237 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

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. 

But that you need to do that isn't made clear until the Landsmeet is upon you.

[In Exile]

But that you need to do that isn't made clear until the Landsmeet is upon you.

 

I think it's conveyed to the player in the same way having to go to the Friendly Arms is in BG1, which is to say it relies on OOC assumptions about how the player would view objectives for the game rather than as in-character or in-game justification. 

 

Before Loghain used his psychic powers to find out my first Warden survived Ostagar, he was perfectly fine with Loghain abandoning the field and willing to work with him. In the end, he allowed Loghain to live because it was the most pragmatic choice. He was an independent person, meaning Alistiar was OK with pairing up with Anora, which actually turned out to be a pretty good situation. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think it's conveyed to the player in the same way having to go to the Friendly Arms is in BG1, which is to say it relies on OOC assumptions about how the player would view objectives for the game rather than as in-character or in-game justification.

Well that's dumb, because the player doesn't exist within the game.

Do you allow then that from an in-character perspective, saving Redcliffe isn't a great idea?

This is just like how ME supposedly let the player know that the Mako was mandatory for the Ilos trench run. And I completely missed that, too.

And you don't have to go to the Friendly Arm Inn un BG. You can literally never go there and still finish the game.

[In Exile]

Well that's dumb, because the player doesn't exist within the game.

Do you allow then that from an in-character perspective, saving Redcliffe isn't a great idea?

This is just like how ME supposedly let the player know that the Mako was mandatory for the Ilos trench run. And I completely missed that, too.

And you don't have to go to the Friendly Arm Inn un BG. You can literally never go there and still finish the game.

 

I didn't mean to imply you had to go to the friendly arms inn in BG1. My intention was simply to cite as an example of where Bioware has relied on this design. Your ME1 example is also a good one. Another example of this is the cutscene to Loghain. I don't like that form of storytelling and hope Bioware abandons it (to be fair they did not use it in DA2, except for the framing with Varric which I disliked because I dislike meta-stories in media).

 

I agree with you that - depending on integrated your character is within Ferelden and the view your takes of the civil war - that even going to Redcliffe is nonsensical. It is really only as a human noble that it makes sense to go to the village first, I think. Otherwise the Mage Tower is a similar distance from Lothering and the horde is massing that way. Mages will be reliable allies (as far as the player would know).

[In Exile]

I don't know. I think it depends on your character concept. 

 

I can play a racist elf who doesn't want to go there. But I could easily make my Dalish dude somewhat like Merrill, pretty inexperienced with humans, and just deferring to Alistair's "plan" for the time being. Y'know, like he's thinking "I guess these shems value this Arl Eamon guy. Whatever an "Arl" is, maybe I should try." Both characters can also evolve as the story goes on too, and drop former attitudes.

 

In terms of moral compass, I can only really play ruthlessly pragmatic characters or naive idealists - or some mix of the two. I have no many issues with Dalish culture to ever play a Dalish elf.

 

As a CE, I think an intelligent character can have enough knowledge to know what an Arl is an why having one onside is important, though my CEs tend to fall in the "leave them all to die camp". As a Dwarf Noble, knowing the exact political structure of Ferelden I think is a prerequisite. As a Dwarf Commoner, well, nobles are backstabbing scum better left alone. And as a Mage, getting back to the Tower and speaking to Irving seems to be as good idea as any. 

[whanzephruseke]

I think that's supposed to only be fulfilled by the "chosen one" (Anakin). The prophecy was that only the chosen one would destroy the Sith (according to Lucas, he did.. by killing himself and Palpatine).

 

The prophesy was that Anakin would bring balance to the Force, which he did by increasing the power of the Dark Side at a time when the Force was too heavily skewed towards the Light Side.  Destruction of the Sith would not result in balance, because in order for there to be balance, the Dark and Light Sides must have equal weight.

 

The problem is that its RARELY ever not convenient. Being Paragon/Good/Help-all-the-defenseless-peasants-you-can/what-have-you is predominantly the best course of action in nearly every video game, let alone RPGs. A totally selfish player looking to maximize their rewards and outcomes only needs to make the "good" choice every time.

 

As someone who tends to always make the goody-two-shoes choices, I can say that this is definitely not always the case.  There were plenty of times in my first ME runthrought where I was afraid to take the Paragon option because it was so obvious that doing so would get everyone killed.  When you're fighting a war, if you refuse to accept that you need to sacrifice your morals for the greater good, you will lose.  There were some times where I took the Renegade option, even though it made me feel like a terrible person, because I knew it was the Right Thing To Do.

 

That being said, I hated that every choice you made almost arbitrarily gave you points towards one of two tracks.  For the full role playing effect, each decision should have its pros and cons and be made on its own merits, and should have consequences that are specific to that decision instead of having certain consequences trigger once you've built up enough points in one track or the other.

[Lennard Testarossa]

As someone who tends to always make the goody-two-shoes choices, I can say that this is definitely not always the case.  There were plenty of times in my first ME runthrought where I was afraid to take the Paragon option because it was so obvious that doing so would get everyone killed.  When you're fighting a war, if you refuse to accept that you need to sacrifice your morals for the greater good, you will lose.  There were some times where I took the Renegade option, even though it made me feel like a terrible person, because I knew it was the Right Thing To Do.

 

But it wasn't the Right Thing To Do. It didn't get everyone killed. It didn't even get anyone killed. There wasn't a single instance in the entire trilogy (except for that Anderson thing at the end of ME 3) where the goody-two-shoes choice had any negative repercussions at all.

[batlin]

As someone who tends to always make the goody-two-shoes choices, I can say that this is definitely not always the case.  There were plenty of times in my first ME runthrought where I was afraid to take the Paragon option because it was so obvious that doing so would get everyone killed.  When you're fighting a war, if you refuse to accept that you need to sacrifice your morals for the greater good, you will lose.  There were some times where I took the Renegade option, even though it made me feel like a terrible person, because I knew it was the Right Thing To Do

 

I can't remember any choie like that in ME except for the one at the end pertaining to the Council.

 

That being said, I hated that every choice you made almost arbitrarily gave you points towards one of two tracks.  For the full role playing effect, each decision should have its pros and cons and be made on its own merits, and should have consequences that are specific to that decision instead of having certain consequences trigger once you've built up enough points in one track or the other.

I agree that each decision should have its pros and cons. BUT that the evil path should lead to getting more material reward in most cases, but that the possibility should exist in all cases of taking the evil route.

 

Now, when I say "evil" it can mean "renegade", "selfish", "ruthless", etc. Because each of those just means "get the most for myself". If the option that opposes the nicest option clearly won't  get you anything, then no one, excepting people who want to play a sociopath, would ever pick the evil option.

[pengwin21]

I suppose I can agree that not going to Redcliffe might be theoretically sensible (if there were some alternate route to dealing with Loghain available), but the game doesn't allow you to do this. Thus the decision to abandon Redcliffe makes little sense, as the Warden ends up returning anyway.

[whanzephruseke]

But it wasn't the Right Thing To Do. It didn't get everyone killed. It didn't even get anyone killed. There wasn't a single instance in the entire trilogy (except for than Anderson thing at the end of ME 3) where the goody-two-shoes choice had any negative repercussions at all.

 

It's been a while since I've played, but I remember that I failed Zaeed's loyalty mission my first playthrough because of it.  There were also times when I reloaded because my LI got mad at me for picking the stupid moral high-ground choice where it was clearly not appropriate.  I think that choosing the Paragon option in Legion's loyalty mission also has repercussions in the third game.  I do agree with you, however, that there should have been more times when choosing the few over the many came back to bite me in the butt.

 

 

I agree that each decision should have its pros and cons. BUT that the evil path should lead to getting more material reward in most cases, but that the possibility should exist in all cases of taking the evil route.

 

Now, when I say "evil" it can mean "renegade", "selfish", "ruthless", etc. Because each of those just means "get the most for myself". If the option that opposes the nicest option clearly won't  get you anything, then no one, excepting people who want to play a sociopath, would ever pick the evil option.

 

 

You assume that material gains is the only reason not to take the "good" option, which I strongly disagree with.  There should be no choices which are truly "evil," because when you role play, you are supposed to be acting like a real person with actual motivations for their actions, and there is no such thing as an "evil" person.  Everyone has a different moral code.  A decision that you might call "evil" another person might think is completely justified in that particular situation.

[Lady Luminous]

I think my favourite part of being a jerk in DA:O (other than having an army of werewolves and golems, because fricking awesome) was convincing Alistair I was on his side, then getting Anora to marry me and banishing Alistair.

 

Now I've got Loghain going "You're supposed to hate me... I'm confused" because Paris (my warden) thinks being nice to his father-in-law will get him brownie points with his wife. Lol.

 

I prefer to play the sociopaths than truly evil.

[batlin]

You assume that material gains is the only reason not to take the "good" option, which I strongly disagree with.  There should be no choices which are truly "evil," because when you role play, you are supposed to be acting like a real person with actual motivations for their actions, and there is no such thing as an "evil" person.  Everyone has a different moral code.  A decision that you might call "evil" another person might think is completely justified in that particular situation.

I'm not letting this topic turn into a discussion of whether evil exists.

 

As I said in the post you quoted, I use the "evil" as a catch-all for the "not good" option. Yes, of course evil people don't believe they're evil, unless they're a sociopath. But a person justifying evil actions makes their action no less evil. That's why it's fair to call a choice evil.

 

As I defined good and evil in the OP, it's really a difference between selfless and selfish. A selfish person, i.e. "evil person", when given a choice between saving a puppy and blowing up a city will choose the option that is most beneficial to them. So if offered $100 to save the puppy, they will save the puppy instead of blowing up the city. That's why I say having evil options only makes sense if it will yield higher reward for the player.

[Fast Jimmy]

It's been a while since I've played, but I remember that I failed Zaeed's loyalty mission my first playthrough because of it.  There were also times when I reloaded because my LI got mad at me for picking the stupid moral high-ground choice where it was clearly not appropriate.  I think that choosing the Paragon option in Legion's loyalty mission also has repercussions in the third game.  I do agree with you, however, that there should have been more times when choosing the few over the many came back to biteme in the butt.

 

Well, with Zaeed, it was simply a matter of persuading him that doing the right thing was the best course of action. Which was possible with a high enough Paragon level. If you always chose the Paragon path in every instance, this will work out in your favor - although I'll concede that is more of a flaw with ME1 & 2's persuasion skill system than it is a morality system issue... but the fact that the two were tied so closely together encouraged (although certainly not required) the player to stick with one morality. 

 

And I believe the Legion's loyalty mission was a wash. Rewriting the Geth gets you more Geth Prime War Assets, destroying the Geth gives you more Quarian War Assets (the thought being that the Geth did less damage to the Quarians during the assault before Shephard arrived). In terms of story or your options for negotiating peace, I think it was minimal. 

 

 

To counter my own argument, though, I can think of one instance where the Renegade option was beneficial - Garrus' recruitment mission in ME2 allowed you to assassinate the mechanic working on the gunship that would later attack you. With that one Renegade act, that fight becomes much, much easier. Easier fights aren't something I value as a choice consequence, though. The same can be accomplished by going into the menu and changing the Difficulty menu. I'd rather see something narrative or plot based in consequences - that way it feels the world is being impacted, rather than the only variance being my experience, as the player, becomes less challenging.

 

But that's just my own two cents.

[Fast Jimmy]

In terms of moral compass, I can only really play ruthlessly pragmatic characters or naive idealists - or some mix of the two. I have no many issues with Dalish culture to ever play a Dalish elf.

 

As a CE, I think an intelligent character can have enough knowledge to know what an Arl is an why having one onside is important, though my CEs tend to fall in the "leave them all to die camp". As a Dwarf Noble, knowing the exact political structure of Ferelden I think is a prerequisite. As a Dwarf Commoner, well, nobles are backstabbing scum better left alone. And as a Mage, getting back to the Tower and speaking to Irving seems to be as good idea as any. 

 

This brings me to an interesting question to pose you (and the rest of the board)... is it more important that the game allows options to express (even subtly) different perspectives, beliefs or mindsets of our characters, or that the game works to actively allow the player to create as many roles or motivations as possible? I'm convinced I know how Sylvius would respond, but I'd be curious to see others.

 

We can experience different character archetypes, such as the Dwarf Noble, in very different ways because DA:O does a good job of giving us a few options to express rather specific ideas and then leaves hands off when making any other assumptions about what the character is doing or why. I think there is room for improvement, but I also think it lends itself to different character viewpoints and different takes on the same choices, making a possible moral compass something quite different based on how the player goes about things.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I didn't mean to imply you had to go to the friendly arms inn in BG1. My intention was simply to cite as an example of where Bioware has relied on this design. Your ME1 example is also a good one. Another example of this is the cutscene to Loghain. I don't like that form of storytelling and hope Bioware abandons it (to be fair they did not use it in DA2, except for the framing with Varric which I disliked because I dislike meta-stories in media).

I don't care if they abandon it.  I'm always going to ignore it.  So whether it's there affects me not at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

We can experience different character archetypes, such as the Dwarf Noble, in very different ways because DA:O does a good job of giving us a few options to express rather specific ideas and then leaves hands off when making any other assumptions about what the character is doing or why. I think there is room for improvement, but I also think it lends itself to different character viewpoints and different takes on the same choices, making a possible moral compass something quite different based on how the player goes about things.

This is a big part of why I like DAO so much.

 

Depending on the character you design, the same conversation can mean very different things.  As an example, play the Mage Origin both as a freedom-loving anarchist and then as an obedient servant of Andraste who values the security the Mage Circle provides.  The conversation with Irving about Jowan plays out exactly the same way, but it's a vastly different conversation.

[Lady Luminous]

This brings me to an interesting question to pose you (and the rest of the board)... is it more important that the game allows options to express (even subtly) different perspectives, beliefs or mindsets of our characters, or that the game works to actively allow the player to create as many roles or motivations as possible? I'm convinced I know how Sylvius would respond, but I'd be curious to see others.

 

We can experience different character archetypes, such as the Dwarf Noble, in very different ways because DA:O does a good job of giving us a few options to express rather specific ideas and then leaves hands off when making any other assumptions about what the character is doing or why. I think there is room for improvement, but I also think it lends itself to different character viewpoints and different takes on the same choices, making a possible moral compass something quite different based on how the player goes about things.

 

I think it's important that the same set of choices can be played out by wildly different characters with different motivations. I want my character to have their own moral compass and drive; I would hate to be shoehorned into a role where the justifications didn't feel real to me.

 

(Part of my issue with DA2 was I knew what I had to do, but rarely could I word my intentions so that I was convinced of the reason why I was doing something.)

[Lady Luminous]

Yeah, one case there for me is Petrice. I know she isn't popular, but I like the idea of siding with her.

 

But I don't think I can do it in the way I want. I feel like I'm a particular type of character when siding with her - some ruthless pro-Templar type. I'd rather do it as a mage, and was hoping I could communicate to Petrice that the Chantry and mages could be allies against the Qun. 

 

Technically you can do it, but it doesn't seem to flow well imo.

 

So true, or how about just the fact that saying no in that game means nothing? Still forced into every quest.

[Jorji Costava]

This brings me to an interesting question to pose you (and the rest of the board)... is it more important that the game allows options to express (even subtly) different perspectives, beliefs or mindsets of our characters, or that the game works to actively allow the player to create as many roles or motivations as possible? I'm convinced I know how Sylvius would respond, but I'd be curious to see others.

 

I'm far from a purist on anything, let alone RPGs. My view is that the game can do whatever it wants, as long as it engenders the right set of expectations about player agency from the beginning, and stays consistent with itself throughout. For instance, you don't want to have a game that starts out by giving you a great deal of flexibility in defining your character, only to impose certain beliefs and motivations on the PC two-thirds of the way through the game. More controversially, starting out with a highly defined protagonist, and then letting the players do whatever they want, may be problematic in terms of allowing the player to 'break' the story (i.e. Niko Bellic in GTA IV being a criminal to wants to reform, only to suddenly and inexplicably start running over pedestrians and shooting cops left and right).

[Wulfsten]

You just repeated a good chunk of what I already wrote. Yes, selfishness is the heart of evil. No one would do bad things if doing good things would get them the same, or even a better, result. If you look at the state of the world today (or, better yet, of the feudal era of Europe), atrocities are pretty common. Why? Did people do these things for the hell of it? No, because back then, the best and most efficient way to get things was to take it. And yes, very few of these people think they're evil. They justify their actions based on the end result: they have what they want.

 

So since players will almost always choose to play the good side, having the rewards for being good be superior to the rewards for being evil completely defeats the purpose of having an evil choice at all. Why would anybody actually choose to do something bad knowing that what they get at the end of the day would be worse than the good option? If there were a player who really was evil, and he was presented with the same choices ofen seen in games would pick the choice that's most profitable, not the one that involves stealing candy from a baby, meaning he would probaly end every RPG with a halo over his character's head. You said it yourself: evil is about selfishness.

 

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.

 

I'll invoke GTA again: Those games are fun and popular because being bad in them is fun AND profitable. If you commit a crime and there's a witness, you'll get the police after you, but unless you have six stars, getting away from the police is pretty simple. That's for a reason. If getting away from the police were extremely difficult and the most efficient way to make money were to sit in your house and wait for your real estate to make you money, the game would be pretty boring, right? Why do that with the evil option in RPGs?

 

Again, I think you're missing my point. You are still talking about people acting "evil" in life to get what they want faster. As I said, I wouldn't really call that evil - it's petty criminality. It does happen, but that's not really the issue. 

 

What we consider Evil with a capital "E" are things like Hitler, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. For the most part, these people are not doing the horrible things they do for personal profit - being a suicide bomber's not a great career choice. They're doing it because they believe it's right, and it will make the world a better place. THAT'S what games can't really deal with - differing philosophical systems, some of which produce outcomes that to us are monstrous. 

[Fast Jimmy]

This is a big part of why I like DAO so much.

 

Depending on the character you design, the same conversation can mean very different things.  As an example, play the Mage Origin both as a freedom-loving anarchist and then as an obedient servant of Andraste who values the security the Mage Circle provides.  The conversation with Irving about Jowan plays out exactly the same way, but it's a vastly different conversation.

 

And the conversation itself doesn't force the player to express any specific ideas or tone that would counter the possibility of playing as either of those two mindsets (or any number of others). 

 

Still, while many choose to knock the Origins as being rather unimpactful for the rest of the game, there were a few lines of dialogue that were Origin specific and gave the choice of expressing certain qualities (such as racism - or reverse racism, in the case of elves). But the game doesn't require that you choose these options, it only provides them to you. I liked that DA:O let you play as a justified racist without making it a caricature, but if it had been like DA2 where your character was not only given the option, but ASSUMED to be true for all characters in some cases, I would have hated it.

 

 

Its a fine balancing act between offering enough agency, offering meaningful roleplaying options and the writers creating a PC that some players find "not a boring cardboard cutout," which are all various critiques of the PCs in the DA games.

[AlanC9]

What we consider Evil with a capital "E" are things like Hitler, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. For the most part, these people are not doing the horrible things they do for personal profit - being a suicide bomber's not a great career choice. They're doing it because they believe it's right, and it will make the world a better place. THAT'S what games can't really deal with - differing philosophical systems, some of which produce outcomes that to us are monstrous.

I don't see a technical reason why a game couldn't do this. But I don't suppose it would pass an ROI test.

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't see a technical reason why a game couldn't do this. But I don't suppose it would pass an ROI test.

Exactly. Extreme choices for anything come down to a "what value does this bring to the game and how many players will see that value?" If there is a very detailed, in depth series of events, quests and dialogue for a choice only 1 player in 1,000 will see, would the resources have been spent creating that for content 1 in 100 would see? 1 in 10? 100% of players?

It's a problem for nearly every facet of a game, honestly. Is a hugely robust crafting system worth putting the zots into it only a handful of players use it? If you design the game to nudge more players towards such a system to justify that investment, wi the player resent you for it? The same goes for combat - how do you make a system that keeps many forms of sub-optimal builds possible while not making the game too simple for those who max/min every stat? How do you make enemies that provide a sufficient challenge without making the player rage/quit or feel like they are steamrolling everyone? How do you balance the players who WANT to constantly be challenged to the point of failure AND those players who want to be able to steamroll everyone?

Ultimately, as much as we all have wish lists for DA:I, it might be a branding problem at this point. People aren't sure what DA is right now, because the series has been a little all over the board. People can invoke a number of features or design elements (real or perceived) that could be tied to the series or its individual games that may be at odds with one another. The lack of a consistent system, whether that pertains to combat rules or morality systems, lends itself to wild requests and imagined options simply because the approach has been a bit of a catch-all. To its credit or detriment, DA:I could be anything... which means people can have their expectations set at everything.