237 réponses à ce sujet

[pengwin21]

I don't think abandoning Redcliffe is a good example of having choices. It doesn't come off as 'ruthlessly pragmatic' because you have to return to Redcliffe anyway and you can only enter the castle because Teagan somehow manages to survive. There's no noticeable postive in-game effect for 'choosing to spend time doing other stuff' other than a small amount of approval from Morrigan.

 

Since there's a limit to how many choices Bioware can give (due to various resources), they should strive to make their choices reasonably sensible.

[In Exile]

Double post.

[In Exile]

I don't think abandoning Redcliffe is a good example of having choices. It doesn't come off as 'ruthlessly pragmatic' because you have to return to Redcliffe anyway and you can only enter the castle because Teagan somehow manages to survive. There's no noticeable postive in-game effect for 'choosing to spend time doing other stuff' other than a small amount of approval from Morrigan.

Since there's a limit to how many choices Bioware can give (due to various resources), they should strive to make their choices reasonably sensible.

Redcliffe isn't pragmatic. It's at best reckless, because you're abandoning what could very well be the heir to Redcliffe to death, leaving a relatively vital village in Ferelden to die, and abandoning a lot of able bodied men and women.

As far as you know (1) Eamon is sick and may be dead (2) the entire castle is inaccessible and (3) Teagan may well be the only noble alive with the ability to call Redcliffe's banners.

Leaving them to die is incredibly dangerous. And that's leaving aside the benefit of winning over Teagan.

[Tevinter Rose]

I mostly agree with the OP. I hope that there are a lot of unique "evil" rp options in the game.

[Tevinter Rose]

 

So why even have an evil option? What's the point?

 

So punishing people for picking the evil option and/or giving them lesser rewards is flawed in two ways: First, it completely goes against any realistic motivation for being evil. Second, it means the developers wasted time even presenting an evil option to begin with, because a player who wants to play an evil character would rationally choose the good option 99% of the time. Crime doesn't pay? The sad truth is that sometimes it does. And that's why evil people exist.

 

 

 

Totally agree. 

[budzai]

They just should add more lie options and make some good choices to backfire to you... For example if you go to the circle-tower for lyrium the demon takes control and kill everyone in the castle, but if you sacrifices the mother you can save them... ( I know it is not the best example but that just popped in my mind...)

[viperidae]

Putting aside whether there were always logical consequences to paragon choices, a fair amount of renegade choices were pretty terrible and should have had poor consequences attached to them. The problem as I saw it wasn't that renegades were punished so much as Paragons were insulated. Generally speaking, Renegade choices were pretty antisocial. 

 

This though is exactly what i hate so much. You know which character actually makes the most sense to me in ME3? not the full-on renegade, not the full-on paragon, but a roleplayed renegade with paragon end choices. basically the anti-hero, right? but then again, maybe that path should've been possible with just the renegade choices.

[Fast Jimmy]

This though is exactly what i hate so much. You know which character actually makes the most sense to me in ME3? not the full-on renegade, not the full-on paragon, but a roleplayed renegade with paragon end choices. basically the anti-hero, right? but then again, maybe that path should've been possible with just the renegade choices.

 

So, basically a Renegade for dialogue, but a Paragon for actual choices?

 

That just seems like Troll Shephard more than anything else.

[Fast Jimmy]

Putting aside whether there were always logical consequences to paragon choices, a fair amount of renegade choices were pretty terrible and should have had poor consequences attached to them. The problem as I saw it wasn't that renegades were punished so much as Paragons were insulated. Generally speaking, Renegade choices were pretty antisocial. 

 

I've always viewed the way "bad" and "good" outcomes to be presented in most games (not just Bioware games) to be a real dichotomy. I liken it to Risk Management - which it basically is, since the player is making a choice with limited information on what the outcomes or results will be in most cases.

 

Choosing "good" I would view as a pure positive risk, which is to say that only two outcomes happen - something good happens (relative to the other choices) or nothing happens (again, relative to the other choices). 

 

Choosing "bad," on the other hand, i would view as pure negative risk, which is to say only two outcomes happen - something bad happens or nothing happens (again, relative to the other choices).

 

To demonstrate, let me use the most infamous of choice outcomes, ME3's Rachni Queen. Regardless of your choices in previous ME games, the Rachni Queen is turned into a monstrosity by the Reapers, which you encounter in ME3. And again, regardless of prior game decisions, you are only given two choices - kill the new monster Queen or free her.

The ME1 Paragon choice of letting the Queen escape results in two outcomes - you kill the new monster Queen (Krogan special forces added to your War Assets) or you set her free, where she turns into a War Asset for you, helping your cause.

 

The ME1 Renegade choice of killing the Queen results in two outcomes - kill the cloned queen since you killed the first (again, earning you Krogan special forces) or set her free, where she turns into a War Asset for you, helping your cause... for a little while. But then the Queen turns rogue and kills part of the research team working on the Crucible, resulting in a War Assets LOSS.

 

Hence, only neutral or good results came out of Paragon. And only neutral or negative results came out of Renegade. That's not good design.

 

 

One would hope an equal (and logical) balancing of outcomes between the two would be present. Not in every instance, but at least in some. Although, ideally, removing a clearly labeled morality choice would be better. Saving the Anvil in DA:O would undoubtedly have been labeled as a Renegade choice (ironically enough, titled Paragon of Her Kind), but I think giving the dwarves a fighting chance against an ever-encroaching Darkspawn horde is choosing the greater good. I don't do it for the evil-lolz or selfish power reasons... I do it because I truly believe it is the best chance at ensuring an entire race's survival. I'm not being "edgy" or "power-hungry" or anything normally attributed to "bad" morality, but such a shallow morality system would have my choice labeled that way, regardless.

[Fast Jimmy]

.. I like the sound of that.

 

 

I prefer something close, but I also like a lot of casual Renegade choices, when handling individuals (like kicking the merc out the window or killing the Asari in Samara's quest). I'm iffy when it comes to big/global choices. I'll shoot Legion and might sabotage the Krogan, but I'd never be so incompetent as to have low EMS or pick the Control ending.

 

Arguably, Control really is the best outcome/choice for the end of ME3. No one has to die. Peace can be everlasting. A certain aspect of Shephard lives (moreso than in High-EMS Destroy, theoretically). 

 

The problem comes into play with trust. Nearly every single instance of people trying to control or capitalize on Reaper technology shown in game is shown to be destructive, warping to the mind and soul, rarely effective and, all-in-all, bad. Trusting the Catalyst's word that Shephard will be in the driver seat is a huge leap of faith. Yet, from the endings we are shown in the EC, it seems to truly be the case. Shephard is ascended to a higher level of consciousness, but still maintains identity, control and guides the galaxy to peace (either through iron fist or rainbows and butterflies). 

 

Which, if true, REALLY is dumb. Why the Catalyst would turn over all of that power to another being after millions of years of a cycle where the word "genocide" doesnt' even really scratch the surface is just silly. That's not a morality choice, that's simply poor narrative.

[In Exile]

I think the more ruthlessly pragmatic angle in Redcliffe is not spending your time with the village specifically. Not equipping the militia, not bothering with Bella in the tavern, or Bevin. It's the equivalent of just cutting through to your goal (the Arl). And then when getting there, killing Connor.

The only way I can justify abandoning Redlcliffe as a whole is if I'm just not concerned with allying with the Arl at all. Like if I was a pissed off city elf or Dalish, still an early Warden with a chip on his shoulder, and decided it was better to move on to other prospects instead of helping the "stupid shems". It's not pragmatic though. It's just ruthless.

But Eamon isn't the goal. Finding someone to rally Ferelden is the goal. If you're not an HN then you don't really have any ground to prefer Eamon over Teagan beside what Alistair says to you. If you're an HN, then you're as much a player as Teagan in the nobility with your line dead. That's my problem with Redcliffe. If we were told Eamon was trapped and dying, rather than sick and possibly already dead, I'd get it.

I think the Dalish justification isn't ruthless, it's just racist.

[viperidae]

So, basically a Renegade for dialogue, but a Paragon for actual choices?

 

That just seems like Troll Shephard more than anything else.

 

That made me laugh out loud!

 

But really, it seems pretty logical to me. After first playing Renegade, i quickly realize it's basically being tired of everybody's sh*t and getting the job done no matter the obstacles. But to me, that doesn't excuse actually making a choice at the end that undermines everything. I can see killing certain people or the Rachni queen for example as a Renegade choice, but to me, killing Wrex and renouncing the Genophage and saying "screw the krogan" doesn't make any sense at all for the kind of character that RenegadeShep is. I like to see him as an anti-hero or an "ends justify the means" type, but to me, nothing justifies killing David in Overlord, screwing over your own squadmates, giving Cerberus the Collector Base , shooting mordin and wrex , or not making peace between the Geth and Quarians if the option is available.

 

That said, my shep will always take every punch-in-the-face option and will throw that merc out of the window everytime

[pengwin21]

But Eamon isn't the goal. Finding someone to rally Ferelden is the goal. If you're not an HN then you don't really have any ground to prefer Eamon over Teagan beside what Alistair says to you. If you're an HN, then you're as much a player as Teagan in the nobility with your line dead. That's my problem with Redcliffe. If we were told Eamon was trapped and dying, rather than sick and possibly already dead, I'd get it.

I think the Dalish justification isn't ruthless, it's just racist.

 

I think you have to be an Arl or higher to call for the Landsmeet. The HN isn't officially recognized as anything, Howe is the Teyrn of Highever at this point.

 

I imagine non-HN origins (especially Dalish and Dwarven Commoner) might have difficulties grasping the differences between a Bann and an Arl though. There maybe should have been a dialogue option with Teagan like "Can't you just call the Landsmeet?" 

[In Exile]

I think you have to be an Arl or higher to call for the Landsmeet. The HN isn't officially recognized as anything, Howe is the Teyrn of Highever at this point.

 

I imagine non-HN origins (especially Dalish and Dwarven Commoner) might have difficulties grasping the differences between a Bann and an Arl though. There maybe should have been a dialogue option with Teagan like "Can't you just call the Landsmeet?" 

 

Whether or not the HN can call a Landsmeet is beside the point. Formalities matter a lot less than persuasiveness. The sheer fact that you're not just a Cousland, but considered the person who should have inherited over Fergus (putting aside your father's desire for you to find your own path), gives you a lot of weight compared to what might very well be Eamon's corpse.

 

If Eamon is dead (or dies), then Teagan is the heir. If Connor is alive, well, accidents can happen. That's the evil/ruthless path. You have a possible heir to Redcliffe alive, sane, and functional. Eamon could be ill even if he isn't dead, which is exactly you find. The plan to save Eamon literally turns out to be a wild goose chase for the holy grail of Thedas. 

[AlanC9]

Trusting the Catalyst's word that Shephard will be in the driver seat is a huge leap of faith.

As usual, I feel compelled to point out that your reason to trust that picking Destroy actually leads to the Reapers being destroyed is in no way more sound than your reason to trust that Control really means that the Reapers are controlled.

[In Exile]

As usual, I feel compelled to point out that your reason to trust that picking Destroy actually leads to the Reapers being destroyed is in no way more sound than your reason to trust that Control really means that the Reapers are controlled.

 

Which is kind of the underlying problem with offering the ending via multiple choice. DX:HR suffers from this same problem. It's only the original DX that avoids it, because the multiple choice options don't all come from the same person. The original DX was as much about who you trusted as it was about your reasons for doing it. 

[AlanC9]

@ In Exile: Sure. Purely as a matter of RP there's nothing wrong with Refuse. It's only objectively that it's a total failure.

I suppose DA:O's DR is a similar case: do you trust Morrigan?

[In Exile]

@ In Exile: Sure. Purely as a matter of RP there's nothing wrong with Refuse. It's only objectively that it's a total failure.

I suppose DA:O's DR is a similar case: do you trust Morrigan?

 

To me, the DR is a bit different because the worst case scenario from Morrigan's plan is just having something extra to kill. If you actually survive long enough for it to work, what's the actual downside? Instead of a flying dragon with (what you later find out) are absolutely no special powers beyond control of the darkspawn, you end up with... a person with no special powers beside controlling darskpawn?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Redcliffe isn't pragmatic. It's at best reckless, because you're abandoning what could very well be the heir to Redcliffe to death, leaving a relatively vital village in Ferelden to die, and abandoning a lot of able bodied men and women.

As far as you know (1) Eamon is sick and may be dead (2) the entire castle is inaccessible and (3) Teagan may well be the only noble alive with the ability to call Redcliffe's banners.

Leaving them to die is incredibly dangerous. And that's leaving aside the benefit of winning over Teagan.

I think saving Redcliffe is incredibly reckless.  In the grand scheme of things, Redcliffe doesn't matter, but the Blight does.  The Warden risking his life to achieve an inconsequential goal, with the cost of failure being the desctruction of all of Ferelden, I just can't justify that.

 

Personally, I never understood why the Warden would want to go to Redcliffe at all.  He has treaties for the Dwarves, Elves, and Mages, but Redcliffe offers him nothing beyond the vague promises of Alistair, which are made even less credible given the news of Eamon's health.  Going to Redcliffe doesn't make such sense, and risking the Warden's life to save Redciffe makes none at all.

[In Exile]

I think saving Redcliffe is incredibly reckless.  In the grand scheme of things, Redcliffe doesn't matter, but the Blight does.  The Warden risking his life to achieve an inconsequential goal, with the cost of failure being the desctruction of all of Ferelden, I just can't justify that.

 

Personally, I never understood why the Warden would want to go to Redcliffe at all.  He has treaties for the Dwarves, Elves, and Mages, but Redcliffe offers him nothing beyond the vague promises of Alistair, which are made even less credible given the news of Eamon's health.  Going to Redcliffe doesn't make such sense, and risking the Warden's life to save Redciffe makes none at all.

 

The game auto-defaults to not being able to stop the Blight without confronting Loghain in Ferelden. I agree with you that with a dwarven, elven and mage/templar army, you would have what seems to be enough to confront the darkspawn, and at that point it's not entirely clear why you couldn't either engage them or treat with Loghain directly. 

 

But on the assumption you need to deal with Loghain, I think saving Redcliffe is the least risky choice.