you're right, what you could personally consider is the right thing do to and what ultimately was the right thing to do, are two very different things when you actually get down to it. Like in Mass Effect, where Paragon Shepard lets Rana Thanoptis go in both the first game and the second, only to later discover in ME3 that Rana was indoctrinated the entire time and later murdered a ton of people. Or on Illium, where you can let Elnora go after she protests her innocent, only to discover that she was really responsible for the sadistic murder of that Volus in order to pass an Eclipse initiation test.

 

Sometimes the "good" option is not always the correct one.

[KainD]

But you're right, what you could personally consider is the right thing do to and what ultimately was the right thing to do, are two very different things when you actually get down to it.

 

There is no ultimate right thing to do, only what you personally consider to be right. 

[BubbleDncr]

At first I really liked the choice in Origins to either kill Conner or do Blood Magic. That was a hard, grey area choice. Then I found out later that if you kept saying "is there no other option?" they actually DID come up with another, perfect solution option. I didn't like that, because once you found out that was an option, there was literally no reason to take the other two options unless you just want to be an *******.

 

So I think having a "golden option" weakens having "greay choices." If there is going to be a "golden option," I would prefer it to be after you make your choice, you can either make another choice along the way (in both scenarios) that you make it turn out slightly golden, or have some difficult challenge (like a really tough times limit or something) that makes it very difficult, but possible, to perhaps make everything turn out awesome.

 

But as much as I like morally ambiguous choices (cos its what makes choices tough), I also like my share of black and white choices, just to make my evil playthroughs fun.

 

I also think they can add some more flavor to the black and white choices though. Make some of the good choices take more time/energy/resources, while the evil choices make things easier for the player.

[Giggles_Manically]

I think one of the best M.A.C in an RPG for me was the choice over Sadia in Skyrim.

 

I mean it was pure he said vs she said without really anything to support one side to much.

With plenty of reasons to RP either reason as well, which was also good.

 

All to often though in RPGs it comes down to "Selfless vs Greediness" or "Nobility vs Sociopathy"

Like in Infamous. Good Cole is a hero in every way, but evil Cole is just a plan monster in many ways.

 

What I hate is when I get forced between acting like Superman or like the Joker.

Sometimes I want to be Batman.

[Battlebloodmage]

inb4 "meaningful heroism"

In before bisexual, Cullen, Liara, kossith.

 

C'mon, something has to stick, right? 

[Cobra's_back]

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?

 

Good point. I hated DA2 ending and ME3 for just the reason you stated. There was no real choice. 

[Xilizhra]

I actually enjoyed the Kashyyk part if you're playing Light Side, because in retrospect, it really showed a good example of who Revan was and who they were now.

 

But you're right, what you could personally consider is the right thing do to and what ultimately was the right thing to do, are two very different things when you actually get down to it. Like in Mass Effect, where Paragon Shepard lets Rana Thanoptis go in both the first game and the second, only to later discover in ME3 that Rana was indoctrinated the entire time and later murdered a ton of people. Or on Illium, where you can let Elnora go after she protests her innocent, only to discover that she was really responsible for the sadistic murder of that Volus in order to pass an Eclipse initiation test.

 

Sometimes the "good" option is not always the correct one.

Rana Thanoptis wasn't actually indoctrinated then, she just became so later; it was an unfortunate coincidence. As for Elnora, I disagree that alerting the police to her crime was inherently worse than summarily executing her.

[Bob from Accounting]

If every option has a both good and bad sides, then that's the definition of grey, as opposed to black and white, where one option monopolizes the good and the other the bad.

 

This is simply not true in the slightest.

 

An option can have disadvantages, even severe ones, and still overwhelmingly and obviously be the good choice.

[Tevinter Soldier]

Here's a better idea - you slit your enemies wrist and twist their mind. Win.

Oh I understand the appeal, but there's something so uncivilized about cutting and magically ripping people apart, when you can just set them ablaze before munching on cookies. You can't eat cookies when your covered in blood.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Good point. I hated DA2 ending and ME3 for just the reason you stated. There was no real choice. 

Can't really say that about ME3 yet since we don't know how the choices in 3 will affect Mass Effect: Next.

[Bob from Accounting]

But you're right, what you could personally consider is the right thing do to and what ultimately was the right thing to do, are two very different things when you actually get down to it. Like in Mass Effect, where Paragon Shepard lets Rana Thanoptis go in both the first game and the second, only to later discover in ME3 that Rana was indoctrinated the entire time and later murdered a ton of people. Or on Illium, where you can let Elnora go after she protests her innocent, only to discover that she was really responsible for the sadistic murder of that Volus in order to pass an Eclipse initiation test.

 

Sometimes the "good" option is not always the correct one.

 

Uh, yes. It is.

 

Buying a lottery ticket and winning and donating it all to charity doesn't make playing the lottery smart or right. It just makes you lucky. Firing randomly into a crowd of innocent people and happening to hit a serial killer or whatever and nobody else doesn't make it right or smart. It makes you very lucky.
 

[Snore]

I think one of the best M.A.C in an RPG for me was the choice over Sadia in Skyrim.

 

I mean it was pure he said vs she said without really anything to support one side to much.

With plenty of reasons to RP either reason as well, which was also good.

 

All to often though in RPGs it comes down to "Selfless vs Greediness" or "Nobility vs Sociopathy"

Like in Infamous. Good Cole is a hero in every way, but evil Cole is just a plan monster in many ways.

 

What I hate is when I get forced between acting like Superman or like the Joker.

Sometimes I want to be Batman.

Actually if you knew the lore that choice would be easiest choice in world if you're weren't role playing an Thalmor loyalist. Sadia is lying though her teeth, the Redguards kicked the Dominion out of Hammerfell sometime after the Great War.

 

Personally I haven't really been conflicted with many of the morally ambiguous choices that Bioware has put out. Only one I had a hard time choosing is between Harrowmount and Bhelan. 

[Dysjong]

Just remove anything called diplomacy skills and go with your choices. A problem i have seen in ME trilogy and DA:O is that skill. I call it "i win button" because, well i win! It is such an easy thing to do and it can be annoying. In DA 2, i enjoyed the dialogs alot more and i was more careful about what i would say. Deus ex human revolution is even better at this.

[Sifr]

Uh, yes. It is.

 

Buying a lottery ticket and winning and donating it all to charity doesn't make playing the lottery smart or right. It just makes you lucky. Firing randomly into a crowd of innocent people and happening to hit a serial killer or whatever and nobody else doesn't make it right or smart. It makes you very lucky.
 

 

But you're talking about taking chances and probabilities, that has nothing to do with moral choice making. There's nothing immoral about playing the lottery, unless you stole the winning ticket out of the pocket of a dead man and then immediately used the winnings to start a drug empire?

 

I should have clarified that I meant that in hindsight, both those decisions I mentioned in my previous post turned out to be wrong ones, albeit no-one could have known that at the time. It was the right choice for that character to have made, given the facts that were presented to them at the time. A good example that's even discussed in ME3 is the decision to rewrite the Heretic Geth which seemed to be the best option, only for Shepard and Legion to lament that it actually made things slightly worse overall.

 

And yes, in real-life of course, we're don't have such thing a luxury of do-overs or to meta-game our decisions.

 

Regarding Rana, it's suggested that she was indeed indoctrinated from her time on Virmire, but was merely a Manchurian Agent who's brainwashing only properly kicked in once she gained access to Asari military leaders, whereupon she went postal.