XD my bad.
That could've been fun. Would've been better if Isolde got possessed tho. Since Teagan might be needed for future games (Plus screw Isolde).
If Isolde got possessed I wouldn't think twice about ending her.That voice grated on my nerves and all of Wardens took the chance to slap the **** out of her.
So screw the people who wanted the third option right?I don't get this mindset,why would you want less options in a RPG that's about choice?
Don't pick the third option if it bothers you that much,but do not under any circumstances selfishly take that option away from people who want it.
Because at that point they aren't actually choices. At least they aren't valid ones for any kind of typical hero. If you have three less than ideal choices and you throw in one perfect choice thats obviously better than all the others, you really only have one choice now if you're playing a hero.
So the question is, why are you against choice?
This video from Extra Credits gets into it better.
Your scenario is not really choice, its calculation.
As to your question "why can't we all have what we want?" Its because these things we're arguing about cannot coexist.
The best you can do, again, is something like DAO where we can't all have what we want but we can each decide what is important to us and make the decisions that steer us in our own directions. Its a tribute to how they wrote that scenario that we all still debate which way was the best way. You even get to have a little of your cake with this one because there are some options that clearly aren't as good, at least for most people, but there is no clear best resolution.
If the "save both" option is executed well enough (i.e. not another Connor situation), there's nothing wrong with it being there.
Okay. That's good to hear.
I'll have to see how that situation fits into the story before I can weigh in.
If they're trying to make me feel like I'm in a dilemma, then yes, this third option is a bad idea. Especially now that I know that the third option exists.
If they hide the third option well enough, then the dilemma can still have some limited impact but only if I buy the game and play it right away and avoid visiting the forums. I tend not to buy games right away though this is the last remaining exception to that rule (and there will be no more exceptions if this game doesn't win me over like DAO and ME2 did.)
Why is it a bad idea? If one smart and skilled enough to save both, why should they be deprived of it?
It's more that it shouldn't be ridiculously easy to save both. The compromise solution for both Redcliffe and the elves/werewolves in Origins were very easily attainable, even though they shouldn't have been in the context of the story.
I wouldn't say the Dalish/Werewolf one was a third option type of choice, since the choices are always either "Break the Curse" or "Kill the Dalish". You just go a different way about the "Break the Curse" choice by seeking peace with the Werewolves instead of just killing them.
I wouldn't say the Dalish/Werewolf one was a third option type of choice, since the choices are still "Break the Curse" or "Kill the Dalish". You just go a different way about it by seeking peace with the Werewolves instead of just killing them.
There are objectively three choices: kill the werewolves, kill the elves, or break the curse. The first and third options arguably result in the same outcome (the Dalish help you), but the choices themselves are quite distinct.
I disagree. It's more like two of the options are variances of the same choice. Sort of like how Mass Effect 3 had different results for the same ending choice, with Low EMS Destroy incinerating Earth while High EMS Destroy doesn't damage Earth. While the results are different, you wouldn't say they picked a different ending. So the Dalish/Werewolve situation is like this:
1 ) Break the curse
a ) Kill the Werewolves
b ) Spare the Werewolves
2 ) Kill the Dalish
I actually like the way the curse lifting option was done in that quest. Sure, it's objectively a better solution, but it doesn't come entirely without a price since both Zathrian and the Lady sacrifice each other. The mere fact that at least one of them could be alive with each of the other two choices, gives that particular choice a decent amount of weight to make it not seem like a complete cop-out.
One could argue it was too easy to achieve though, but eh, I'm ok with that one as it is.
1 ) Break the curse
a ) Kill the Werewolves
b ) Spare the Werewolves
Okay. That's good to hear.
Why is it a bad idea? If one smart and skilled enough to achieve both, why should they be deprived of it?
I wouldn't say the Dalish/Werewolf one was a third option type of choice, since the choices are still "Break the Curse" or "Kill the Dalish". You just go a different way about it by seeking peace with the Werewolves instead of just killing them.
I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over again in the hopes that it will be gotten.
All I said (before I got into a bit of a digression about my consumer relationship with Bioware) is that if they are trying to create a dilemma then adding a golden third option is a bad idea. By definition, it ceases to be a dilemma at that point. And dilemmas in video games are worthwhile because, unlike with more passive media, we can create scenarios where we actually have to make a choice in the context of a dilemma and then live with the consequences.
Nothing wrong with having a choice thats really a calculation where you try to find the single best way to do something, but a situation cannot have an objective best way and also be a dilemma. They are mutually exclusive.
As to your statement about being smart and skilled and earning your happy ending, Bioware doesn't do that. Or if they do, they do it poorly. Allan Schumacher weighed in on this earlier in the thread (and I'm not going to speak for him but I'm going to touch on what he touched on). Things like the ME2 ending, you aren't being extra smart and extra skilled when you get the perfect ending, you are simply playing more of the game. The things you have to do are by and large obvious, complete your loyalty missions and fully upgrade your ship, then simply pick logical teammates for various tasks. Thats not hard.
Other than that, its just take the same shooting and probing you've been doing the whole time. All you're doing is more of it. Now I don't mention this to say that the ME2 ending is bad, but it always bugs me when people talk about "earning" their happy ending particularly in a Bioware game.
I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over again in the hopes that it will be gotten.
All I said (before I got into a bit of a digression about my consumer relationship with Bioware) is that if they are trying to create a dilemma then adding a golden third option is a bad idea. By definition, it ceases to be a dilemma at that point. And dilemmas in video games are worthwhile because, unlike with more passive media, we can create scenarios where we actually have to make a choice in the context of a dilemma and then live with the consequences.
Nothing wrong with having a choice thats really a calculation where you try to find the single best way to do something, but a situation cannot have an objective best way and also be a dilemma. They are mutually exclusive.
As to your statement about being smart and skilled and earning your happy ending, Bioware doesn't do that. Or if they do, they do it poorly. Allan Schumacher weighed in on this earlier in the thread (and I'm not going to speak for him but I'm going to touch on what he touched on). Things like the ME2 ending, you aren't being extra smart and extra skilled when you get the perfect ending, you are simply playing more of the game. The things you have to do are by and large obvious, complete your loyalty missions and fully upgrade your ship, then simply pick logical teammates for various tasks. Thats not hard.
Other than that, its just take the same shooting and probing you've been doing the whole time. All you're doing is more of it.
So you're saying that in order to be a dilemma, the Mage-Templar War in Inquisition has to result in only being able to side with one faction or the other, with no possibility of getting a peace between them option?
This is only accurate by the loosest sense of the word "break". If the curse was truly broken, Zathrian would be dead - just because no one is around to be affected by it anymore doesn't mean it's ceased to exist.
You bring up an interesting point. Where is the curse after that? Anyone who had it is either cured or dead.
You bring up an interesting point. Where is the curse after that? Anyone who had it is either cured or dead.
There were still werewolves in places like Blackmarsh.
There were still werewolves in places like Blackmarsh.
Not all Werewolves are from the same curse.
So you're saying that in order to be a dilemma, the Mage-Templar War in Inquisition has to result in only being able to side with one faction or the other, with no possibility of getting a peace between them option?
You can have peace, but on terms that favor one side or another. A peace that still requires you to pass judgment on some central matter in which neither option is clearly better. You can mold a peace that is, in essence, a victory for the mages. Or the Templars.
If it's a peace that somehow makes both sides perfectly happy, then that's not a dilemma.
So you're saying that in order to be a dilemma, the Mage-Templar War in Inquisition has to result in only being able to side with one faction or the other, with no possibility of getting a peace between them option?
No, that's not the only way. That is one way to make this a dilemma. Probably not the best way either.
Another way might require that if you want to achieve that peace, you have to commit substantial resources to the peace and it costs you elsewhere.
Or maybe your love interest has to agree to incarceration (and permanent removal from the party, separation from you) as part of the terms of the peace.
Or maybe you'll have to make a concession that angers another ally resulting in the loss of that alliance (or simply the forbidding you to return to that region.)
EDIT: and Crono Dragon brings up some excellent considerations immediately above me. Dilemmas are not simplistic.
There are lots and lots of ways to create a dilemma. Don't try to pigeon hole me.
No, that's not the only way. That is one way to make this a dilemma. Probably not the best way either.
Another way might require that if you want to achieve that peace, you have to commit substantial resources to the peace and it costs you elsewhere.
Or maybe your love interest has to agree to incarceration (and permanent removal from the party, separation from you) as part of the terms of the peace.
Or maybe you'll have to make a concession that angers another ally resulting in the loss of that alliance (or simply the forbidding you to return to that region.)
There are lots and lots of ways to create a dilemma. Don't try to pigeon hole me.
I wasn't trying to pigeon hole you. I was asking a question by using a scenario.
Though I have to say, none of your suggestions sound appealing.
You can have peace, but on terms that favor one side or another. A peace that still requires you to pass judgment on some central matter in which neither option is clearly better. You can mold a peace that is, in essence, a victory for the mages. Or the Templars.
If it's a peace that somehow makes both sides perfectly happy, then that's not a dilemma.
So the Geth/Quarian conflict in the Mass Effect franchise wasn't a dilemma because you are able to obtain a peace both sides are happy with?
I wasn't trying to pigeon hole you. I was asking a question by using a scenario.
Though I have to say, none of your suggestions sound appealing.
Thats fine. I spent all of maybe five minutes thinking of them.
I'm sure that the professional writers at Bioware being paid to spend hundreds of hours on the story can do better.
I hope they don't do something so dumb as the ME3 ending.
You work your ass off to get peace between quarians and geth, only for the end to be like, "Nah, not gonna work because reasons, you gotta wipe out the geth now if you want to put the original intended end to the bad guys"
Don't make me feel like all my work for five years was pointless at the end.
In what mainstream movie/TV-show has the hero sacrificed himself to save the world?
So the Geth/Quarian conflict in the Mass Effect franchise wasn't a dilemma because you are able to obtain a peace both sides are happy with?
It can function as one on a first playthrough because its likely you won't know which things you needed to do beforehand to make sure you have the Paragon/Renegade interrupt. So in that moment when the choices are the Geth or the Quarians, that is a dilemma. Chances are when you hit that point that avoiding it will require you to go back at least a few hours if you want to replay everything you need to in order to earn the third outcome. Thats two levels of dilemma. Within the game, do you choose the Geth or the Quarians, out of game, do I live with this conflict or dump the last several hours and replay it (assuming you keep diligent saves) to try to get the third option.
On subsequent playthroughs, it is no longer a dilemma. If you're lucky enough (and yes it is luck because there is no reasonable way to know) the first time to have the third option, that is also not a dilemma.
Probably a better example of the kind of dilemma I think would interest you is the Salarian/Krogan situation in ME3. Letting the Krogan live is the more hopeful optimistic choice most of the time but we've seen the Krogan still have a strong inclination towards violence and Wrex engages in some uncomfortable talk about wanting territories back. Do we give them that chance and risk them expanding again or do we let things continue as they are which has proven to at least be stable (barring the Reapers)? This is idealism vs cynicism, a theme Mass Effect deals with a lot, even turning it into a central game mechanic.
I hope they don't do something so dumb as the ME3 ending.
You work your ass off to get peace between quarians and geth, only for the end to be like, "Nah, not gonna work because reasons, you gotta wipe out the geth now if you want to put the original intended end to the bad guys"
Don't make me feel like all my work for five years was pointless at the end.
I wouldn't defend the ME3 ending as good either (not after the extended cut removed all possibility that they knew what they were talking about and were just being vague about it.)
But if you look at the Extended Cut, most of what you did does matter. The people you saved, chances are many of them are still alive, especially your squadmates (most of your work was in the colonies while the Reapers focused first on Earth). Whatever you decided to do about the Krogan still matters. Same with the Quarians. And the Geth can be saved in two of the three endings.
Really, I would have at first thought that Synthesis was the golden ending that removes all dilemma but I've seen enough good arguments from enough people who disagree with me that, while I still favor that ending, I think the situation is a valid dilemma, if not a particularly good one.
Also, the game does at least try to set this tone of inevitability from the beginning. Shepard has to deal with the frustration that, in spite of what he/she tried to do, the Council and the Alliance didn't take him seriously enough and Earth was taken. Later, things start crumbling all over the place, Thessia falls, the Turian homeworld is radically scorched. Shepard gets emotionally beat down as the game proceeds (something that probably should have started during Mass Effect 2) It gets botched at the end but this situation is not completely out of nowhere.
So the Geth/Quarian conflict in the Mass Effect franchise wasn't a dilemma because you are able to obtain a peace both sides are happy with?
Exactly.
I wouldn't of even started the Mass trilogy if I knew it would end the way it did.
Good thing about DA is that its games are more spread out and don't follow the same protagonist, so at least it shouldn't have that problem.
I think I'd be okay if the Dark Ritual didn't work out positively, even though I partook in it.
So why not just give each choice their positives and negatives instead of only giving negatives to the third option?
So why not just give each choice their positives and negatives instead of only giving negatives to the third option?
The existence of a third choice doesn't necessarily undermine the dilemma. ME3's ending is a dilemma with 4 possible choices. DA O has 3.
The "third choice" we're discussing has the unfortunate trait of undermining all the work the game has done previously to present the arguments of both sides in a binary choice, and hopefully balance them enough that the player has a tough time weighing the benefits and drawbacks of each. If there is a clearly better third option, then the player doesn't need to consider much at all. That's how critics of Mass Effect point to the "up-right to win" mentality, and why some such as me believe the series would have been better off without the Paragon/Renegade persuasion system at all.
Case in point: Tali's loyalty mission in ME2. Do you expose Tali's father and destroy your friendship with her, or do you let Tali be exiled? Whelp, it doesn't matter, because you can shame the admirals into absolving Tali without exposing her father.
Now I actually really like Rannoch, but for this reason: it's only possible if you pick choices in ME2/3 conducive to peace. In that sense it acts as a Suicide Mission build-up instead of a "choice." But they cleverly still make you think about all the moral issues by hiding the P/R options for the second wheel.
Retour en haut