136 réponses à ce sujet

[Jhime]

I like the system in this game far better than any alignment based one. It just doesn't make sense to me that everyone magically would know if I'm evil, or that I have to stay either purely evil or purely good to get the best rewards. I don't want to be totally corrupt when I play, but neither do I want to be a pure saint.

[Harelda]

I didn't find the evil options any less satisfying* than the good options. For me, it was about being immersed in my characters mindset, and justifying things as either being best for him or just for the laughs. Sure, he might have to fake being nice sometimes. Evil can be discreet. I guess if you want brash evil, you're outta luck. Quiet, insidious evil that usually hides itself with occasional outbursts to show their true colours is more appealing to me.



* being evil made me a sad panda. It was heartwrenching! Who's gonna darn Alistair's shirts now?! He's gonna get cold...

[Abriael_CG]

Sir dude of kent wrote...
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.

And as a result the story of Fallout 3 sucks, badly, like the story of every bethesda game.

There's an unbreakable rule in games storytelling, unless you have infinite resources (and no game developer has infinite resources), the more options you give, the more you branch the storyline, the less the story and the characters will be fleshed out, and the more the storytelling part of your game will, you know, suck.

I, for one, I'm very happy that Bioware created a great story, and know very well that if they fleshed more the "evil" part of the game, they would have had to spend less resources and effort into the "good" one, resulting in a mediocre product on both sides instead of a game that really excels at one and is mediocre in the other.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 23 janvier 2010 - 08:04 .

[bconk55]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Sir dude of kent wrote...
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.

And as a result the story of Fallout 3 sucks, badly, like the story of every bethesda game.

There's an unbreakable rule in games storytelling, unless you have infinite resources (and no game developer has infinite resources), the more options you give, the more you branch the storyline, the less the story and the characters will be fleshed out, and the more the storytelling part of your game will, you know, suck.

I, for one, I'm very happy that Bioware created a great story, and know very well that if they fleshed more the "evil" part of the game, they would have had to spend less resources and effort into the "good" one, resulting in a mediocre product on both sides instead of a game that really excels at one and is mediocre in the other.

Honestly, it's just their choice of not having an independent consequence system that limits the power of good or evil choices. As flawed and oversimplified as the reputation system was in the BG series, the thing it got right was unintended consequences. That doesn't happen in DA:O. You make X decision, you get Y consequence. You get a bit of the unintended consequence with party members, but since you can literally buy their approval, this is easily mitigated. Even so, I don't think there would have ever been a point where I would have lost the use of a party member due simply to the aggregate of my actions (ignoring, of course, the few choices that result in immediate departure).

The lack of an independent consequence system also makes things like stealing boring and tedious. It means I can murder guy X and guy Y, regardless of his personal views, will still be my best buddy. It's just...bland.

Don't get me wrong, I think the game plays incredibly as a "good" player, it's just when you try to step outside that role, even a little, nothing really changes.

A repuation system might have its flaws, but it has far more benefits for the roleplayer. And it isn't something that is resource heavy, like creating an entirely different "evil" course.

Modifié par bconk55, 23 janvier 2010 - 08:33 .

[RangerSG]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Sir dude of kent wrote...
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.

And as a result the story of Fallout 3 sucks, badly, like the story of every bethesda game.

There's an unbreakable rule in games storytelling, unless you have infinite resources (and no game developer has infinite resources), the more options you give, the more you branch the storyline, the less the story and the characters will be fleshed out, and the more the storytelling part of your game will, you know, suck.

I, for one, I'm very happy that Bioware created a great story, and know very well that if they fleshed more the "evil" part of the game, they would have had to spend less resources and effort into the "good" one, resulting in a mediocre product on both sides instead of a game that really excels at one and is mediocre in the other.

I have to agree. First of all, being "thug-evil" is just plain dull, to me. I've never liked the "Oh, let me murder random people," evil choices. If I want to play 'evil' I want to play a self-serving and manipulative character who ends up holding as much power/money/authority as they can. Preferably without 'looking' like they screwed over anyone until it's too late for them to respond. IOW, Macchiavellian is better than thug, anyday. I think you can make weave some pretty tangles webs if you want to in the game. As to 'how', well this should've been posted in the no-spoiler section, then we could've discussed cases.

Also, the idea that globally "everyone would treat me different" if I'm evil. Ummm, no. There's no internet. No faster-than-horse travel. And even most normal travel is going to be disrupted or excessively dangerous due to the Blight and desperate people doing desperate things with no law to stop them. So why would news travel so much incredibly faster than you? And even if it did, how many people have 'seen' you well enough and communicated your appearance well-enough to warn others? This in a world where 90% of the people are illiterate, mind you. So frankly no, it's illogical that instantly everyone knows that you're evil. Unless you come into town shouting your identity (which really you shouldn't, given the in-game circumstances), and broadcasting your own 'evil deeds' (which is not 'evil' as such, more like stupid).

Modifié par RangerSG, 23 janvier 2010 - 08:26 .

[bconk55]

RangerSG wrote...

Abriael_CG wrote...

Sir dude of kent wrote...
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.

And as a result the story of Fallout 3 sucks, badly, like the story of every bethesda game.

There's an unbreakable rule in games storytelling, unless you have infinite resources (and no game developer has infinite resources), the more options you give, the more you branch the storyline, the less the story and the characters will be fleshed out, and the more the storytelling part of your game will, you know, suck.

I, for one, I'm very happy that Bioware created a great story, and know very well that if they fleshed more the "evil" part of the game, they would have had to spend less resources and effort into the "good" one, resulting in a mediocre product on both sides instead of a game that really excels at one and is mediocre in the other.

Also, the idea that globally "everyone would treat me different" if I'm evil. Ummm, no. There's no internet. No faster-than-horse travel. And even most normal travel is going to be disrupted or excessively dangerous due to the Blight and desperate people doing desperate things with no law to stop them. So why would news travel so much incredibly faster than you? And even if it did, how many people have 'seen' you well enough and communicated your appearance well-enough to warn others? This in a world where 90% of the people are illiterate, mind you. So frankly no, it's illogical that instantly everyone knows that you're evil. Unless you come into town shouting your identity (which really you shouldn't, given the in-game circumstances), and broadcasting your own 'evil deeds' (which is not 'evil' as such, more like stupid).

While I agree about the flaws of a "repuation" system, but when the choice is between unrealistic consquences, or really none to speak of, I would rather take the unrealistic ones. And, of course, the reputation system you and I are both thinking about is simply the resource light version. There could easily be more complex ones (maybe independent meters for each area, and affected only by things that are "witnessed"), but then I have to agree with Abriael, it becomes a question of resources.

Modifié par bconk55, 23 janvier 2010 - 08:32 .

[Abriael_CG]

bconk55 wrote...

A repuation system might have its flaws, but it has far more benefits for the roleplayer. And it isn't something that is resource heavy, like creating and entirely different "evil" course.

Yes, it has it's flaws, and one of the main flaws is that the story tends to be worse. Bethesda's games are the perfect example of that. That's, I'm afraid, a flaw I'm not up to live with for the sake of a minority that wants to play the evil overlord in a computer game. There are, after all, some games that are built entirely on that premise for the ones that like it.

Also, you might want to consider that DA:O will carry it's results and your choices to the expansion. For what we know, it might even do that to DA2 (they are doing that with Mass Effect after all). Adding a whole fully fleshed out "evil path" would increase the width of such branching exponentially, makijng things possibly too complex to be handled.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 23 janvier 2010 - 08:35 .

[bconk55]

Abriael_CG wrote...

bconk55 wrote...

A repuation system might have its flaws, but it has far more benefits for the roleplayer. And it isn't something that is resource heavy, like creating and entirely different "evil" course.

Yes, it has it's flaws, and one of the main flaws is that the story tends to be worse. Bethesda's games are the perfect example of that. That's, I'm afraid, a flaw I'm not up to live with for the sake of a minority that wants to play out some sociopathic fantasies in a computer game. There are, after all, some games that are built entirely on that premise for the ones that like it.

Also, you might want to consider that DA:O will carry it's results and your choices to the expansion. For what we know, it might even do that to DA2 (they are doing that with Mass Effect after all). Adding a whole fully fleshed out "evil path" would increase the width of such branching exponentially, makijng things possibly too complex to be handled.

I'm not sure why I thought you'd engage in a real discussion...I guess I never learn.

It isn't about "sociopathic fantasies", it's about consequences. In fact, the lack of consquences seems to fuel the sociopath idea far more than their presence.

I realize that anything counter to your argument is automatically "the minority", but I find it hard to believe that the majority of roleplaying game players would be against having their actions result in greater consequences. You want games with good stories that have no choices? They have those, but they are often criticized for not actually being RPGs. This game is very clearly trying to be an RPG, and it's a fantastic game, but it lacks elements that existed and made the experience greater in the past generation of games, made not by Bethesda, but by Bioware.

I haven't advocated a "fully fleshed out evil path". In fact, I conceeded the point that resources are an obstacle (although, simply saying "it would take more resources" is not a compelling argument to me, I do agree that an entire alternate route would be a large undertaking). That is why I brought up the reputation system. It is a, granted, artificial fix, but it is one that often feels more engaging than everything being strictly scripted. Are you really okay with simply receiving a dirty look when you fail to pickpocket someone? Sorry, but that is a very real example of something being minimalized by the lack of a consequence system.

[CptPatch]

I think that the underlying flaw in regards to Good versus Evil is that at its core, DA:O is about self-sacrifice. There is absolutely no option for, "Not my job. Let somebody else stop the Blight." This game is all about laying your life on the line, over and over again. And for what? You will NOT get wealthy. You will NOT have the visceral satisfaction of subjecting others to your power and forcibly bend them to your will. You will NOT get the opportunity to organize your own personal criminal organization to make you fabulously wealthy by feeding off of everyone else's misery.



Being Evil is ultimately all about what _I_ want. And what _I_ want is to NOT put **my** life at risk unless there's an incredibly worthwhile reward in it for me for doing so. As a truly Evil person, I want to go take a vacation in someplace comfortable and safe and wait for this whole mess to blow over. THEN move in and try to take advantage of the inevitable chaos that follows.



Nope. This game is all about stopping the Blight, and that will require a substantial amount of self-sacrifice. And THAT does not conform to "Evil" in any way shape or form.

[TyroneTasty]

Aside from everyone in the world ending up hating your character because they are a world renown jerk-off, there are a huge amount of truly despicable things you can do in this game, with real consequences. Just about every major quest has the opportunity to do something morally suspect. So what if the shop keepers or entire population of Denerim don't end up hating you? Big deal. To me these major moments where you are presented with choices to do such terrible things has far greater impact on me as a player than random NPC #4231 telling me to go away.

[Korvayer]

CptPatch wrote...

I think that the underlying flaw in regards to Good versus Evil is that at its core, DA:O is about self-sacrifice.

Good point.  Advancing the plot in DA:O isn't generally so much a matter of choosing between good and evil as it is choosing between WWJD, WWJBD (What would Jack Bauer do?), or something in between.

[CptPatch]

TyroneTasty wrote...

Aside from everyone in the world ending up hating your character because they are a world renown jerk-off, there are a huge amount of truly despicable things you can do in this game, with real consequences. Just about every major quest has the opportunity to do something morally suspect. So what if the shop keepers or entire population of Denerim don't end up hating you? Big deal. To me these major moments where you are presented with choices to do such terrible things has far greater impact on me as a player than random NPC #4231 telling me to go away.

Straightforward question: Is it even possible to complete the game and NOT end the Blight?  You may be a world-class jerk, but when all is said and done, you _still_ laid your life on the line to accomplish that goal.

[Hmm.  Come to think of it, being that kind of jerk and still ending the Blight sort of puts you in the same class as SPOILER.]

[DarkMessiah388]

You know what would be cool is if you could go off and murder people when you wanted, and word would make it back to their faction, which would make them want to bring you to justice. Now, what if there were witnesses, and messengers carrying this word back that you could track down or hunt down to stop it from reaching said faction? Whether there are witnesses or not would depend on you. And there could even be an evidence factor here, like dog bites on bodies, if you're travelling witgh your faithful hound, that could be evidence of your crimes. Interesting...

[RangerSG]

CptPatch wrote...

TyroneTasty wrote...

Aside from everyone in the world ending up hating your character because they are a world renown jerk-off, there are a huge amount of truly despicable things you can do in this game, with real consequences. Just about every major quest has the opportunity to do something morally suspect. So what if the shop keepers or entire population of Denerim don't end up hating you? Big deal. To me these major moments where you are presented with choices to do such terrible things has far greater impact on me as a player than random NPC #4231 telling me to go away.

Straightforward question: Is it even possible to complete the game and NOT end the Blight?  You may be a world-class jerk, but when all is said and done, you _still_ laid your life on the line to accomplish that goal.

[Hmm.  Come to think of it, being that kind of jerk and still ending the Blight sort of puts you in the same class as SPOILER.]

Well, here's another question. Why would you 'not' end the Blight if you know what the consequences are? What, you WANT to become Darkspawn? You WANT to get killed? That's not 'evil' that's DUMB. There's nothing "self-serving" about that. Even if you're a self-absorbed twit, you should care enough to save your own behind.

[Abriael_CG]

bconk55 wrote...
I realize that anything counter to your argument is automatically "the minority", but I find it hard to believe that the majority of roleplaying game players would be against having their actions result in greater consequences. You want games with good stories that have no choices? They have those, but they are often criticized for not actually being RPGs

Yeah, and who criticizes them? The usual vocal minority of forum-dwelling RPG elitists lost in their sandbox dreams in which the computer acts as a dungeon master and reacts to every little choices of theirs like an human being.
The vast majority of gamers couldn't care the less, and chugs down JRPG after JRPG with no real choice allowed, just because the story is good. Can't blame them, the stories ARE good.

In the end DA:O gives a VERY wide array of choices more than most games out there, asking more than that is simply unrealistic.

That is why I brought up the reputation system. It is a, granted, artificial fix, but it is one that often feels more engaging than everything being strictly scripted. Are you really okay with simply receiving a dirty look when you fail to pickpocket someone? Sorry, but that is a very real example of something being minimalized by the lack of a consequence system.

And how does someone reacting to your attempt to pickpocket by attacking you increase your fun playing the game? It's extremely little details lost in a sea of gameplay, and one of the best stories ever created for a videogame.

Very probably if they cared about those little details about which most people couldn't care the less, we'd have been treated to a lesser story like Oblivion's or Fallout's. Thanks but no thanks

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 24 janvier 2010 - 01:55 .

[totertot]

Nah, being evil is fun. I liked stabbing people with my leetle knife. And being rude to party members.

[CptPatch]

RangerSG wrote...
Well, here's another question. Why would you 'not' end the Blight if you know what the consequences are? What, you WANT to become Darkspawn? You WANT to get killed? That's not 'evil' that's DUMB. There's nothing "self-serving" about that. Even if you're a self-absorbed twit, you should care enough to save your own behind.

Pointedly a great exaggeration.

At the moment, the Blight is ONLY in Ferelden.  There's a great wide world beyond Ferelden's borders.  Orlais has already mobilized and would already be on the scene if not for SPOILER.  And several other nations are mobilizing.

In DA:O, you as the Hero save _Ferelden_.  An Evil person really wouldn't care what happens to just one rustic, backwoods country with hardly much of any culture of its own.  LOTS of other Wardens in all of the surrounding countries, with LOTS of troops to support them.  Let _them_ end the Blight.  It's downright suicidal to try to end a Blight AND deal with a civil war in a nation whose official government has put a bounty on your head.

THAT is why an Evil person would have no interest in personally ending a Blight.

[Darth Obvious]

I did an "evil" playthrough, and it was hardly any different than my good playthroughs.



Both Dragon Age and Mass Effect are kinda weak in this regard. You can be as goody-two-shoes or as ruthless-bastard as you want, and it has virtually no effect on the plot at large.

[RangerSG]

CptPatch wrote...

RangerSG wrote...
Well, here's another question. Why would you 'not' end the Blight if you know what the consequences are? What, you WANT to become Darkspawn? You WANT to get killed? That's not 'evil' that's DUMB. There's nothing "self-serving" about that. Even if you're a self-absorbed twit, you should care enough to save your own behind.

Pointedly a great exaggeration.

At the moment, the Blight is ONLY in Ferelden.  There's a great wide world beyond Ferelden's borders.  Orlais has already mobilized and would already be on the scene if not for SPOILER.  And several other nations are mobilizing.

In DA:O, you as the Hero save _Ferelden_.  An Evil person really wouldn't care what happens to just one rustic, backwoods country with hardly much of any culture of its own.  LOTS of other Wardens in all of the surrounding countries, with LOTS of troops to support them.  Let _them_ end the Blight.  It's downright suicidal to try to end a Blight AND deal with a civil war in a nation whose official government has put a bounty on your head.

THAT is why an Evil person would have no interest in personally ending a Blight.

Pointedly, none of them are there. And none of them will get there in time to save YOUR bacon.

So that's not self-serving at all. That's still dumb.

[Darkemorrow]

***Disclaimer: This post contains references that are borderline spoilerish. I try to be as vague as possible, but be warned***

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.

I can think of several instances in which a character can gain actual power (as in terms of gameplay) through evil choices. Two of the specializations require evil actions in order to unlock. You can get money or an extra spell (if you are a mage) by making a deal with a demon - at someone elses expense. You can get a bonus to constitution by sacrificing the lives of several innocent people. And there ARE consequences for these types of actions; your companions will approve or disapprove, other NPC's will react to you if they find out, plots will be resolved differently, and pieces of your ending will change.

So yes, its true that  DA:O doesn't really support many choices for you to run around being Stupid Evil. Trying to be evil all the time can backfire on you - just as it would in real life. Nor does the game give you the option to be so completely apathetic or cowardly that you refuse to get involved in stopping the Blight - the game is supposed to be about you playing Grey Warden with a specific set of goals, not jerking around in a fantasy sandbox murdering peasants at random in order to earn "evil points" so you can grow a sweet set of devil horns (ahem...  looking at you Fable).

DA:O does, however, offer you plenty of chances to play as the kind of pragmatic, calculating, self-interested bastard who does evil insofar as it benefits him. Or, perhaps more interestingly, the kind of person who wants to be good, but believes that stopping the Blight justifies them taking actions that are undoubtedly evil - the Anvil quest being the perfect example.

In other words, I think it is perfectly possible to play an interesting evil character in DA:O - you just have to roleplay one that makes sense given the plot, not one who goes around being evil as possible simply for the sake of being evil.

Modifié par Darkemorrow, 24 janvier 2010 - 03:37 .

[Abriael_CG]

Darkemorrow wrote...
In other words, I think it is perfectly possible to play an interesting evil character in DA:O - you just have to roleplay one that makes sense given the plot, not one who goes around being evil as possible simply for the sake of being evil.

Of course it is, but no, since the whole Ferelden doesn't cower in fear at every step of yours (while throwing realism to the bushes), and you don't have a very visible meter to show your friend just how stupid evil (i SO love this definition, thank you SO much for linking it) you are, it's not enough!

Don't worry. There's always fallout 3. There you can be as stupid evil as you want. The story sucks, and it will suck even more if you do whatever you want to fill the stupid evil bar, but hey, can't have everything in life now, can you?

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 24 janvier 2010 - 03:51 .

[RangerSG]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Darkemorrow wrote...
In other words, I think it is perfectly possible to play an interesting evil character in DA:O - you just have to roleplay one that makes sense given the plot, not one who goes around being evil as possible simply for the sake of being evil.

Of course it is, but no, since the whole Ferelden doesn't cower in fear at every step of yours (while throwing realism to the bushes), and you don't have a very visible meter to show your friend just how stupid evil (i SO love this definition, thank you SO much for linking it) you are, it's not enough!

Don't worry. There's always fallout 3. There you can be as stupid evil as you want. The story sucks, and it will suck even more if you do whatever you want to fill the stupid evil bar, but hey, can't have everything in life now, can you?

That's my favorite website. Whenever I need a good laugh, I read the definition of "Batman Gambit." The sections on the Baroque Cycle and Babylon 5 are two of the better reads on the internet as well.

And I agree, if by "being evil" you mean "stupid evil" as I noted, there's no point in it for this game. Being that stupid is just plain dull anyway. That's what monsters are for. OTOH, there's least three quests where you can be selfish and get ahead. And one where you can pull a complete Xanatos gambit if you plan it out.

[FTA Talisman]

In terms of good and evil, one thing really comes to mind for DA:O for me. That I wish there was more unique dialogue for specialization, namely Blood Magic. I just felt a little let down going to the Circle of Magi and recruiting Wynne into my party as a Blood Mage. Would of liked some words from the first enchanter, Gregoir, Wynne etc. about how they feel about my choices to use Blood Magic and even effect plotlines.

[TheNecroFiend]

RangerSG wrote...

CptPatch wrote...

RangerSG wrote...
Well, here's another question. Why would you 'not' end the Blight if you know what the consequences are? What, you WANT to become Darkspawn? You WANT to get killed? That's not 'evil' that's DUMB. There's nothing "self-serving" about that. Even if you're a self-absorbed twit, you should care enough to save your own behind.

Pointedly a great exaggeration.

At the moment, the Blight is ONLY in Ferelden.  There's a great wide world beyond Ferelden's borders.  Orlais has already mobilized and would already be on the scene if not for SPOILER.  And several other nations are mobilizing.

In DA:O, you as the Hero save _Ferelden_.  An Evil person really wouldn't care what happens to just one rustic, backwoods country with hardly much of any culture of its own.  LOTS of other Wardens in all of the surrounding countries, with LOTS of troops to support them.  Let _them_ end the Blight.  It's downright suicidal to try to end a Blight AND deal with a civil war in a nation whose official government has put a bounty on your head.

THAT is why an Evil person would have no interest in personally ending a Blight.

Pointedly, none of them are there. And none of them will get there in time to save YOUR bacon.

So that's not self-serving at all. That's still dumb.

Where is the urgency that your life depends on being saved from the Darkspawn? Look at the amount of traveling involed in the game, your all over the place. Doing the Sacred Ashes quest involves alot of leg work. In the time it takes to finish that quest you could already be chilling in another country till the whole thing blows over. Letting the GW's from other lands deal with it.

[Abriael_CG]

TheNecroFiend wrote...
Where is the urgency that your life depends on being saved from the Darkspawn? Look at the amount of traveling involed in the game, your all over the place. Doing the Sacred Ashes quest involves alot of leg work. In the time it takes to finish that quest you could already be chilling in another country till the whole thing blows over. Letting the GW's from other lands deal with it.

The game gives you that choice. It's called CTRL+ALT+DEL

If you don't want to play the game, somply don't play it.