How is a decision right if it blows up in our face? 
In all seriousness I expect Bioware to punish mindless do-gooders. That's not to say any "good" choice dilemma should be "save the kitten and let the world burn", but we should at least have to work for it.
Another example, you stumble upon a group of dalish scouts who are about to kill a shem for getting too close to their camp, you come to the his aid and fight off the Dalish. A week later you learn that the shem told others about the dalish camp and it was raided in retaliation for threatening the him and many were killed on both sides. Sometimes the best decision is to let the dalish put an arrow through the shem and be done with it.
I know it is harsh, but it is consequences and it gives the world depth.
That simply makes me start guessing what the writer had in mind when he wrote this particular quest rather than deciding upon the actual circumstances I am presented with, since I don't have enough information to make an informed decision. If I cannot ask the dude what he's doing there for example, then an informed decision cannot be made and metagaming takes over. I don't want to keep thinking "Um, is Gaider trying to pull an 'actions have consequences' one on me here?" while I'm playing. In extreme cases I will just reload a save and pick the other option.
But if I can look back and think "ok honestly I had it coming", then even if the result is a disaster it would be fair enough.
Grey choices are best choices.
Choices with tangible consequences are all that I require.
Similar to the Genophage choice; there was no right or wrong answer. Simply a question of 'would you rather'.
Grey choices are best choices.
Choices with tangible consequences are all that I require.
Similar to the Genophage choice; there was no right or wrong answer. Simply a question of 'would you rather'.
I'm a fan of this as well. Each action has a reaction and sometimes it's only the lesser of two evils, neither good nor bad.
I think if you can't predict the outcome of a choice, most people will either:
A ) Google it to see which options benefits them the most.
B ) Reload and pick the other option.
I, personally, rather have the game stating what will happen now than to find out five hours later (or even worse, at the end) that my decision was bogus. That just instills frustration and I have plenty of that in real life. No need to have that in a game as well.
I think a scattering of these for relatively minor decisions would be ok, but the larger decisions should have predictable outcomes. Mage vs Templar should be the decision between Freedom and Security, not Right and Wrong. Celene vs Gaspard should be based on what you want to see for the future of Orlais, or at the very least what type of aid you wish to have for the Inquisition, not a black and white 'right and wrong'.
The main problem I have with these types of quests is that they render and actual decision making process meaningless. If I have no idea how a situation is going to be resolved, or be represented later in the game, then I could flip a coin and move on. Further, punishing 'good' decisions for the sake of 'sometimes good should be punished' doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
I'd much rather have a situation where we witness others making decisions, and the prevailing side could be randomized in the guts of the game, and then we deal with the fallout from those situations at a later time, seated upon our Throne of Power.
Should making the 'right' choice sometimes blow up in our faces. Sure. However, making 'wrong' choices is far more skewed in my opinion. There definitely needs to be more consequences for being an arrogant thoughtless killing machine as well. What is the consequence of murder-knife in full view of a dozen witnesses in these games?
For everyone that always complains that "good" shouldn't always turn out good, I see relatively few complaints about "bad" ever turning out as bad as it should.
I want to feel the weight of leadership and waging a war against a terrible foe. Having to choose smaller evils and between lives of people should be a part of it and if done right I'll regret ever saying I wanted it 
.
The problem with your mage/Templar scenario is that often there is no good way to tell if the mage is an abomination or not. The Templars might be telling the truth. Therefore, your scenario of an obvious good/bad choice isn't clear cut. How many times in DA2 did we run into just this scenario only to find out that, yes, the mages were indeed corrupt?
As a result, I'm neither pro-Templar or pro-mage. What happens in DA:I will determine a lot of where I go with this. I'm hoping the choice itself will be something less cut and dried than either all mage or all Templar, but we'll see.
I get what you're saying though. It would be nice to think about making a choice that seems self-evidently good come back to bite us. Perhaps you have a judgment to make between two brothers who are fighting over an inheritance and all you have to go on is character unless you put forth effort to dig deeper, and the one who seems to be the genuinely best character judgment winds up actually being the worst choice. And if you don't put forth the effort to investigate deeper, you wind up appointing someone who will ultimately rebel against you and side with your enemies forcing you to take the time and military effort to put them land down. Siding with the other brother earns you a steadfast ally and resources for only the cost of a judgment.
I'd prefer if both "good" and "bad" choices occasionally bit us in the butt.
I don't believe in punishing the PC for making a decision with the best intentions.
That's just sadistic and dumb.
Making a decision which is moral but maybe not politic and having consequences? Maybe.
1. Letting the Dalish not shoot some shem who know where a camp is and said shem go burn it down? Entirely realistic for Dragon age.
2. Siding with Gaspard and he goes invade Fereldan? Realistic. Siding with Celene and she burns a bunch of elven alienages? Realistic.
3. Save Ashley or Save Kaiden. There is no third option. Realistic.
4. You save the child and, OOOPS, the Child is EVIL. [Censored] that.
Basically, the Inquisitor should have an idea of consequences to his actions and allowed to choose anyway.
I don't mind this. So long as of course it is not a constant occurrence It can happen just not all the time. I don't wanna give to the poor only to have that poor guy give killed for the coin I give him or he buys a weapon to commit a murder.
I don't mind this. So long as of course it is not a constant occurrence It can happen just not all the time. I don't wanna give to the poor only to have that poor guy give killed for the coin I give him or he buys a weapon to commit a murder.
It seems like Darth Traya started this thread, didn't she?
It seems like Darth Traya started this thread, didn't she?
And now I must replay Kotor.
gods I hope so, I'm tired of playing it safe and moral working out always for the best
Retour en haut