52 réponses à ce sujet

[warden6788]

I would like the opportunity to be a true villian in Dragon age instead of a protagonist who makes bad decisions.

[Jaizek]

THANK THE MAKER A MIND READER!!!!

 

I want to kill The Wardens, The Circle, The Seekers. I want to Devour the world with the power of Forming the Blight. 

[warden6788]

yes it would have been cool for inquisition if we could have used the power of the anchor to gain complete control over the fade and demons

[Jaizek]

Here I thought we could Make or Break the world. Isn't that one of the things I hear on the Advertisements? 

[Z.Z]

I'm always lawful good in games. I don't know why. I can totally be an ass to people in real life but just can't do the same in games. Weird.

[warden6788]

yeah but I wish we ha

[warden6788]

yeah but I wish we had more options as to what kind of inquisitor we could be I'm always up for being a hero but I wanna do something different

[AlanC9]

I thought Hawke could be pretty villainous. 

[Pasquale1234]

THANK THE MAKER A MIND READER!!!!
 
I want to kill The Wardens, The Circle, The Seekers. I want to Devour the world with the power of Forming the Blight.

The Darkspawn Chronicles was made for you.

[Panda]

Yep the Darkspawn DLC ^^;

[warden6788]

yeah I forgot about the darkspawn dlc but I want to have the choice to put the world on the brink of destruction deliberately.while also having some companions I might add that want to do bad things

[movieguyabw]

Pretty much the same reasons most DMs don't allow you to play evil characters in a PnP campaign (unless the game is specifically designed for evil players)   It either breaks the party, or it breaks the story.  Few RPers can (or will) come up with a good roleplaying reason why a Lawful Good character will continue to pall around a Chaotic Evil one, after they've witnessed them doing something evil.  Usually it ends with the party disbanding, and new characters having to be written up.

 

Alternatively, if you craft a campaign for your players where they have to overthrow an evil overlord; and your players decide "nope, we're going to just sit and watch him torment his people.  This'll be fun!" you have to essentially come up with an entirely different campaign to fit that decision, or find a way to railroad them onto the story you've already mapped out.

 

It'd be easier if the players decided they just wanted to work with the corrupt king; you could just have a rebellion start, regardless and have them on the opposite side.  Or you could have them do a couple of missions working for the king, and then have him betray them.   But there's no guarantee that players will make those choices if you give them complete freedom with their characters.  A little bit of boundaries are good when developing campaigns.

[Ekliane]

You can be a pretty manipulative a-hole come to think of it. I did a noble Cousland that way, once. Taking the Blight at his advantage and seizing whatever he wanted. Same for a secret Blood-Mage Hawke screwing (both ways) everyone.

 

I'm thinking about an insufferable inquisitor dwarf for the continuation.

[scyme]

I'm always lawful good in games. I don't know why. I can totally be an ass to people in real life but just can't do the same in games. Weird.

 

Haha I'm the exact opposite, tend to be too nice to people in real life but have yet to finish a Paragon ME playthrough. Having said that, I usually prefer a lawful evil approach and not chaotic, if the game lets me that is. 

[The Natoorat]

Lack of choice in a "RPG" game... what a shock.

 

I do remember in Mass Effect when the baddie (Saren was his name?) asked me to join him and Sovereign. What I wanted is to say: "You know? That's not a bad idea!" Sure, it would ended if annihilation of civilised galaxy, but who cares! That would be awesome. And of course that wasn't an option. Why?

 

Come to think of of it, very few games allow to be "the bad guy". KOTOR did, to some extent.

 

@ movieguyabw

 

PnP games are different. PnP games can be "adjusted" to circumstances, if players decide to "screw that, let's burn the world!" then GM has to alter the story to fit the changed perspective.

Or just spawn a dragon and kill everyone. Yup, don't f*** with GM.

 

And besides, "Bad Guy" =/= "Chaotic Evil". CE guys die pretty quickly, because they don't rely on anyone, even briefly. Lawful Evil characters are, on the other hand, people with "a plan", they may play "nice" for a while, and than take advantage to further their goals. Personally I think it would be great if I stated a character who is just fed up with everyone, and wants to slaughter entire population of "the kingdom". However, he is not an idiot and he knows that he needs an army to do that, so he begins a quest to gather power, army, resources, minions... and so on (even if he needs to kill rats in basements for that). Then he unleashes his master plan of destruction upon the world. Basically like good old fashion James Bond Villain. eh...

 

OK, this discussion could go very far, and I don't think it's really productive, so I'll just shut up. Have fun people!

[Frozenkex]

Its unreasonable, in a game like that that would be the end. There is gonna be no sequel to your cannon, so its a waste. Imagine how much effort they would need to put into different world states? Sounds maybe good short term on paper, but its not. It would need to be completely different game that allows you to be only a villain, doesn't sound like a game many would buy tbh.

[AlanC9]

Its unreasonable, in a game like that that would be the end. There is gonna be no sequel to your cannon, so its a waste. Imagine how much effort they would need to put into different world states?

No effort required. You screw the world over, and the sequel just doesn't let you import that PC

[The Natoorat]

Because every game needs a sequel?

 

Why?

 

...

 

And if there is to be a sequel, and if it really has to be based on decisions from previous game (not like ME2 where most consequences were limited to an in-game mail), then a story in time between events of two games can be streamlined to adapt to altered circumstances. Like KOTOR and KOTOR2.

 

An what about setting a "cannon" story that follows only one "true" ending. Look and Command And Conquer games (notably 1 and 2) where GDI had won, but in-game you could lead NOD to victory. Also Legacy of Kain => in first Blood Omen you had a choice whether to save or destroy the Pillars of Nosgoth, but in next games it was assumed that you destroyed them.

 

Besides, coming back to Mass Effect, If I had a chance to join Sovereign the game would end in bloodshed and my death. THE END. Nothing more to add. Same with ME3, what if you decided to screw StarBrat and Reapers (or, as I call them, Ripoffs, just read Hyperion Cantos) harvested everyone. What happens in ME4?

[Frozenkex]

It would still be a completely different branch in story in which you make choices about how evil u wana be. Which is double the effort and lines. You seriously dont suggest that you want a single one decision where you click "yes i wanna kill everyone" and it happens with no story accompanying that? This is not that sort of game. Skyrim can sort of offer you that though, but it is because its a totally different game unreasonable to start to compare. Legacy of kain is even further away from this, next u gonna compare it to starcraft maybe?

 

Also "true cannon" is lame and its not something most people want. To do whatever you suggest properly, it would take plenty of resources with little pay off and may harm the game over all, cuz those resources can be spent in a way that improves experience for everyone.

[warden6788]

Would it be reasonable at the end of the game if  you can be declared a hero or a  true villian since it cost alot of resources 

[Jaizek]

I never said nothing about Destryoing the world. I Played the Darkspawn DLC couple times, it's not the same as having a Hero you create and Play through the whole game. On Fallout Series i was a bad bad man, you got something I want, it's mine. I can't do that in real life so it's fun to do it on a game. Same with Starcraft doing the Zerg Expansion putting Kerrigan as a Middle person. 

 

Here's a Pretty good scenario for How they could spin off the story line into a bad way.

 

You go back to DAO when you are fighting off the Darkspawn's in the Mines with the Dwarven. You were one of those Following the lead of your Current Champion Grey Warden. In one of the fights you were injured badly and the Mage healer tried to heal you but didn't have enough time, so instead of finishing and taking you with them they left you, alone to die.

 

Just then a darkspawn Commander comes across you and see's you are something different, someone who was close to the Grey warden. He takes you deeper to one of the archdemon's that has not had the strength to regain his power's so his Vessel is needing a new host. They do a ritual and you become that host kind of like Ander's. You set on your ways back up to the land to rejoin the battle and you are in a constant fight inside to give in to power's or you can weaken your powers by fighting the old god within you.

 

This creates so much story for customization on how you choose your Character's decisions and the Worlds decision. Just to Spoil the end game, you either are on one side of the battle in The Grand Alliance between the Dwarve's, Human's, Evlven and Qunari, or you are Sided with the Darkspawns. You could have Special Classes on this Like return of the Blood mage, a demon summoner, Dragon Morph with Warrior dragon fighting Abilities, Necomancy, the dark arts of death which would be poison and earth magic, Lycan powers, Vampiric, you get the drift. Ultimately the battle is won with the Grand Alliance prevailing. Here is where you could Introduce Dark Elves, the Deep Mine's Evil Dwarf's, could even have a undead or Half demon sort of guy like the warden from the DA2 DLC. So many possibilities. 

 

Maybe I put too much thought into it but I love to play a game from both sides as you get to experience the Chaos of good and evil. You get the difference in how your story progresses. 

[Frozenkex]

so you want to double the game's budget, okay.

[movieguyabw]

so you want to triple the game's budget, okay.

 

And dev time, apparently.  That sounds like an entirely separate campaign that they'd have to write.  0o

[Z.Z]

Actually there is no rule saying all playthroughs must end at the same point. Remember Planescape: Torment? You can actually choose to be the king of an undead city fairly early in the storyline and the game just...ends there. Some text and some ending animations and that's it.

Think of times when your entire party get wiped out. In most RPGs that means your game ends, and the story of your protagonist ends. So it's entirely impossible, even in games allowing no choices, to have an unconventional ending.

I miss the time when games don't follow the same design pattern. Say if you fail to prove yourself at the beginning of DAI you get executed. How awesome would that be?

[warden6788]

I don't think it would double the time as much as yall think if it was done right