Man DAO got it right. Killing Conner, wiping out the elves, executing alistar, selling slaves, murdering people AFTER you told them you were going to let them live...
lol Good times.
Playing as a ******* is fun as hell. I hope this games takes it to another level.
Well personally, the Renegade Shep is about as "cruel" as I ever need. Anything more than that starts to detach from the experience because there is then no logical reason why people would continue to follow you or be your 'friend'.
Unless the game is going to start reacting to the vileness of how the PC is played (which would be awesome) then they need to keep the level of cruelty toned down.
Well, practically NOBODY liked Agressive Hawke. Rivalry from everyone!
That is not the case. The Chantry is fractured after what happens at the peace summit. They won't be bossing you around, because they'll probably be too busy fighting amongst themselves about what to do and who should be the next Divine.
I'm more concerned about advisors. All of them have some connection to the Chantry - Leliana and Cullen obviously, and Josephine is Leliana's old friend, and is described as "sweet and charming". Apart from them, the pro-Chantry grup is backed by Cassandra and possibly Vivienne (as a pro-Circle she may be supportive towards Chantry), and there is no one, apart from maybe Dorian (who is a Tevinter Magister/was an apprentice to one) to balance that. Origins had Morrigan and Sten to balance Leliana - Wynne - Alistair noble pro-Chantry guys, and DA2 had Anders and Merill in opposition to Sebastian, Fenris (not really pro-Chantry, but heavily anti-mage) and Aveline.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some Chantry hater. But one of my characters may be.
Also, by Chantry I mean more a general attitude towards morality and politics than a specific affiliation to an organisation.
Well, practically NOBODY liked Agressive Hawke. Rivalry from everyone!
I'm more concerned about advisors. All of them have some connection to the Chantry - Leliana and Cullen obviously, and Josephine is Leliana's old friend, and is described as "sweet and charming". Apart from them, the pro-Chantry grup is backed by Cassandra and possibly Vivienne (as a pro-Circle she may be supportive towards Chantry), and there is no one, apart from maybe Dorian (who is a Tevinter Magister/was an apprentice to one) to balance that. Origins had Morrigan and Sten to balance Leliana - Wynne - Alistair noble pro-Chantry guys, and DA2 had Anders and Merill in opposition to Sebastian, Fenris (not really pro-Chantry, but heavily anti-mage) and Aveline.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some Chantry hater. But one of my characters may be.
Also, by Chantry I mean more a general attitude towards morality and politics than a specific affiliation to an organisation.
The Inquisitor will have the option to take candy out of children's mouths and eat it, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES. He/she will also pay their forces less than minimum wage, and provide no dental. The monster.
I have a goal - close the Breaches.
Everyone's first option is: Join up! Travel to exotic locales! Win cool prizes!
Then it's: Keep your head down, stay out of our way, and thank the Maker someone else is strong enough to save your wretched hide.
And lastly: I really don't have time for you and your pathetic "cause" - I'm trying to save everyone.
So - I wouldn't say I'm ruthless, but I'm not pandering to whining cause heads about their personal bad days. They'll put those aside or be put down.
I have a feeling the:
Mages
Templars
and Briala (elves) if present
May pose obstacles that need to be crushed because I don't see them putting aside their causes and joining me
Ruthless enough to sacrifice a bunch of knife-ears to get an extra endurance point!
Ruthless enough to sacrifice a bunch of knife-ears to get an extra endurance point!
Hey, it was more than that! Like 20 HP or something. Don't you dare judge me!
Isn't "because they opposed me" a petty reason in itself?I wanna raise hell on my enemies and make them regret ever opposing me but I don't want to harm innocent people for petty reasons.
Righteous religious knight the first way through.
Second playthrough will be ruthless though. How ruthless will I be?
This ruthless:
Long isn't it? That's how ruthless I intend to be.
Are you kidding? Renegade in ME3 = species genocide on more than one occasion. It was a little overboard. But I was disappointed in aggressive Hawke. When someone threatened Bethany, for example, I wanted an option to punch them or kill them... Sometimes aggressive Hawke didn't sound angry enough for me.-Mass Effect 3 SPOILERS-
I hope it isn't as tame as renegade Shepard in ME3. Yeah I know there are a few brutal decisions ( ie -shooting Mordin and Falere) but they are very few. Then again, I don't want it to be unnecessarily cruel like some of the decisions that the Warden can make ( ie - killing the elf messenger or the caged prisoner at Ostagar). I wanna raise hell on my enemies and make them regret ever opposing me but I don't want to harm innocent people for petty reasons. I'd sacrifice a village so that a city can be saved but I wouldn't allow my cousin and neighbors to be sold into sex slavery for a few sovereigns like in the city elf origin. How ruthless do want your inquisitor to be?
I'm hoping the ruthless options come across as the Inquisitor being more of a no nonsense, ends-justifies-the-means type, than a raving mad psycopath. More Stannis Baratheon or Tywin Lannister than Ramsay Bolton or Gregor Clegane, basically.
I like the Ruthless "whatever the hell needs to be done" mode. What I can't stand, and it was pervasive in ME3, was that same attitude gained points by insulting the crew. Look, even ruthless tyrants have friends.
In one of my many playthroughs, I want to be so badass if my enemies ****** me off I would only need to give them a glare to let them know how much they fucked up!
Less "Mine is an evil laugh" and more "Bend the knee"
Are you kidding? Renegade in ME3 = species genocide on more than one occasion. It was a little overboard. But I was disappointed in aggressive Hawke. When someone threatened Bethany, for example, I wanted an option to punch them or kill them... Sometimes aggressive Hawke didn't sound angry enough for me.
Apart from the Krogans, what exactly are you talking about here? The Quarian and the Geth don't count as those are NOT renegade decisions. The renegade decision is the one where you tell the Quarian fleet to back the **** down and achieve peace. Hell, I think its even a bit of a stretch to refer to the whole Krogan ordeal as "genocide". Mordin makes it clear in ME2 that the whole point of the genophage was to adjust Krogan birth rates to a reasonable level. It doesn't lead to extinction. It only prevents Krogan numbers from reaching a ridiculous level. The situation is more complicated than you're making it out to be. There were some very strong reasons to sabotage the genopage cure. Its up to you to decide whether the costs are worth it. For example, there are plenty of people who consider the atomic bombings justified because they ended World War 2 and plenty of people who think that using the bombs was a big mistake because of the high civilian casualties. Consider the context of the situation and don't just rely on some romantic notion of Good and Evil.
Isn't "because they opposed me" a petty reason in itself?
Opposing you also doesn't mean these people can't be 'innocent' by typical metrics especially when your character makes ruthless decisions -- this can easily lead to good people seeing you as an actual villain that needs to be opposed.
Well when I said "opposed", I was mainly referring to those people who would try to jeopardize the inquisitor's mission. As in preventing him from closing the breach or something. Kind of like what Cerberus does to Shepard in ME3. I don't mean "oppose" as in some guy just disagreeing with me on some topic.
I hope they give you a real REASON to be ruthless as opposed to "I'm being a jerk because I can". It should be more along the lines of:
Random dude: "HAND OVER THE REBEL!"
Inquisitor: "Go ahead, take him. I don't even like him."
Rebel: "You said you would help me!"
Inquisitor: "That was when I thought helping you wasn't going to require a ton of work and fighting ugly shouty people with tons of weapons and ****. This is way too much work for 2 points of influence."
"Ruthless" is actually a synonym for "lazy".
I hope they give you a real REASON to be ruthless as opposed to "I'm being a jerk because I can". It should be more along the lines of:
Random dude: "HAND OVER THE REBEL!"Inquisitor: "Go ahead, take him. I don't even like him."
Rebel: "You said you would help me!"
Inquisitor: "That was when I thought helping you wasn't going to require a ton of work and fighting ugly shouty people with tons of weapons and ****. This is way too much work for 2 points of influence."
"Ruthless" is actually a synonym for "lazy".
Also, people don't have memories, and the OP of the protagonist undercuts how actively stupid it is to betray people for the lulz.
If I remember correctly, the wheel with Dorian after killing the Venatori dude gave players three options:
"This must be hard for you."
"We can still help him."
"I just want to go home."
I miss something simple like "Let's move out" if a hardass option is out of the question. I'm not even sure a conversation about how we feel is appropriate in the middle of a mission. Hopefully we will at least be able to press ESC and quit the conversation, or walk out of the conversation the way it was shown in an earlier video.
All in all I don't think we'll see many "The Inquisitor is a jerk" videos on youtube.
There is a many told example, the "save the keep or save the village" one. But the personality of the PC is important, too. It would be too light in the role playing aspect if the inquisitor is personally a touchy feely love bear regardless of the decisions taken.
i can never play the bad guy. its always too extreme for me. im more of a stick in the mud bad guy. not a total gaping butthole that spews poop on everyone and everything i see.
'Bout as ruthless as it takes. More making a statement than just random acts of betrayal/violence.
My Inquisitor is ruthless. She will remove people/followers if need be.
She does not accept challenge to the change she is trying to incite.
That's all i want to see. A leader making decisions,
sometimes not morally respectable ones, to further the cause.
I'm hoping its very ruthless but pragmatic and that their are some chaotic ruthless parts too for variety.
To really pull off ruthless well, you have to be able to follow-up your decisions with people. You can't be a good leader if you just tell people "that's the end of it". They'll fester in resentment. So you have to be able to tell them "we're not arguing about this now" and THEN later at a better time be willing to hear them talk and explain yourself. RPG's are TERRIBLE at that, though, because, as In Exile said, nobody has any real memory. "We're done talking" isn't "don't argue with me right now" it's "you don't get to argue with me--ever". It skews things a lot when the only way to address any situation is to be touchy-feely about it at the moment it's happening--regardless of whether having a big argument in the middle of a tense situation is a good idea or not.
Retour en haut
