136 réponses à ce sujet

[TheNecroFiend]

Aeto Alessos wrote...

Viidicus wrote...

who's to say your character wanted to be a grey warden, what if you were conscripted and forced into it does that mean you have to aboide by the rules?.

I recall there being dialogue like "It wasn't my choice, i don't want to be a warden" something similiar to that anyhow. You don't have to abide by "the rules" i guess the soldier in the Korcari wilds is a good example of that.

The Human noble origin was really frustrating. The rationization for being a Grey Warden is so forced if you take the negative responses. It makes Duncan look like a total fool. Some guy's whole family gets wiped out and he tells you he is only interested in revenge.... so you conscript him. Forcing someone with that kind of emotional baggage into a situation that is contrary to their goals is just plain stupid. How would you possibly hope to control them.  And after Ostagar there is nothing keeping a characters who's motivation is revenge from abandoning the grey wardens. All the dialogue options at that point make no sense. I was really annoyed with the writing on that point. If it is mandatory for your story to have players join an organization don't write players into a situation that runs contrary to that.

[squid55801]

My issue is that I came in expecting more of a Mass Effect type experience. Where the folks would react differently to your dialogue options. Sure in the major quests your decisions matter and I am not arguing that. I am talking about the little people. With stuff like persuade or intimidate where I wasn't even sure if I had succeeded or not because the reactions didn't always reflect it. Or if I was mean to someone they would give me the same dialogue as if I kissed thier behinds. It seems rather pointless to have 5 different options that all lead to the same response.

[Branagen]

They should bring back the D&D rules where when you create your character you can decide on Good, Neutral, Evil, and the Neutrals of each. Which in turn depending on good or bad deeds you performed during the game your character's disposition would change and so would the NPC's attitude towards you.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Lakmoots wrote...


Unless you want an option where you abandon the Warden's and don't fight the Blight.

That is called switching off the game.

An apathetic character is a nice concept for a CRPG, don't you think?

[chessnut0]

As in many RPG's, most side quests in DAO assume that your character is good-aligned.  You either rescue good people from bad situations, or you assassinate or steal from bad people.  Trying to remain in character as evil forces you either to do these quests that are contrary to your alignment or skip them and lose the XP and loot you would get.

If they do introduce alignment into the next DAO, there should be seperate side quests for good and evil, with comparable rewards.  If neutrality is an option, then perhaps only a certain number of sidequests from each side could be available.  Baldur's Gate did something like that, with quests that were open only to good, good or neutral, evil or neutral, or evil characters.

[Branagen]

Yep. Loved the Baldurs Gate series!

[DreGregoire]

TheNecroFiend wrote...

The Human noble origin was really frustrating. The rationization for being a Grey Warden is so forced if you take the negative responses. It makes Duncan look like a total fool. Some guy's whole family gets wiped out and he tells you he is only interested in revenge.... so you conscript him. Forcing someone with that kind of emotional baggage into a situation that is contrary to their goals is just plain stupid. How would you possibly hope to control them.  And after Ostagar there is nothing keeping a characters who's motivation is revenge from abandoning the grey wardens. All the dialogue options at that point make no sense. I was really annoyed with the writing on that point. If it is mandatory for your story to have players join an organization don't write players into a situation that runs contrary to that.

By the time you get to Ostagar alot could have happened between you, the human noble, and Duncan, because Highever is very far away.  Ever played the Dalish Elf origin? Duncan's reaction to your objections is clear. (no spoilers here so play it to know it *winks*). It's up to you to use your imagination of the conversations between you and Duncan in the time it takes you to travel.  

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

There were certain quests in DAO that I felt was evil and since this is a no spoilers forum, I'll not go into details but it involves assasinations and defamation. I skipped all these because my character is good-aligned.

Modifié par The Hardest Thing In The World, 23 janvier 2010 - 06:02 .

[DreGregoire]

Viidicus wrote...



I think it would be sweet if the choices you choose in the game also effect how civilians treat you. If your an evil character they could snob you off and be nasty, or fear you and hand over money.

I ran into a problem in Lothering for doing certain things, I can't post anymore than that here in the non-spoiler sections.  But you are treated differently but I believe it's a area by area thing. So something you do in one area early in the game wouldn't be known by somebody in a different city, yet.

[DreGregoire]

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...

There were certain quests in DAO that I felt was evil and since this is a no spoilers forum, I'll not go into details but it involves assasinations and defamation. I skipped all these because my character is good-aligned.

Ditto

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

TheNecroFiend wrote...

Aeto Alessos wrote...

Viidicus wrote...

who's to say your character wanted to be a grey warden, what if you were conscripted and forced into it does that mean you have to aboide by the rules?.

I recall there being dialogue like "It wasn't my choice, i don't want to be a warden" something similiar to that anyhow. You don't have to abide by "the rules" i guess the soldier in the Korcari wilds is a good example of that.

The Human noble origin was really frustrating. The rationization for being a Grey Warden is so forced if you take the negative responses. It makes Duncan look like a total fool. Some guy's whole family gets wiped out and he tells you he is only interested in revenge.... so you conscript him. Forcing someone with that kind of emotional baggage into a situation that is contrary to their goals is just plain stupid. How would you possibly hope to control them.  And after Ostagar there is nothing keeping a characters who's motivation is revenge from abandoning the grey wardens. All the dialogue options at that point make no sense. I was really annoyed with the writing on that point. If it is mandatory for your story to have players join an organization don't write players into a situation that runs contrary to that.

Oh yes, completely agree with you. I started the game with a Human Noble warrior but as it plays out I couldn't continue with it and had to switch over to other Origins.I have completed City Elf and are now playing a Mage but won't be going back to the Human Noble Origins anytime soon.

Modifié par The Hardest Thing In The World, 23 janvier 2010 - 06:08 .

[AaronRiley08]

the thing about being evil in this game is that regardless of how you do it the mission of the game is the same, and even if you could deny being a warden and just quit it says in the game that you would just end up fighting darkspawn cause of the ties you have with them

[dan107]

In order for an evil playthrough to be enjoyable, there has to a satisfying evil path written into the game. An evil way to obtain great power at great expense, something like that. Something that's not available to good characters.

Dragon Age, like most games, has no such path. All those promises of moral ambiguity and shades of gray turned out to be complete BS. DA is clearly written with a good protagonist in mind, and whatever slight deviations there are from that make absolutely no sense story wise. Which is unfortunate given that the plot hooks for evil are all over the place, with blood magic and all that.

Modifié par dan107, 23 janvier 2010 - 06:25 .

[Valmy]

Evainelithe wrote...

[I strongly disagree with this. If you want to play evil get a different game? Wth. This is an RPG there should be fun in playing evil. RPG doesn't mean it's only for goody-two-shoes. As this game is a 'dark' rpg I expected far more -sensible- ways to be an evil character. Murder everything in your path isn't the kind of evil I'm referring to btw, I just call that Chaotic Stupid. Dragon Age really does tend to railroad you into being good and I rather detest that. I loved being evil in NWN 2 and I was rather disappointed in the 'evil' things you can do in DA.

It saddens me to see that so many people do not want more of an evil side in a game, why does it bother you so much. Are you afraid you won't be able to play good anymore? Does it detract from your gaming experience? You can still play good if you want to. So why all the negative responses?

I don't understand how you are railroaded into being 'good'.  Defeating the Blight is not 'good' it is just 'common sense' since the Darkspawn are going to kill everything....

and there is the fact that if you were evil in BG you still had to defeat Sarevok, if you were evil in BG2 you still had to defeat Irenicus, if you were evil in KOTOR you still had to defeat Malak, if you were evil in Mass Effect you still had to defeat Saren...

If you do not like that aspect of Bioware games then seriously play a different companies games.  You people seriously have to know what you are getting by now.

[Valmy]

dan107 wrote...

Dragon Age, like most games, has no such path.

There are some ways to play politics to get yourself as much power as possible.  I disagree there is no such path you can screw over people pretty well if you are creative.  It however is far more subtle than some people would like it seems and the ending doesn't look that much different than the good ending.  But really I fail to see how it could be otherwise in the context of the story.  If the Blight is not defeated what difference does the rest make?

[CptPatch]

I don't feel like your Hero is allowed to be anything even close to truly "Evil".  You have opportunities to kill the occasionally kill someone rather than fix their problems ("Put them out of their misery"), but you can't simply decide to go on a murder spree.  About the most "Evil" thing you can do, it seems, is to pick the pocket of absolutely everyone you encounter.  (Which makes you more of a kleptomaniac than an actual "Evil" person.)

In the numerous dialogs that come up, the most "Evil" choices make you appear to be a cowardly whiner.  "I wasn't given a choice!" is more pathetic than anything else.  About the most insulting you can get is something, "Quit your whining and be a mensch."

"Evil"?  It ain't there.  Selfish, greedy, egotistical, and insensitive, yes -- but those only make you a pathetic jerk at worst.  And where's the _fun_ in that?

[Sir dude of kent]

[/quote]

Fallout 3 does this quite well, the main quests you undertook had choices the 'Good' the 'neutral' and the 'evil' and depending which choices you choose you will see characters act different towards you. DA:O gives you these choics too at times but leaves no consequence and even with most of the dialoge you encounter with civilians you can tell that the game is in a way forcing you to be good.

[/quote]

yep , i noticed this - being cruel makes no difference , its to geared toward being good.... (this game anyway)  - the choices you have are pretty basic - ive tested this , being quite rude with the cut scene dialogue - you could call the guys mother a so n so and hell be very mild toward me. - only thing i see is alot or ramonce stuff with my party - but being bad to anyone seems to efftect with women party members and everyone else in the game world are to docile.

[bconk55]

Viidicus wrote...

Well, its not that it isn't fun but it just seems that no one really cares, asif they're saying...'sure, you can go ahead and kill these few hundred people, we dont care'.. what im trying to say is that there is no real consequences for what you do becides pissing off a few party members. the rest of the world dont care, i mean. i could for example wipe out a whole village killing hundreds of people and no one would give a crap because at the end no matter what path you choose you seem to be a hero.

What im saying is that there is no real 'Evil' path, you can do evil things but with no consequence, people will still smile at you and be friendly.
You hear about how blood mages are evil and so forth throughout the game but you urself can role as a blood mage and no one will care... whats with that?

I think it would be sweet if the choices you choose in the game also effect how civilians treat you. If your an evil character they could snob you off and be nasty, or fear you and hand over money.

who's to say your character wanted to be a grey warden, what if you were conscripted and forced into it does that mean you have to abide by the rules?.

I'm gonna have to agree. I had planned on doing an "evil" play through, but I've noticed that most "evil" choices are simply morally ambiguous, especially when dealing with non-plot specific encounters. Also, as an evil character with coercion I was hoping for a lot more chances to lie, but they are few and far between and well hidden. All too often you lock yourself out of choices in search of the lie option. It just really pulls you out of the immersion when you're hunting for the evil answers.

Some of the plot choices are more "evil", but just barely. Some are only "evil" if you're metagaming (both times when you can kill off a group of people), some are only "evil" if you believe in Chantry teachings, etc. What I really missed from the game was the feeling that by doing the right thing I was giving up some power, satisfaction, or self-benefit that I would receive by doing the evil thing. Instead, most of the evil choices just play out as alternative choices, seldom more beneficial to the individual, and sometimes less beneficial (to the point that a self-serving character should actually "fake" being good for the benefit alone).

[bconk55]

Valmy wrote...

Evainelithe wrote...

[I strongly disagree with this. If you want to play evil get a different game? Wth. This is an RPG there should be fun in playing evil. RPG doesn't mean it's only for goody-two-shoes. As this game is a 'dark' rpg I expected far more -sensible- ways to be an evil character. Murder everything in your path isn't the kind of evil I'm referring to btw, I just call that Chaotic Stupid. Dragon Age really does tend to railroad you into being good and I rather detest that. I loved being evil in NWN 2 and I was rather disappointed in the 'evil' things you can do in DA.

It saddens me to see that so many people do not want more of an evil side in a game, why does it bother you so much. Are you afraid you won't be able to play good anymore? Does it detract from your gaming experience? You can still play good if you want to. So why all the negative responses?

I don't understand how you are railroaded into being 'good'.  Defeating the Blight is not 'good' it is just 'common sense' since the Darkspawn are going to kill everything....

and there is the fact that if you were evil in BG you still had to defeat Sarevok, if you were evil in BG2 you still had to defeat Irenicus, if you were evil in KOTOR you still had to defeat Malak, if you were evil in Mass Effect you still had to defeat Saren...

If you do not like that aspect of Bioware games then seriously play a different companies games.  You people seriously have to know what you are getting by now.

All of those games had deeper "evil" routes than DA:O. No one is asking for something we haven't seen already.

[errant_knight]

Wishpig wrote...

Korvayer wrote...

For me, being evil is less fun because I have a tendency to become personally detached from my character, but that's no fault of Bioware. I suppose I'm not versatile enough in my ability to roleplay.

You and me both... I don't feel so much detached as I do horribly guilty. It's stupid cause their f*in computer game characters, but I still can't screw them over.

I even feel bad when I charge someone for a good deed if theres an option to refuse payment.

This isn't a bad thing.

[Moirnelithe]

Valmy wrote...

Evainelithe wrote...

[I strongly disagree with this. If you want to play evil get a different game? Wth. This is an RPG there should be fun in playing evil. RPG doesn't mean it's only for goody-two-shoes. As this game is a 'dark' rpg I expected far more -sensible- ways to be an evil character. Murder everything in your path isn't the kind of evil I'm referring to btw, I just call that Chaotic Stupid. Dragon Age really does tend to railroad you into being good and I rather detest that. I loved being evil in NWN 2 and I was rather disappointed in the 'evil' things you can do in DA.

It saddens me to see that so many people do not want more of an evil side in a game, why does it bother you so much. Are you afraid you won't be able to play good anymore? Does it detract from your gaming experience? You can still play good if you want to. So why all the negative responses?

I don't understand how you are railroaded into being 'good'.  Defeating the Blight is not 'good' it is just 'common sense' since the Darkspawn are going to kill everything....

and there is the fact that if you were evil in BG you still had to defeat Sarevok, if you were evil in BG2 you still had to defeat Irenicus, if you were evil in KOTOR you still had to defeat Malak, if you were evil in Mass Effect you still had to defeat Saren...

If you do not like that aspect of Bioware games then seriously play a different companies games.  You people seriously have to know what you are getting by now.

I loved the BG series. What I'm saying is that the evil perspective in DA is nowhere near as good as in BG. And don't start with the 'you people' bs.

[Moirnelithe]

dan107 wrote...

In order for an evil playthrough to be enjoyable, there has to a satisfying evil path written into the game. An evil way to obtain great power at great expense, something like that. Something that's not available to good characters.

Dragon Age, like most games, has no such path. All those promises of moral ambiguity and shades of gray turned out to be complete BS. DA is clearly written with a good protagonist in mind, and whatever slight deviations there are from that make absolutely no sense story wise. Which is unfortunate given that the plot hooks for evil are all over the place, with blood magic and all that.

This. Someone who actually gets it.

[BooPi]

I tried playing a semi-evil anti-hero no-mercy kind of character on my last playthrough. Even killed (notable companion spoiler) when I met him. Not even 5 minutes later, I was regretting missing out on that portion of the gameplay, but I had already replaced my older save. =( I'm never murder knifing someone ever again.

But you tend to have fewer traveling companions if you murder-knife them and poison their holy relics and leave them in cages to be eaten and such, so I would call that a significant consequence.

Is there something wrong with the (realistic) path of nobody hanging out with you or helping you if you are a jerk?

Modifié par BooPi, 23 janvier 2010 - 07:41 .

[angj57]

As far as consequences go, I don't see why a shopkeeper in Denerim should react differently to you based on what you have done in Orzamar or Lothering. That is the problem with games like Fallout, where there is clearly not a lot of communications between settlements, but your "karma" affects how people react to you.  And even that is a step above the old system, where you pick an allignment but are allowed to act however you want throughout the game, and people will still react to you based not on your actions but on the allignment you picked.  It's hard to give examples without spoilers, but Dragon Age does a good job of having people within a community react to your actions that affect that community.

As far as game choices go, evil paths always seem forced. Maybe not in KOTOR, but that is only because the Star Wars universe is so seeped in the idea of jedi turning to the dark side. Any game that attempts to have realism is not going to have such a clear moral duality.  If by evil you guys mean simply being a sociopath, you can certainly do that. If you mean being able to grab personal power as you can regardless of who you hurt in the process. . . you are allowed to do that to an extent, but it wouldn't really make sense for that to be anyone's first priority given the blight and all that is going on in the game world.

[Moirnelithe]

bconk55 wrote...

Viidicus wrote...

Well, its not that it isn't fun but it just seems that no one really cares, asif they're saying...'sure, you can go ahead and kill these few hundred people, we dont care'.. what im trying to say is that there is no real consequences for what you do becides pissing off a few party members. the rest of the world dont care, i mean. i could for example wipe out a whole village killing hundreds of people and no one would give a crap because at the end no matter what path you choose you seem to be a hero.

What im saying is that there is no real 'Evil' path, you can do evil things but with no consequence, people will still smile at you and be friendly.
You hear about how blood mages are evil and so forth throughout the game but you urself can role as a blood mage and no one will care... whats with that?

I think it would be sweet if the choices you choose in the game also effect how civilians treat you. If your an evil character they could snob you off and be nasty, or fear you and hand over money.

who's to say your character wanted to be a grey warden, what if you were conscripted and forced into it does that mean you have to abide by the rules?.

I'm gonna have to agree. I had planned on doing an "evil" play through, but I've noticed that most "evil" choices are simply morally ambiguous, especially when dealing with non-plot specific encounters. Also, as an evil character with coercion I was hoping for a lot more chances to lie, but they are few and far between and well hidden. All too often you lock yourself out of choices in search of the lie option. It just really pulls you out of the immersion when you're hunting for the evil answers.

Some of the plot choices are more "evil", but just barely. Some are only "evil" if you're metagaming (both times when you can kill off a group of people), some are only "evil" if you believe in Chantry teachings, etc. What I really missed from the game was the feeling that by doing the right thing I was giving up some power, satisfaction, or self-benefit that I would receive by doing the evil thing. Instead, most of the evil choices just play out as alternative choices, seldom more beneficial to the individual, and sometimes less beneficial (to the point that a self-serving character should actually "fake" being good for the benefit alone).

Exactly. I think DA could have been far more satisfying had they taken this into account. I understand that DA was supposed to be different and wants to move away from the alignment options in AD&D but what they really did is just make things less interesting and fun for those of us who enjoy being something different than cookiecutter good guy.