OP, you picked the wrong game if you wanted to play evil
Baldur's gate serie and Fallout serie.
Maybe tourment too but I'm not sure.
That's why people want the old c-rpg philososhy back.
They might be old but if you hadn't played them because you're too young or [insert reason] then you should give them a try so you won't say that it doesn't exist anymore.
It's not 1995 anymore.
It's not 1995 anymore.
Wow. You're going way back. BioWare wasn't even developing RPGs in 1995. You must be a Shattered Steel fan.
The Star Wars universe has a clearly defined "Light Side/Dark Side" dichotomy in it. Even then, going full Dark Side, you still don't have the option to join Malak. You still don't have the option to hire Calo Nord to run around and kill Jawas for you. You still have to go and track down the map to the Star Forge on four specific planets, you can't just say "**** this noise, I'm going to Five Guys."
Why would you join Malak? You do have the option to team up with Bastilla and kill Malak and rule instead of him. I don't see why someone that would go the dark side route would actually consider joining with someone that already betrayed them. But then again, that goes along with the "Rule of 2" thing where it seems like the apprentice is supposed to overthrow the master at some point.
I disagree with you (OP) , game is pure ****.
But I do agree that you are necessarily Captain America even if you want to be Thanos or Loki
Why would you join Malak? You do have the option to team up with Bastilla and kill Malak and rule instead of him. I don't see why someone that would go the dark side route would actually consider joining with someone that already betrayed them. But then again, that goes along with the "Rule of 2" thing where it seems like the apprentice is supposed to overthrow the master at some point.
Why would you join Corypheus? Apparently some people are pissed that wasn't an option either.
Why would you join Corypheus? Apparently some people are pissed that wasn't an option either.
Why not? He hadn't really done anything to the Inquisitor. Malak had tried to kill Revan, though, so there is bad blood there.
Wow. You're going way back. BioWare wasn't even developing RPGs in 1995. You must be a Shattered Steel fan.
He hasn't played any Bioware games from before 2011.
It's not 1995 anymore.
Those came out years after 1995.
Why would you join Malak? You do have the option to team up with Bastilla and kill Malak and rule instead of him. I don't see why someone that would go the dark side route would actually consider joining with someone that already betrayed them. But then again, that goes along with the "Rule of 2" thing where it seems like the apprentice is supposed to overthrow the master at some point.
Thing is, this was ignored by the sequel by neccesity.
One thing people must keep in mind is that, for there to be a continuity between games, it's impossible to have a wide variety of setting-destroying choices. Branching paths are all well and good, but at some point the devs cannot create two entirely different games based on whenever you sided with the villain, and then two OTHER games in the second sequel, ad nauseum. In every single RPG that had major choices like that, the sequel had to impose a canon
Examples? here we go: Baldur's Gate 2 forced a continuity on you, you always had a party of goody two shoes with you. Fallout 2, your character always ended up saving Shady Sands, using guns, recruiting Dogmeat and settling in Arroyo, despite there being a bad ending to that game. KOTOR 2, Revan was always a mastermind who didn't much care about good and evil and didn't stay as Sith Lord. Witcher 2 you always romanced Triss and your choices in Witcher 1 were basically irrelevant. Fallout New Vegas had NCR and the Brotherhood still exist no matter what you did in FO2. Have I missed any?
Now, for these games this is well and good, since save import is not a big deal. But with Mass Effet before, and with Dragon Age now, save import is a Big Deal. People want nitty gritty details, they want their own continuity, or Bioware wouldn't have bothered with the Keep. And realistically, it would be very, very hard for Bioware to allow something like the Inquisition taking over the Chantry without needing a ridiculous number of plot flags in the eventual fourth game, let alone things like siding with Corypheus for whatever stupid reason. Or, you allow those options and don't allow them importing. Which will ****** people just as much if not more.
I do agree that it's a shame that lolevil options aren't available (even if I personally never took them). But realistically, you either get less dramatic worldstate variations, or no serious save import. Bioware chose the former.
I can still play the style of character I personally want (moderate Andrastian mage, pragmatic and blunt atheist, anti-mage Qunari, polite but pro-mage and anti-chantry Dalish), so honestly as far as role-playing purposes Inquisition has me covered like, well, no other Dragon Age game honestly. I can decide the outcome of the Mage-Templar war, the Orlesian Civil War, and greatly influence the future of the Chantry. My Inquisitors more than make their marks on the world. It's a shame that I can't deviate even more, but well, I also realise I can't have my cake (solid save imports) and eat it too (mwahahaha evil options).
Thing is, this was ignored by the sequel by neccesity.
One thing people must keep in mind is that, for there to be a continuity between games, it's impossible to have a wide variety of setting-destroying choices. Branching paths are all well and good, but at some point the devs cannot create two entirely different games based on whenever you sided with the villain, and then two OTHER games in the second sequel, ad nauseum. In every single RPG that had major choices like that, the sequel had to impose a canon
Examples? here we go: Baldur's Gate 2 forced a continuity on you, you always had a party of goody two shoes with you. Fallout 2, your character always ended up saving Shady Sands, using guns, recruiting Dogmeat and settling in Arroyo, despite there being a bad ending to that game. KOTOR 2, Revan was always a mastermind who didn't much care about good and evil and didn't stay as Sith Lord. Witcher 2 you always romanced Triss and your choices in Witcher 1 were basically irrelevant. Fallout New Vegas had NCR and the Brotherhood still exist no matter what you did in FO2. Have I missed any?
Now, for these games this is well and good, since save import is not a big deal. But with Mass Effet before, and with Dragon Age now, save import is a Big Deal. People want nitty gritty details, they want their own continuity, or Bioware wouldn't have bothered with the Keep. And realistically, it would be very, very hard for Bioware to allow something like the Inquisition taking over the Chantry without needing a ridiculous number of plot flags in the eventual fourth game, let alone things like siding with Corypheus for whatever stupid reason. Or, you allow those options and don't allow them importing. Which will ****** people just as much if not more.
I do agree that it's a shame that lolevil options aren't available (even if I personally never took them). But realistically, you either get less dramatic worldstate variations, or no serious save import. Bioware chose the former.
I can still play the style of character I personally want (moderate Andrastian mage, pragmatic and blunt atheist, anti-mage Qunari, polite but pro-mage and anti-chantry Dalish), so honestly as far as role-playing purposes Inquisition has me covered like, well, no other Dragon Age game honestly. I can decide the outcome of the Mage-Templar war, the Orlesian Civil War, and greatly influence the future of the Chantry. My Inquisitors more than make their marks on the world. It's a shame that I can't deviate even more, but well, I also realise I can't have my cake (solid save imports) and eat it too (mwahahaha evil options).
Bioware wern't allowed to make world changes in BG or KOTOR. They basically rented the sandbox from Wizards of the Coast and Lucasarts. They had to follow the rules already in place, with those games.
Bioware wern't allowed to make world changes in BG or KOTOR. They basically rented the sandbox from Wizards of the Coast and Lucasarts. They had to follow the rules already in place, with those games.
Well, that still leaves out the Fallout and Witcher games, and NWN2 towards its expansion, which are often praised for allowing freedom of choice (Fallout very rightfully so, Witcher a bit less IMO). Whatever the reason was, in ye olden days RPGs imposed a canon. Bioware doesn't want to impose canon between games anymore, so they have to make concessions. As the good Mordin says, you give to get what you want, always.
Of course, another way is to just not make sequels (ala Planescape: Torment) or not acknowledge the canon (Obsidian has said I think they wouldn't do another Fallout game near New Vegas). But for many fans, well, that's not a solution at all.
Well, that still leaves out the Fallout and Witcher games, and NWN2 towards its expansion, which are often praised for allowing freedom of choice (Fallout very rightfully so, Witcher a bit less IMO). Whatever the reason was, in ye olden days RPGs imposed a canon. Bioware doesn't want to impose canon between games anymore, so they have to make concessions. As the good Mordin says, you give to get what you want, always.
Of course, another way is to just not make sequels (ala Planescape: Torment) or not acknowledge the canon (Obsidian has said I think they wouldn't do another Fallout game near New Vegas). But for many fans, well, that's not a solution at all.
The Witcher games can't stray too far away from the novels they are based on, I believe. And NWN uses the same setting as Baldur's Gate, so the same rules as BG applies there. None of these games lets you import world-states, anyway, so I don't see the comparisson. They are from a time before that was even a feature in games. They did let you import your character sheet, and that's it.
I think freedom of choice, when it comes to those games, are meant to be the choices that affects that particular story, within the frames of the game in question.
Well, that still leaves out the Fallout and Witcher games, and NWN2 towards its expansion, which are often praised for allowing freedom of choice (Fallout very rightfully so, Witcher a bit less IMO). Whatever the reason was, in ye olden days RPGs imposed a canon. Bioware doesn't want to impose canon between games anymore, so they have to make concessions. As the good Mordin says, you give to get what you want, always.
Of course, another way is to just not make sequels (ala Planescape: Torment) or not acknowledge the canon (Obsidian has said I think they wouldn't do another Fallout game near New Vegas). But for many fans, well, that's not a solution at all.
People applaud Witcher for choices because you get a significantly different path depending on who you side with, not because you get a choice to make Geralt a mustache twirling villain. That's extremely stupid and anyone expecting they could play evil in a game about a character with an entire book series of them playing the goodiest two shoes they could is lol.
That is a good point. Geralt isn't our character at all. It is the same as playing Indiana Jones or something like that. That also means that The Witcher, technically, is more of an action-adventure game (with some rpg elements) than an actual rpg. Since you can't really create the role or character you are playing, yourself.
It is a thing of world vs. character you know?
Some people care more about the characters other care more about the world. I'm not saying 100% character vs 100% the world, for some people changing the world is part of the character and vice-versa. But the thing is that some people FOCUS on the character and other on the world around the character.
For me being able to be different with my character is way more important than chosing Empress of Laidlaws Ass. My character is not definied by how her actions affect the world, for other people it matters much. So for people that like to see that they are affecting the world I could argue that Inquisition is a great game, but for people like me it is just useless ****. Again I say it reflects how people are in real life, I have no ambition of doing anything lasting or important in real life, I see no point, I would never be part of an Inquisition, I would literally have chosen death (Cole please, I'm waiting 
) . But again, there are people that would like to be someone or do something important, people who value the existence somehow (the complete opposite of me) and this kind of people probably love the game and is even pissed that their actions still are not as important as they would like them to.
I wouldn't say that Bioware failed in this specific aspect, Bioware just chose to focus more on the world so you can be evil by doing evil things to the world... does it satisfy me? Hell no, I still feel lawful good, even if a summon a meteor to crush innocent children and then have sex bathed in their blood with Iron Bull and Vivienne, the games does not allow me to feel evil with my character, too much cute and inspirational moments. But I do agree that for some people imposing some direction upon the world can be considered evil and fulfilling... hope they enjoy this (sorry excuse of a) game.
It is a thing of world vs. character you know?
Some people care more about the characters other care more about the world. I'm not saying 100% character vs 100% the world, for some people changing the world is part of the character and vice-versa. But the thing is that some people FOCUS on the character and other on the world around the character.
For me being able to be different with my character is way more important than chosing Empress of Laidlaws Ass. My character is not definied by how her actions affect the world, for other people it matters much. So for people that like to see that they are affecting the world I could argue that Inquisition is a great game, but for people like me it is just useless ****. Again I say it reflects how people are in real life, I have no ambition of doing anything lasting or important in real life, I see no point, I would never be part of an Inquisition, I would literally have chosen death (Cole please, I'm waiting
I wouldn't say that Bioware failed in this specific aspect, Bioware just chose to focus more on the world so you can be evil by doing evil things to the world... does it satisfy me? Hell no, I still feel lawful good, even if a summon a meteor to crush innocent children and then have sex bathed in their blood with Iron Bull and Vivienne, the games does not allow me to feel evil with my character, too much cute and inspirational moments. But I do agree that for some people imposing some direction upon the world can be considered evil and fulfilling... hope they enjoy this (sorry excuse of a) game.
Now that is what I call a proper rant. 10 out of 10. Even though I don't happen to agree with most of it 
When I think inquisitor I think Tomás de Torquemada or Gregor Eisenhorn (40k) while I don’t think the option to join cory was needed I do feel there is certainly a lack of morally evil choices like making Cullen take red lyrium and the choice to walk away from the hinterlands and let the Templar's and mage's kill everything refugees as well then just cleaning up the survivors after or have the option to extract info from prisoners (a harden cass would be good at that).
Least give me make the inquisition a dark whispered faction where my halls are shadowed and judgemental and naughty little kids are told stories of how we take them away respect through fear, would have been nice just saying
When I think inquisitor I think Tomás de Torquemada or Gregor Eisenhorn (40k) while I don’t think the option to join cory was needed I do feel there is certainly a lack of morally evil choices like making Cullen take red lyrium and the choice to walk away from the hinterlands and let the Templar's and mage's kill everything refugees as well then just cleaning up the survivors after or have the option to extract info from prisoners (a harden cass would be good at that).
Least give me make the inquisition a dark whispered faction where my halls are shadowed and judgemental and naughty little kids are told stories of how we take them away respect through fear, would have been nice just saying
It seems like the only place they aren't looking at for what kind of game we want is Dragon Age: Origins
I'm going to call "subjectivity" on that one. Not that you're alone or even wrong in your opinion but a lot of what they cut out was exactly what I recall disliking about Origins. Then again, I'm also not a huge fan of older RPGs like a lot of the people who wish to see more of a return to Origins.
Personally I wish they'd look more to Mass Effect 1 & 2 (perhaps even the first half of 3) in terms of how to set up things like the main story and the sidequests.
When I think inquisitor I think Tomás de Torquemada or Gregor Eisenhorn (40k) while I don’t think the option to join cory was needed I do feel there is certainly a lack of morally evil choices like making Cullen take red lyrium and the choice to walk away from the hinterlands and let the Templar's and mage's kill everything refugees as well then just cleaning up the survivors after or have the option to extract info from prisoners (a harden cass would be good at that).
Least give me make the inquisition a dark whispered faction where my halls are shadowed and judgemental and naughty little kids are told stories of how we take them away respect through fear, would have been nice just saying
When I think inquisitor I think Tomás de Torquemada or Gregor Eisenhorn (40k) while I don’t think the option to join cory was needed I do feel there is certainly a lack of morally evil choices like making Cullen take red lyrium and the choice to walk away from the hinterlands and let the Templar's and mage's kill everything refugees as well then just cleaning up the survivors after or have the option to extract info from prisoners (a harden cass would be good at that).
Least give me make the inquisition a dark whispered faction where my halls are shadowed and judgemental and naughty little kids are told stories of how we take them away respect through fear, would have been nice just saying
having a live test subject is always good lol any way i think you get the idea of where I'm coming from as for bioware not giving us them i tend to agree with you but taking those options away from the game and by extension the player it diminished the game for me
It would be kind of cool if you could join with Cory and he'd kill you, and you'd get "Game Over, Good Job Destroying the World" type screen. I'm confused as to why the word "antihero" is in the post title, though - you can totally be an anti-hero in this game (a hero who does questionable things along the way). You can't be villainous - but that's not an antihero. Antiheroes still want to save the day in the end, like Rick in Casablanca.
I personally think being able to immediately destroy the Chantry would be ridiculous. But I suppose there could be more "evil"/questionable actions included. I never saw the Envy Demon or Ishmael in my first playthrough though.
That is a good point. Geralt isn't our character at all. It is the same as playing Indiana Jones or something like that. That also means that The Witcher, technically, is more of an action-adventure game (with some rpg elements) than an actual rpg. Since you can't really create the role or character you are playing, yourself.
That's not what makes an RPG an RPG. Being able to develop a character's abilities/class/etc through EXP and levels is what makes an RPG an RPG (there are other factors, including usually a highly developed story and setting) more than being able to direct their personalities. For evidence of this, see basically every JRPG ever. There's no rule to the RPG genre that suggests you must control the PC's personality. Just saying.
Yes...even Renegade Shepard could be more of an a-hole than the Inquisitor. I missed being able to kill merchants like we could in Lothering. That was so hilarous I remember it to this day.
In terms of being totally evil, Obsidian is better than Bioware. Neverwinter Nights 2 allowed you to throw away your companions in join that game's version of Corypheus. Quite satisfiying if that was where you wanted to go.
In ME2 you could die and end the game. You could get everyone killed (except for Joker). I wonder what happened if you tried to import such a game into ME3?
In Skyrim, besides killing Alduin, which wasn't good or evil - just something that had to be done - you can be a complete evil bastard. Same in ME2, as I stated above. Of course, Skyrim blurs the line between good and evil with the thieves and DB guild, or being a vampire or werewolf. And with certain mods, be a big enough bastard and get a high enough bounty, bounty hunters will hunt you down. And they hurt.
This game is very - well if forces you to be good. Just like it REALLY wants you to be human.
But I think BW games aren't really about the end-game (clearly). It's more about the characters. and the relationships you have with them. That;s why the banter bug is bothering so many people.
Retour en haut