140 réponses à ce sujet

[Feybrad]

Yeah, that would create an interesting dilemma. It's fun to consider just for sh*ts and giggles.

 

That brings up an interesting point: why does the player character always have to win?

 

I doubt that Bioware would do this, but it would be interesting to include an option whereby the Inquisitor actually could fail.

 

I'm not talking about a "game over, please reload last save." More like branching paths which could potentially lead the Inquisitor to an insurmountable obstacle.

 

Does kind of take the sense of accomplishment out of it when, regardless of the decisions that you make, you know that at the end of the day, the Breach will be closed and you will win.

 

I think the Reason for that is very simple: Because, if one Choice in a game creates an insurmountable Obstacle (especially without Warning) the game can#t be completed. it would be a little less heavyhanded with a clear Warning, but it would be still detrimental to the roleplaying Experience.

 

An Option would be to have "real" Ending right after making that decision and creating the Obstacle, complete with rolling Credits and Stuff, but it would still end the gaming Experience prematurely (which is why such a real "bad Ending" could only be implemented at the very end of the game).

 

Additionally, it might feel like the Choice would be taken from the Player's Hands. That was basically what happened with Mass Effect 3, where you couldn't get a "good Ending" with any Combination of previous Choices. It caused, to understate, "great Outrage". What can we learn from it? Give Players the option to f*ck Sh*t up in every imagineable Way and still earn an Ending than can be viewed as majorly good. Origins did that, via Morrigan's dark Ritual and the Option that you could sacrifice the other Warden. Mass effect 3 didn't do that, since Shepard only survived in one Ending, even with the extended Cut.

 

What I'm saying is: People always want the Option to have a good Ending, regardless of how badly they screwed everything over. They play the game, because they want to feel good. And that's why the player Character always wins.

[Feybrad]

I may be in the minority here, but I think that game developers should be given license to create whatever ending is in keeping with their artistic vision.

 

Why is it that authors can kill off characters right and left and end books on a genuinely somber note, in short do anything that they like to the protagonist, but game developers are obliged to create a "happy" or "good" ending.

 

I'm not going to get into the whole Mass Effect controversy because, frankly, I have no interest in that series (not much of a scifi person).

 

From the Perspective of a Game Developer in the making, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

From the Perspective of casual Customer with a Brain, I think the Difference between the character-killing Book Author (take, George RR Martin for example) and the character-killing RPG Writer is, that the latter ones have to take into Consideration, that the identification the Customer has with the average Character he controls in an RPG is much greater than with the average Book Character.

The Character in the Book is the Creation of someone else, but the Character in the Game feels like more of our own Creation - it's unreasonable, but especially in well written Games you build up emotional Connection to your Character and don't want anything bad happening to them. And the greater the Scale of the Interactivity the greater the emotional Connection and Identification. The more you can decide, can roleplay (especially if you don't have a specific Goal in Mind while doing that - the more self insert, basically), the more it becomes "your Character" instead of "their Character", even though they have created everything the Character can possibly be.

And that is why there is a much stronger Drive, even Need, to make "good Endings" available to most if not all Options and Outcomes of the Character. The more negative the reaction to a Path that only leads to a negative Ending will be.

[Feybrad]

You are making a lot of assumptions by saying that gamers forge a stronger connection with the player character than readers do with a novel's protagonist.

 

It's not uncommon, especially in the genre of high fantasy, to watch the development of a character unfold over dozens of books, to become deeply emotionally invested in that character, and then to have the author abruptly kill him or her off.

 

The fact that it's "their character" doesn't mean that my feelings for them are any less intense.

 

I'm going to cut this debate off here, because it isn't going anywhere and I generally disagree with everything that you post on BSN

 

Pretty sure there have been Studies on that particular Topic, but I'm too lazy to search for one. Also, I think my Arguments hold up even if the point about "Gamers are more attached to a Character they play than Readers to Characters they read about" would be moot. I just explained why it could possibly be that these Restrictions for Game Developers exist.

 

However, human Beings and Consuments of Books and games are Individuals so no Study and no Argument holds up for everyone regarding these Topics. So let's agree to disagree. Or, whatever State of Discussion this is.

[Ferico21]

If I was Hawke I'd rely on Flemeth. If I was the warden, then Morrigan. They've each got different qualities and I'd probably go with whoever I'm less likey to be the enemy of.

[metalfenix]

None of them. Those witches have always second intentions.

[thetinyevil]

They both are pretty untrustworthy but if I had to chose it would have to be Morrigan. In DA:O we get to see the human side of Morrigan while Flemeth, not so much.

[Rogue Roxy]

I'm not so certain that the question should be 'whom do you trust more', rather than which one has the World's best intentions in mind.

 

If you're really asking whom to trust, I think it's on a personal level. If you want to know which of the two have the best intentions to save the world, that may be more a matter of experience and knowledge of the past, and what is currently happening in Thedas.

 

Let's face it, neither Morrigan, nor Flemeth, are out to destroy the world. Neither seem to have an agenda regarding ultimate power. Flemeth didn't really seem worried which way the Warden decided (kill her, or lie to Morrigan) in DA:O, and it turned out she was already prepared for either outcome (hence the amulet for the Dalish in DA:2). She also gave the Warden help in the way of Morrigan to defeat the Archdemon because she knew the consequences of the blight on the world.

 

Morrigan distrusted Flemeth because of what she found in her Grimoire regarding hints that Flemeth used her 'daughters' to extend her own life. Morrigan was also as 'in the dark' about Flemeth as the Warden and everyone else was, despite having been raised by her. Secrecy does not necessarily mean evil. And tall tales aren't always factual. Not that Flemeth had no problem handing over her second Grimoire (found in the Circle, no less) to appease Morrigan.

 

In my own opinion, both have the same goal of saving the world from the blight. It's the Warden's trust, or mistrust, of each that wholly depends of information, or lack thereof. Whether or not Morrigan was romanced shouldn't really matter because it creates a biased opinion. Flemeth, isn't going to tell everyone about what she sees as future potential because that knowledge could possibly create problems if people respond in the wrong way (if the Warden were told they were expected to die without a chance of saving themselves, would anyone actually join?).

 

To me, Flemeth seems to have a better understanding of the future, and the consequences of actions, while Morrigan seems to be almost as much in the dark as the rest of us, but she's afraid that Flemeth has plans for her, or her body, that she doesn't yet know about.

 

Would I trust my life to either of them? Yes. In a heartbeat. They've both proven that we three share the same goal of defeating the blight and saving the world.

Do I believe that either of them have my best interests in mind once the danger has passed? Absolutely not.

 

But, if your goal is to be rid of the Archdemon, the Darkspawn, and reach toward a better Thedas, I'll place my trust in both, and cross my fingers that it was the right decision.

[rspanther]

Depends on which one I can throw the farthest.

 

 

 

 

But I would imagine it will depend on what actions they take in the game will decide which one I trust the most.

[Pierce Miller]

Flemeth is far more powerful so I'd trust her less but I'd still stay on her good side.

[Tarek]

Flemeth seems wiser

[Omikuji]

I certainly trust Morrigan then I do Flemeth, and I trusted her more in Origins compared to some of the other characters. She was brutally honest and even if she hid things it made sense why she did. She's always come off as... a woman who had no reason to lie about her actions and goals, when she was honest about something she spoke up and wasn't worried about what others may say. That sort of confidence in herself was refreshing, and yet at the same time she was fragile when it came to some things that she was quick to protect and hide.

 

She less came out as evil, and more brutally honest. Flemeth is a sneaky lying who knows what the heck she is, and while she seems like she's all about helping it always felt like it was trying to manipulate towards some unforeseen goal. Flemeths a hell of a fun character though in a lore question mark standpoint and just how she acts.

[Wereupine]

I don't think i could trust either of them but probably morrigan.

[Mir Aven]

I trust neither.