153434 réponses à ce sujet

[Uirebhiril]

I agree that it's ridiculous if you're trying to be consistent about your morals.  Or act in any way like a normal person making RL choices.  But a lot of players are not as interested getting "the point."  They're interested in being right.

 

I think this is the big reason I really appreciate Obsidian games. What is right in the moment is not necessarily right in the bigger picture, and trying to go through a game being a righteous goody two shoes is never going to be completely possible. It will trip you up. To that end, I hope that's what we've got to look forward to with Solas's arc in the future. Or even the more minor things leading us to the eventual outcome. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you are.

 

But I'm probably in a minority of players who doesn't mind the hero being wrong or really fouling things up sometimes if they aren't being careful in their choices.

[Sable Rhapsody]

I think this is the big reason I really appreciate Obsidian games. What is right in the moment is not necessarily right in the bigger picture, and trying to go through a game being a righteous goody two shoes is never going to be completely possible. It will trip you up. To that end, I hope that's what we've got to look forward to with Solas's arc in the future. Or even the more minor things leading us to the eventual outcome. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you are.

 

But I'm probably in a minority of players who doesn't mind the hero being wrong or really fouling things up sometimes if they aren't being careful in their choices.

 

*waves*

 

I deliberately foul up my heroes sometimes My canon Hawke was a walking, talking, templar-murdering disaster.  My Knight-Captain from NWN2 turned into a god-eating terror.  And I'm perfectly happy to make suboptimal or morally corrupt choices with my more heroic characters in the name of RP; they're not perfect, and their stories are more interesting when they make mistakes.

 

IMO it comes down both player and developer recognizing that the hero's actions (whether scripted or chosen) are not "correct" by default.  And they'd be boring if they were.  Obsidian excels at this, and IMO BioWare's gotten much better at it over the years.

[Eivuwan]

I asked once in another thread what people would do if they learned that Solas is doing what he is because of millions of trapped ancient elves suffering or unable to wake because of the Veil, and if he doesn't act they'd die. If he acts, Thedas dies, but the elves live. What would they do in his position? Amazing how quickly people introduced reasons that made it all right for the ancient elves to die in favor of modern Thedas. But they totally didn't see his point of view, he's just a villain and a murderer. etc. etc.

 

I'm honestly good with people not liking Solas, or not agreeing with his plan. But pretending you're somehow in a better position to make choices like that and it doesn't make you likewise evil or questionable in your morals is ridiculous. I mean, certainly it could just come down to Solas's reason being "because I wanna" and nothing more involved, but not taking a step back and asking yourself these questions is kind of missing the point.

 

I remember one player saying that in that case, he would let the ancients die because it's like mercy killing. O_O It's indeed amazing how people can twist things just to suit their original argument.

[Cee]

I think this is the big reason I really appreciate Obsidian games. What is right in the moment is not necessarily right in the bigger picture, and trying to go through a game being a righteous goody two shoes is never going to be completely possible. It will trip you up.

 

This is actually what turned me off in the only Obsidian game I played so far, which is KOTOR 2. I own two others, so maybe I'll give them a shot sometimes but this doesn't sound promising.

 

Honestly, I'm kind of like this in real life and I like being able to play heroic characters who can make good choices and be rewarded for them. Because real life doesn't always work out that way, and I'm kind of IRL paragon, compassionate etc, I don't like my games to slam me around or be awash in criticism for making compassionate, caring choices.

 

edit: That doesn't mean I don't ever want consequences or difficult choices or for my PC to be wrong. If the story is good and the game is well made, it can allow you to make compassionate, moral choices and not feel criticized for doing so.

[Raeona]

 

But I'm probably in a minority of players who doesn't mind the hero being wrong or really fouling things up sometimes if they aren't being careful in their choices.

 

I loved DA2 specifically because Hawke was such a failure. But a lot of people complained that they didn't get to save the world, so we got Inquisiton instead where pretty much every choice is equally likely to succeed. Sort of defeats the point of choosing, really. I miss the days when there was no safety net.

 

 

I remember one player saying that in that case, he would let the ancients die because it's like mercy killing. O_O It's indeed amazing how people can twist things just to suit their original argument.

 

Once someone has the title 'bad guy' its amazing how many people will look no further. 

[Sable Rhapsody]

This is actually what turned me off in the only Obsidian game I played so far, which is KOTOR 2. I own two others, so maybe I'll give them a shot sometimes but this doesn't sound promising.

 

Honestly, I'm kind of like this in real life and I like being able to play heroic characters who can make good choices and be rewarded for them. Because real life doesn't always work out that way, and I'm kind of IRL paragon, compassionate etc, I don't like my games to slam me around or be awash in criticism for making compassionate, caring choices.

 

edit: That doesn't mean I don't ever want consequences or difficult choices or for my PC to be wrong. If the story is good and the game is well made, it can allow you to make compassionate, moral choices and not feel criticized for doing so.

 

My boyfriend is like this, actually.  When we play D&D together, he's always the hero, and I'm always the Lancer/Smart Guy.  Even when we're both playing heroic characters, he always skews more goody-two-shoes than I do.  And when we tried to play Divinity: Original Sin together, we had to stop because he couldn't stand how I kept stealing from NPCs who annoyed me

 

It's 100% a matter of personal preference.  Though I will say this for Obsidian: they don't just criticize "good."  Their games force the player to feel the opportunity cost of moral choice regardless of what the player picks.  So you rarely feel "right."  Doesn't matter if you're the sweetest cinnamon roll or the worst asshat.  For me, the end result is the feeling that maybe I could have done more, or found another way, even when I know that's not an option.  Which is an uncomfortable feeling, and certainly not for everyone, but it's why I love their games.  They make me think about what I've done, even over little things like a guy being mugged.

[Raeona]

This is actually what turned me off in the only Obsidian game I played so far, which is KOTOR 2. I own two others, so maybe I'll give them a shot sometimes but this doesn't sound promising.

 

Honestly, I'm kind of like this in real life and I like being able to play heroic characters who can make good choices and be rewarded for them. Because real life doesn't always work out that way, and I'm kind of IRL paragon, compassionate etc, I don't like my games to slam me around or be awash in criticism for making compassionate, caring choices.

 

edit: That doesn't mean I don't ever want consequences or difficult choices or for my PC to be wrong. If the story is good and the game is well made, it can allow you to make compassionate, moral choices and not feel criticized for doing so.

 

That was a game that tore down all the 'you're the most heroic/sithly person ever!' accolades of the first game and punished you for extremes. It was poorly executed but the idea was to find a balance between laughable evil and stupidly good, anything else was immediately smacked upside the head and given a lecture about consequences. It came across more as just impossible to please, but it was a novel approach for a star wars game. 

 

I wish Inquisition would call you out more for making the dumb decision we sometimes do. You can do really silly and heartless things and nobody gets all that upset (except for mystery characters with mystery motivations who refuse to elaborate, ie Solas at the well). They might have declared us a religious figure, but we aren't infallible. It almost makes me miss the Council from Mass Effect.

 

I'm kidding, screw those guys. 

[Cee]

That was a game that tore down all the 'you're the most heroic/sithly person ever!' accolades of the first game and punished you for extremes. It was poorly executed but the idea was to find a balance between laughable evil and stupidly good, anything else was immediately smacked upside the head and given a lecture about consequences. It came across more as just impossible to please, but it was a novel approach for a star wars game. 

 

I think it tried, but the problem was, I liked  the first game. A lot. I love heroic and redemption arcs. They're very satisfying to play. I believe people can change and learn, grow, improve, and learn from their past mistakes. So I loved taking Revan and winding up glowing at the end.

 

The sequel felt like a bait and switch.

 

KOTOR 2, it was a huge drag, I kept getting lectured by Kreia all the time and waiting for her inevitable betrayal. It got old very quickly. And this is why I call Solas 'like Kreia, but actually done right'.  I hated Kreia. I love Solas.

[rowrow]

 
Here was my two cents on player-centric morality from another thread:
 
 
 
So I think if Solas was a playable protagonist, people would react very differently.  Because they *do* react differently in other games when the character they play is the one doing bad things.  All of a sudden it goes from "you crazy evil loony" to "you had your reasons."

 

Our response to an NPC isn't the same as our character's response, though. Maybe the distinction isn't equally clear for every player; it depends on how deliberately you like to roleplay. But I don't think self-awareness is easily measured by in-game choices. Not always, anyway.

 

Still, I think you're right that a lot of people's view of Solas or various DA villains would change if they were playable.

 

It's easier for us to judge others than ourselves. However there is another side to this, which is that we can also be prone to making excuses for characters we are heavily invested in and/or empathise strongly with. I know there are a lot of Solasmancers in this thread, of which I'm one - he's my first and still only DAI romance. I made some posts in this thread that were critical of Solas and talked about some of my angry feelings after Trespasser . I got some responses - not mean or anything - that were, I think, gently trying to help me see more fully from Solas' perspective. I appreciate that, but at times I also felt like it was being suggested that any problems I had with Solas were mainly due to a failure of my own empathy. And hey, maybe that's true. But I gotta ask ... at what point are we no longer allowed to call a character's motives/actions into question, if we claim to love that character?

[MayriyaNoori]

Interrupting for your daily dose of terrible Solas humor from tumblr.

 

I also love The Office....so this was just wow.

 

Spoiler

source

[rowrow]

Interrupting for your daily dose of terrible Solas humor from tumblr.

 

I also love The Office....so this was just wow.

 

Spoiler

source

 

I sometimes wish we'd had the option in-game to tell him some terrible jokes. Just to see his face.

[Sable Rhapsody]

I loved DA2 specifically because Hawke was such a failure. But a lot of people complained that they didn't get to save the world, so we got Inquisiton instead where pretty much every choice is equally likely to succeed. Sort of defeats the point of choosing, really. I miss the days when there was no safety net.

 

I dunno, I would say that DA2 is the exception rather than the rule for BioWare in terms of PC safety net.  Even when compared to the older games, like Baldur's Gate or Jade Empire.  DA2 is probably the one BioWare game in which the protagonist "loses" in a sense.  In most of their other games, you can be a horrible person, but you'll still win.

 

 

Our response to an NPC isn't the same as our character's response, though. Maybe the distinction isn't equally clear for every player; it depends on how deliberately you like to roleplay. But I don't think self-awareness is easily measured by in-game choices. Not always, anyway.

 

Still, I think you're right that a lot of people's view of Solas or various DA villains would change if they were playable.

 

It's easier for us to judge others than ourselves. However there is another side to this, which is that we can also be prone to making excuses for characters we are heavily invested in and/or empathise strongly with. I know there are a lot of Solasmancers in this thread, of which I'm one - he's my first and still only DAI romance. I made some posts in this thread that were critical of Solas and talked about some of my angry feelings after Trespasser . I got some responses - not mean or anything - that were, I think, gently trying to help me see more fully from Solas' perspective. I appreciate that, but at times I also felt like it was being suggested that any problems I had with Solas were mainly due to a failure of my own empathy. And hey, maybe that's true. But I gotta ask ... at what point are we no longer allowed to call a character's motives/actions into question, if we claim to love that character?

 

Very true.  The player and the character do not have to agree about Solas, or any other game element for that matter.  And IMO it's interesting when they don't.  But Shari'El's original post was about the player, so that's what I (somewhat goofily) responded to

 

IMO there is no point at which we shouldn't call a character's motives/actions into question.  It's perfectly possible to love a character, empathize with them even, and think they're being a goddamn idiot.  It's also possible to be furious at a character, poke fun at them, want to see them pay, etc.  None of these things are mutually exclusive with liking the character.  But I think some of those subtleties get lost in the shuffle, and a lot of them got drowned out in the immediate aftermath of Trespasser when emotions were running high.

[Tess]

Interrupting for your daily dose of terrible Solas humor from tumblr.

 

I also love The Office....so this was just wow.

 

Spoiler

source

This is precious. I shall treasure it.

[Catfishers]

KOTOR 2, it was a huge drag, I kept getting lectured by Kreia all the time and waiting for her inevitable betrayal. It got old very quickly. And this is why I call Solas 'like Kreia, but actually done right'.  I hated Kreia. I love Solas.

 

Gosh, Kreia was so... difficult. Even when I still wanted to like her it was basically impossible because she's so hard to please. Like... what do you want from me laddddddy?!?!

 

Solas is much easier to get along with, even at his prickliest.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Gosh, Kreia was so... difficult. Even when I still wanted to like her it was basically impossible because she's so hard to please. Like... what do you want from me laddddddy?!?!

 

Solas is much easier to get along with, even at his prickliest.

 

LOL, Kreia loved my Exile.  Because it was only the second RPG I'd ever played, and I'd periodically turn to my BFF and say, "Wait, I can seriously save a guy by Force Persuading his attackers to jump to their deaths?!"    So...my Exile turned out to be a manipulative whackjob, but not Stupid Evil.  Basically, Kreia's favorite flavor of whackjob

[Lois]

Hey guys, I'm new and just finished the Trespasser DLC... Safe to say that I am in need of this thread. 

If they don't continue this story in the next game, I'm going to be hugely disappointed.

[Cee]

LOL, Kreia loved my Exile.  Because it was only the second RPG I'd ever played, and I'd periodically turn to my BFF and say, "Wait, I can seriously save a guy by Force Persuading his attackers to jump to their deaths?!"    So...my Exile turned out to be a manipulative whackjob, but not Stupid Evil.  Basically, Kreia's favorite flavor of whackjob

 

Yep, you sound kind of like my boyfriend. He talks up Obsidian games for the same reasons you do. 

[Tess]

So this is supposedly Solas, too.

Spoiler

[Uirebhiril]

I got some responses - not mean or anything - that were, I think, gently trying to help me see more fully from Solas' perspective. I appreciate that, but at times I also felt like it was being suggested that any problems I had with Solas were mainly due to a failure of my own empathy. And hey, maybe that's true. But I gotta ask ... at what point are we no longer allowed to call a character's motives/actions into question, if we claim to love that character?

 

It's precisely because we can do this that I love Solas as a character so much. He can neither be wholly praised or completely condemned as an individual, and whatever decisions we end up making about him and his plans won't change that. But it is easy to see how people who like the character want to defend the good aspect, since he's not looking so great at the moment. Just as long as we remember he's the whole of both his parts - the Solas we know, and the Fen'Harel he became... and might be again.

 

I like knowing he is someone that can -- and has, and will -- do potentially terrible things in pursuit of his goals. He is his own person, not tethered to the will and wants of the PC. This is also why I really hope it doesn't come down to being the special snowflake that talks Solas down or the righteous hero that slaughters him. Gives a really bad impression that other characters can only act or be or do what we want of them, just because we are the PC. I want the world and characters to live on their own to some degree and not to always reflect myself back to me. 

[Cee]

Gosh, Kreia was so... difficult. Even when I still wanted to like her it was basically impossible because she's so hard to please. Like... what do you want from me laddddddy?!?!

 

Solas is much easier to get along with, even at his prickliest.

 

It helped that with Solas, he was mostly omitting and obscuring things, not straight out lying. Kreia clearly refused to talk to my Exile multiple times on several subjects, including Revan.

 

Solas also clearly did have his own agenda and had agents and such while he was with you but he wasn't actively impeding you. Your missions aligned for a time.

 

I also never felt betrayed by Solas. Kreia and Solas are both operating on misguided (IMO) yet paths which have been shaped by their failures, perceived and real.  Understandable motivations both. But Solas is simply a much better character and the game is better for how he works within it.

[Janic99]

So I'm kinda wondering.. After Life is Strange 5

 

Spoiler

Did anyone change their views about Solas and even his plans?

I mean, Max was ready to sacrifice 10 thousand (give or take) people to save Chloe, and yes with Solas we are speaking about much bigger numbers but Solas did it to save the world from the Evanuris, Max does it to save one person that she cares about. Now Solas wants to fix his mistake, a lot of the last episode was Max trying to fix the fact Chloe got shot by Jefferson or died in Arcadia Bay.

While I personally retained my previous view on Solas (I sympathize with him), I feel like I understand him better somehow. I mean - I think everybody who played the game felt really conflicted about the last choice, I personally stared at the screen for a while. He did what he did to the Evanuris, killed load of people but possibly saved the world. Now he wants to "fix" the side effects of his actions, possibly at a great cost...

 

I wonder how it would've been if Solas was a playable character in a game series, like "The Dreamer" I, II & III. How would people then react to him?

Spoiler

It is hard for me also to compare those... I might pick Solas only cause I love him lol but I think I will also see the other version and decide later what will happen but as someone said before... I don't think Lavellan will get to decide the way Max does. I saved Arcadia Bay because besides all the people we see in there.. there a lots of more innocent lives out there. Second reason was that Chloe actually wished her mother to live... well at least wanted to and she said that she thinks that is what Max should decide.. all the innocents... BUT THE MAIN REASON for me was that I actually thought when she said '' What if you are only delaying my real destiny ''. As we have seen.. in every reality whenever Max has changed something she always dies. Yes in the end she does not when the storm comes but how do you know if she won't in the future? Because that was so uncertain and it was pretty much likely her destiny since when Max tried to change things everything got worse and worse.. is she supposed to keep saving her all the time? What if she eventually fails and cannot save her any more? What if she messes up the time? What if she has to sacrifice more people in the future as well in order to keep her safe?

 

that was the main reason I did not choose Chloe... and yea.. I would not really compare those for Solas since the matter is different and bigger. Solas has actually done something and he wants to save more people but yes it will bring destruction.. but it's different if you think of it... one person + ancient world (world of the elves) or the current world with corruption... blight and wars and all that mess... ) It's kinda hard decision if your character is an elf so uhm.. yeah..

[_Lucinia]

I think this is the big reason I really appreciate Obsidian games. What is right in the moment is not necessarily right in the bigger picture, and trying to go through a game being a righteous goody two shoes is never going to be completely possible. It will trip you up. To that end, I hope that's what we've got to look forward to with Solas's arc in the future. Or even the more minor things leading us to the eventual outcome. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you are.

 

But I'm probably in a minority of players who doesn't mind the hero being wrong or really fouling things up sometimes if they aren't being careful in their choices.

I appreciate that type of thing in The Witcher series as well.  Going to keep this vague, but in TW3 I made what appeared to be the "morally good" choice during a quest.  Yes I had Geralt do a good thing.  But that good thing bit me in the ass so hard later on down the line, that it didn't really feel all that good at all.  I'm with you, I like having consequences for my choices, good or bad, black, white or grey. 

[Illyria]

Spoiler

Yes, I feel exactly the same way.

Historically speaking, lesbian pulp fiction was only allowed to pass the censor by including a tragic ending which made explicit that choosing the girl would lead in ruin and heartbreak, possibly even emphasising the main character's selfish and depraved nature. It's frankly embarrassing that in 2015 we have an ending which accomplishes the same thing when those censorship laws are long dead and buried.

I think it's not much better than queerbaiting, especially with - as you mentioned - the hint of a happy ending we got in San Francisco earlier, and especially because the tornado had very little to do with the disappearances and detective work which made up the bulk of the main plot.

I felt like, ok, I've got over the horrific nightmare sequence where Max internalises all those nasty things Jefferson says, I'm going to conquer that trauma, I'm going to survive... and it could have lead somewhere positive and really reassuring and nice, but instead I have to kill Chloe or Arcadia Bay? It was railroaded in, it was unnecessary, it just made things tragic, and for what end? To make all the queer women playing this game cry? Whilst I have no problem with people picking Warren, I'm angry that he - the straight option - didn't get that same treatment, and that the straight relationship didn't have to end in tragedy. Ugh.

The more I think about it the less I like it.

 

Spoiler

 

The more I think about the ending of Life is Strange the happier I am with the way Weekes wrote Solas.  He realised the sort of negative tropes that would arise from making Solas bisexual and deliberately avoided them - the writers of LIS, on the other hand, went the tragic f/f route without thinking about the outdated and insulting tropes that they were invoking.

 

[Cee]

Spoiler

 

The more I think about the ending of Life is Strange the happier I am with the way Weekes wrote Solas.  He realised the sort of negative tropes that would arise from making Solas bisexual and deliberately avoided them - the writers of LIS, on the other hand, went the tragic f/f route without thinking about the outdated and insulting tropes that they were invoking.

 

 

[Tess]

Imho nowadays it's like walking on eggshells (see what I did there?) Tropes and stereotypes aside.

I swear some people are professionally offended by everything.

I was watching cut out scenes from Who's Line is it Anyway? and so many jokes and games didn't make it in live because the lesbians, the blind, the disabled, the black, the young, the old, the women, .... would get offended.

People ought to ease up.

(As much as I understand with all the offense taking, what's too much is too much. And it appears to me personally, that recently, everything one does can offend someone. I really think some people simply want to be offended and will always find a way to be.)