268 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia_Nox]

I think this game is going to do a very subtle thing.

 

Let's take the Bandit Camp we were shown in the Extra Life video.

 

The "Evil" choice (only because it's violence you "could" avoid) - is to just wipe out the camp.  You are rewarded with XP - Power - Loot - and Speed (of time to finish quest).

 

The "Good" choice is to go through the process of winning the group over to you.  You are potentially rewarded with XP (maybe not - would be good if less) - More Power (confirmed) - no loot - and a longer time. 

 

I like this a lot. 

 

Things should not be "mustache twirling evil" just to be the cruel, violent, brutal, greedy choice. 

 

Edit:  Something that would ALSO be interesting - is if you just take in everyone... and some people are truly scummy folks you shouldn't have taken in and they abuse their station and you have to deal with it.

[Drasanil]

Still... I can see someone going down the path of starting the quest and saying "well, I've already killed one person at this god's behest... why not go for just one more?" 

 

The vigilant is annoying any ways, you basically have to take detours around him or else he's always interupt you with his conversation. Killing him is kind of a public service. 

 

OT, but since we're talking about Markarth, anyone else figure out you can skip the Cihdna mine prison-arc by just stealth killing all the corrupt guards in the chapel before they have a chance to detect you and declare you a traitor?

[Xilizhra]

I think this game is going to do a very subtle thing.

 

Let's take the Bandit Camp we were shown in the Extra Life video.

 

The "Evil" choice (only because it's violence you "could" avoid) - is to just wipe out the camp.  You are rewarded with XP - Power - Loot - and Speed (of time to finish quest).

 

The "Good" choice is to go through the process of winning the group over to you.  You are potentially rewarded with XP (maybe not - would be good if less) - More Power (confirmed) - no loot - and a longer time. 

 

I like this a lot. 

 

Things should not be "mustache twirling evil" just to be the cruel, violent, brutal, greedy choice. 

 

Edit:  Something that would ALSO be interesting - is if you just take in everyone... and some people are truly scummy folks you shouldn't have taken in and they abuse their station and you have to deal with it.

Is speed actually a resource?

[In Exile]

Thats the point, make the renegade choice not the stupid one. Have them over different outcomes:

Paragon = nice guy route, yields a good outcome and everyone looks at you like your a hero

Renegade = yields a better outcome but people think you're too ruthless

 

What I'm saying is that the renegade choices shouldn't be stupid and insane.

 

The bigger problem is justifying the morality play. Whenever you start with the morality of the choice first vs. just the logical outcomes, you end up with contrived answers. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I think this game is going to do a very subtle thing.

 

Let's take the Bandit Camp we were shown in the Extra Life video.

 

The "Evil" choice (only because it's violence you "could" avoid) - is to just wipe out the camp.  You are rewarded with XP - Power - Loot - and Speed (of time to finish quest).

 

The "Good" choice is to go through the process of winning the group over to you.  You are potentially rewarded with XP (maybe not - would be good if less) - More Power (confirmed) - no loot - and a longer time. 

 

I like this a lot. 

 

Things should not be "mustache twirling evil" just to be the cruel, violent, brutal, greedy choice. 

 

Is speed/time spent in the example you are giving actually something that factors into the game? Where wiping out the village saves you time that you can then use to save a more important, strategic target? 

 

If not, then I'd say this is not a good design. Loot, gold, XP, quicker progress through the area... these are all weak incentives. They make the game easier for the player at the expense of better narrative outcomes. That's not a good tradeoff - it doesn't give the player or the character any reason to be a d!ck, as any bonuses received from doing said "bad" options just make the gameplay easier - something accomplished easier without bad negative consequences by dropping the difficulty level down.

[Xilizhra]

Is speed/time spent in the example you are giving actually something that factors into the game? Where wiping out the village saves you time that you can then use to save a more important, strategic target? 

 

If not, then I'd say this is not a good design. Loot, gold, XP, quicker progress through the area... these are all weak incentives. They make the game easier for the player at the expense of better narrative outcomes. That's not a good tradeoff - it doesn't give the player or the character any reason to be a d!ck, as any bonuses received from doing said "bad" options just make the gameplay easier - something accomplished easier without bad negative consequences by dropping the difficulty level down.

In my mind, it's rather difficult to come up with decent narrative incentives for being evil.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Fast Jimmy:  There's likely no more narrative than: "Bandits join Inquisition"

 

It's very unlikely you're going to get hours of roleplay with every little podunk faction you take on.

 

Anyway - I like it (in theory - we'll see how it works in game), so there's hardly more for me to say about it, and there's little to nothing about game's theory you could say to change my mind.

[Fast Jimmy]

The bigger problem is justifying the morality play. Whenever you start with the morality of the choice first vs. just the logical outcomes, you end up with contrived answers. 

 

Well, it would have to be some fairly well-spelled out logic. 

 

What I believe is totally logical about saving the Anvil due to multiple messages about how the Dwarves would likely face extinction without it is lost on some people, who either don't believe that is the case or don't remember that ever coming up in conversation (despite Branka bringing it up multiple times... although her ability to argue from a point of fact and logic is put into question, to say the least). So if the goal is to make the most logical choice the one that has the best results, make sure the majority of players can follow the logic, especially if it takes them down a path most would consider morally "bad" (or at least not "good').

[In Exile]

Well, it would have to be some fairly well-spelled out logic. 

 

What I believe is totally logical about saving the Anvil due to multiple messages about how the Dwarves would likely face extinction without it is lost on some people, who either don't believe that is the case or don't remember that ever coming up in conversation (despite Branka bringing it up multiple times... although her ability to argue from a point of fact and logic is put into question, to say the least). So if the goal is to make the most logical choice the one that has the best results, make sure the majority of players can follow the logic, especially if it takes them down a path most would consider morally "bad" (or at least not "good').

 

Well, I agree with you (in the sense that the anvil choice is a well-executed one). But then I don't think saving the anvil is the "bad' choice. That's kind of the point of a well made out dilemma - you can have different answers based on the moral theory to which you ascribe. There are lots of moral issues with how the Anvil could be abused, and the way people might be forced into sacrifices, not to mention how golems are controlled (which to me is actually way worse than either the forced conscription or the pain of the transformation). 

 

But there's a legitimate moral debate to be had as to whether or not the moral outcome is actually destroying the anvil. 

[Fast Jimmy]

In my mind, it's rather difficult to come up with decent narrative incentives for being evil.

 

I can come up with good incentives for nearly every "evil" choice in DA:O - from Redcliffe, to the Brecilian Forest, to Orzammar. 

 

DA2 less so - Patriece still makes zero sense to side with, trading away Isabella (your best damage dealer) is ridiculous and considering pretty much the same outcomes happen if you side with the Mages or the Templars, its pretty ridiculous to see the virtues in either option in terms of narrative incentives, other than "a lot of people were killed" versus "everyone was killed."

[Xilizhra]

I can come up with good incentives for nearly every "evil" choice in DA:O - from Redcliffe, to the Brecilian Forest, to Orzammar. 

 

DA2 less so - Patriece still makes zero sense to side with, trading away Isabella (your best damage dealer) is ridiculous and considering pretty much the same outcomes happen if you side with the Mages or the Templars, its pretty ridiculous to see the virtues in either option in terms of narrative incentives, other than "a lot of people were killed" versus "everyone was killed."

Not the Brecilian Forest by any means, at least if you mean siding with the werewolves. Abandoning Redcliffe is fairly stupid as well.

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, I agree with you (in the sense that the anvil choice is a well-executed one). But then I don't think saving the anvil is the "bad' choice. That's kind of the point of a well made out dilemma - you can have different answers based on the moral theory to which you ascribe. There are lots of moral issues with how the Anvil could be abused, and the way people might be forced into sacrifices, not to mention how golems are controlled (which to me is actually way worse than either the forced conscription or the pain of the transformation). 

 

But there's a legitimate moral debate to be had as to whether or not the moral outcome is actually destroying the anvil. 

 

Well, there is the whole "dooming every soul to eternal slavery" aspect to it. I mean, slavery is one thing. ETERNAL SOUL SLAVERY? That's... that's a pretty hefty price. 

 

One I think is worth putting on the line for a chance to stop the MUCH MORE horrific Darkspawn, no doubt. But a lot of people draw a hard line stop against any form of slavery - physical, spiritual, magical or otherwise.

[Fast Jimmy]

Not the Brecilian Forest by any means, at least if you mean siding with the werewolves. Abandoning Redcliffe is fairly stupid as well.

 

I didn't consider abandoning Redcliffe a bad option - just a stupid one. I was more focusing on who you sacrifice (mother, son or make a run for the Circle). Leaving the demon possessed child that has already murdered a large segment of a town to get the Mages help is, arguably, a morally grey thing to do.

 

Siding with the werewolves is only a stupid option because of the Golden Third Option of curing everyone. If the options were to kill the werewolves or kill the Dalish, a very strong case could be made to not kill the people who are being tortured simply for the way they were born.

[Aimi]

What I believe is totally logical about saving the Anvil due to multiple messages about how the Dwarves would likely face extinction without it is lost on some people, who either don't believe that is the case or don't remember that ever coming up in conversation (despite Branka bringing it up multiple times... although her ability to argue from a point of fact and logic is put into question, to say the least).

One could simply disagree with the claim that dwarves face certain extinction without a new influx of golems to bolster their armies. It's not just that Branka isn't a reliable source - it's that she couldn't possibly know the future. Nobody could. Nobody can even make an educated guess.

[Xilizhra]

I didn't consider abandoning Redcliffe a bad option - just a stupid one. I was more focusing on who you sacrifice (mother, son or make a run for the Circle). Leaving the demon possessed child that has already murdered a large segment of a town to get the Mages help is, arguably, a morally grey thing to do.

 

Siding with the werewolves is only a stupid option because of the Golden Third Option of curing everyone. If the options were to kill the werewolves or kill the Dalish, a very strong case could be made to not kill the people who are being tortured simply for the way they were born.

As opposed to the people who had nothing to do with anything? The werewolves actually committed the exact same crime that Zathrian did, except as blackmail instead of revenge.

[TheTurtle]

For all its flaws I must say I really liked the way Fable 3 did the whole save everyone and be branded a tyrant or be spend all your money fixing Logan's mess while essentially dooming those you're trying to help. Granted you could be kind and make the money playing lute hero, but that got boring in about two seconds

[In Exile]

Well, there is the whole "dooming every soul to eternal slavery" aspect to it. I mean, slavery is one thing. ETERNAL SOUL SLAVERY? That's... that's a pretty hefty price. 

 

One I think is worth putting on the line for a chance to stop the MUCH MORE horrific Darkspawn, no doubt. But a lot of people draw a hard line stop against any form of slavery - physical, spiritual, magical or otherwise.

Well, it's clearly not eternal. Shale proves it's not eternal. Like I said: the control rod is an issue, but that's a separate thing. You can just make golems without them (in theory, at least). Or find a way to free golems under control rods. Either way, that's clearly not an obstacle. 

[Fast Jimmy]

One could simply disagree with the claim that dwarves face certain extinction without a new influx of golems to bolster their armies. It's not just that Branka isn't a reliable source - it's that she couldn't possibly know the future. Nobody could. Nobody can even make an educated guess.

 

True, but she isn't the only source. The Legion of the Dead, other guards, random NPCs - they all talk about as time passes, they lose more ground, sacrifice more Thaigs and it is just going to be a matter of time until the Darkspawn are on the doorstep to Orzammar. Possibly doubly so since the latest Blight didn't get a chance to relieve some of the pressure, so to speak. 

 

I'm not saying everyone should agree with the decision on the Anvil, I'm just saying it is a morally "bad" choice to many, but has a very solid case to argue about why it should be done, both logically and morally.

[In Exile]

I didn't consider abandoning Redcliffe a bad option - just a stupid one. I was more focusing on who you sacrifice (mother, son or make a run for the Circle). Leaving the demon possessed child that has already murdered a large segment of a town to get the Mages help is, arguably, a morally grey thing to do.

 

Siding with the werewolves is only a stupid option because of the Golden Third Option of curing everyone. If the options were to kill the werewolves or kill the Dalish, a very strong case could be made to not kill the people who are being tortured simply for the way they were born.

 

Well, Zathrian is the real bad guy. The actual sadistic choice is not letting you kill him if the choice is binary, because he deserves killing regardless of how you go with it. 

[sylvanaerie]

Probably the biggest and saddest outcome of a good deed going bad occurs in Bioware's Kotor.  You can help a group of outcast people on Taris find a new home in a pristine part of the planet just before Darth Malak destroys Taris.   Because of their new 'more secure' location, they survive mostly intact but the life they had after was reduced to stone/bronze age after having speeders and electronics.  Their population gradually is decimated by disease, starvation, radiation and rakghoul predators (who's bite can inflict a horrible transformative disease that turns their victims into more rakghouls), with the last survivor recording her final thoughts to be found 3 centuries later by the protagonist you play in SWToR.

 

That series of vid's actually made me cry.

[Fast Jimmy]

As opposed to the people who had nothing to do with anything? The werewolves actually committed the exact same crime that Zathrian did, except as blackmail instead of revenge.

 

Were the werewolves wrong to dare strike back against the group that was oppressing and torturing them for centuries? Keeping them trapped and caged in beast forms for crimes they didn't commit? They should have just stayed quiet and meek in the corner while the leader of the Dalish imposed his brutal, twisted punishment for the rest of their lives? Their children's lives?

 

Infecting other Dalish was a smart, justified move that didn't sentence anyone to death, especially if the Dalish started asking some hard questions about what the werewolves wanted. Swiftrunner hints that Zathrien is the source of their curse not long after you first encounter him - I wonder how many Dalish other than Zathrien met werewolves who tried to tell a similar tale over the past 100+ years and the Dalish did nothing about it?

[virtus753]

Probably the biggest and saddest outcome of a good deed going bad occurs in Bioware's Kotor.  You can help a group of outcast people on Taris find a new home in a pristine part of the planet just before Darth Malak destroys Taris.   Because of their new 'more secure' location, they survive mostly intact but the life they had after was reduced to stone/bronze age after having speeders and electronics.  Their population gradually is decimated by disease, starvation, radiation and rakghoul predators (who's bite can inflict a horrible transformative disease that turns their victims into more rakghouls), with the last survivor recording her final thoughts to be found 3 centuries later by the protagonist you play in SWToR.

 

That series of vid's actually made me cry.

 

Now I've never played KOTOR, but that sounds like the type of almost bait-and-switch they might throw at us in DA:I, except we're more likely to see its effect in the same game. You take what certainly seems to be a very good option (if not the moral imperative) at the time, and then you find out they died in a horrible manner they otherwise might well have been spared. On a second playthrough you might choose to let them die on Taris because you know what will happen.

 

I'm curious about the devs' distinction between "good" and "right," specifically how they're using "right." I get that "good" is a moral term, but what does "right" mean, then?

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, Zathrian is the real bad guy. The actual sadistic choice is not letting you kill him if the choice is binary, because he deserves killing regardless of how you go with it. 

 

Without a doubt. Which is why the Golden Third Option makes the other options seem cartoonish in comparison. 

 

Kill the werewolves, who have a legitimate complaint on their current existence, kill the Dalish, who weren't directly to blame, or kill the one real bad guy and everyone gets what they want.

 

That's not a choice - that's just a waste of recorded dialogue.

[Fast Jimmy]

Now I've never played KOTOR, but that sounds like the type of almost bait-and-switch they might throw at us in DA:I, except we're more likely to see its effect in the same game. You take what certainly seems to be a very good option (if not the moral imperative) at the time, and then you find out they died in a horrible manner they otherwise might well have been spared. On a second playthrough you might choose to let them die on Taris because you know what will happen.

 

I'm curious about the devs' distinction between "good" and "right," specifically how they're using "right." I get that "good" is a moral term, but what does "right" mean, then?

 

The Devs don't determine who is right... only who is left.

[Xilizhra]

Were the werewolves wrong to dare strike back against the group that was oppressing and torturing them for centuries?

Yes, given that that group had nothing whatsoever to do with their plight. That was all on Zathrian; his clanmates were all complete innocents in the matter.

 

I only barely cure the curse, due largely to Zathrian's rather crappy logic, and frankly I don't want to just let the werewolves go afterward. I don't like killing people in general, but I want them to at least acknowledge the fact that they did exactly what Zathrian did to them.