Then it sounds like you have problems with actually roleplaying. Perhaps something from the Call of Duty oeuvre would be easier?
I'm not sure what gave you the impression that games focused on roleplay should restrict the moral range of the roleplayers' actions.
I don't want to shock you, but it's actually the opposite.
I'm not sure what gave you the impression that games focused on roleplay should restrict the moral range of the roleplayers' actions.
I don't want to shock you, but it's actually the opposite.
I'm not sure what gave you the impression that this game restricts the moral range of the roleplayers' actions.
I don't want to shock you, but I roleplayed an evil, ruthless Inquisitor just fine.
I'm not sure what gave you the impression that this game restricts the moral range of the roleplayers' actions.
I don't want to shock you, but I roleplayed an evil, ruthless Inquisitor just fine.
That comment might have had weight if you hadn't cited conscripting the mages as an evil choice.
Your ability to judge what playing an evil inquisitor is, is questionable, at best.
That's what Quizzy might think, but it's not a good outcome at all in the end, now about the evil phrasing, I probably should have been clearer, you are given an option to make it an evil action with "you are working for me" option, it stops being neutral if you make it evil and it is the only act that can be viewed as self-serving.
I do like Winter Palace quest a lot because it averts many things, mainly the work together=happy ending, all these options are neutral until you give them intention, you are not making a "good choice" if you aim for stability and end up doing something that messes it up, you are making a "stupid choice". On the other hand if you are aiming for chaos the "stupid choice" becomes "evil choice" because the intention changes.
Yeah see I just thought that quest was completely stupid and made me feel like I had no actual power. I think economically, I think in terms of opportunity cost, gains and loss and the fact that no matter what decision you make its always pretty much the same zero sum deviation, irks me to no end.
I don't like grey morality because story writers always do the same thing with it. It's like getting a wish from an Ifrit, its never what you truly ask for, there is always a sacrifice involved no matter how hard you work to make it better. That's not interesting to me, its bores me to tears because all the actions feel the same to me. I don't care about Brail-elf girl or wannabe Queen of England or her brother, I just don't. And frankly I could solve all the issues they caused without ever going to the stupid quest in the first place. So IMO I should be able to skip it it if I want and unite Orlais under my boot heel if I so choose. But no..this is their story..so I have to listen to all the Nobles throwing toys and tantrums, give them cake and ice cream and then move forward like it mattered. In DA:I, nothing changes..ever..you get your choice and then something good along with something bad happens and then you walk on eggshells around your companions while they moan and remind you of whatever PSA they have floating above their heads before slogging off to the next rift.
That comment might have had weight if you hadn't cited conscripting the mages as an evil choice.
Your ability to judge what playing an evil inquisitor is, is questionable, at best.
Personally I wanted the old school choice of killing all of both and then making due somehow lol..perhaps an undead army of both? hehe that would be amazing.
Personally I wanted the old school choice of killing all of both and then making due somehow lol..perhaps an undead army of both? hehe that would be amazing.
As a side note, who the hell named a specialisation that didn't involve raising corpses and skeletons ''necromancer''?
Yeah see I just thought that quest was completely stupid and made me feel like I had no actual power. I think economically, I think in terms of opportunity cost, gains and loss and the fact that no matter what decision you make its always pretty much the same zero sum deviation, irks me to no end.
I don't like grey morality because story writers always do the same thing with it. It's like getting a wish from an Ifrit, its never what you truly ask for, there is always a sacrifice involved no matter how hard you work to make it better. That's not interesting to me, its bores me to tears because all the actions feel the same to me. I don't care about Brail-elf girl or wannabe Queen of England or her brother, I just don't. And frankly I could solve all the issues they caused without ever going to the stupid quest in the first place. So IMO I should be able to skip it it if I want and unite Orlais under my boot heel if I so choose. But no..this is their story..so I have to listen to all the Nobles throwing toys and tantrums, give them cake and ice cream and then move forward like it mattered. In DA:I, nothing changes..ever..you get your choice and then something good along with something bad happens and then you walk on eggshells around your companions while they moan and remind you of whatever PSA they have floating above their heads before slogging off to the next rift.
Erm.. not sure what exactly is your point, but you might conciser that the type of games BW produces are not for you, especially if you are so adamand about control. BW doesn't makes games where PC is a dungeon master.
As for grey morality I love it, I love that it's like a wish from an Ifrit, that it doesn't makes things just exactly so, it is exciting and fun and it makes you use your head in a different way than a clear disney-like evil/good alternative. So just because you don't like something, doesn't mean nobody else does, it's rather hard to please everyone.
That comment might have had weight if you hadn't cited conscripting the mages as an evil choice.
Your ability to judge what playing an evil inquisitor is, is questionable, at best.
My level of caring about the most basic things in the world: 0.
My level of caring about your opinions: -infinity.
Kbye.
My level of caring about the most basic things in the world: 0.
My level of caring about your opinions: -infinity.
Kbye.
Ah, yes. The classic "I don't care for your opinions, I'm going to post about how much I don't care about them, look at me not caring about you". What's next, tying my shoelaces together?
Erm.. not sure what exactly is your point, but you might conciser that the type of games BW produces are not for you, especially if you are so adamand about control. BW doesn't makes games where PC is a dungeon master.
As for grey morality I love it, I love that it's like a wish from an Ifrit, that it doesn't makes things just exactly so, it is exciting and fun and it makes you use your head in a different way than a clear disney-like evil/good alternative. So just because you don't like something, doesn't mean nobody else does, it's rather hard to please everyone.
I have. I won't waste another dollar on a BW game at full price, I will wait for them to be a 10-15 dollar throw away title.
I don't care if the decision is grey, I care that it's boring and for me utterly predictable. Nothing surprised me in this game, even Blackwall had his tells long before he says something. If you've read a few books or studied three act structure and irony then everything fits within a very nice tidy box labeled "Grey morality in a war torn fictional setting." I never had to think outside of a straight line in that subtext, its all very contrived and very easy to follow. As simple as any "disney good/evil" alternative that you can throw at it. If you want to pretend that it's something intelligent or sophisticated because it forces sacrifice and consequence then you are more than welcome to do so, but that doesn't make it true, it simply makes it what you want to be true. So just because you find grey morality and the writing to be thought provoking does not mean that everyone does. In the end you are right though, it is difficult to please everyone. The difference is they used to try. Now they have taken the easy road of everything being grey..instead of winners and losers, everybody gets to the push the ball around the courtyard together.
I have. I won't waste another dollar on a BW game at full price, I will wait for them to be a 10-15 dollar throw away title.
I don't care if the decision is grey, I care that it's boring and for me utterly predictable. Nothing surprised me in this game, even Blackwall had his tells long before he says something. If you've read a few books or studied three act structure and irony then everything fits within a very nice tidy box labeled "Grey morality in a war torn fictional setting." I never had to think outside of a straight line in that subtext, its all very contrived and very easy to follow. As simple as any "disney good/evil" alternative that you can throw at it. If you want to pretend that it's something intelligent or sophisticated because it forces sacrifice and consequence then you are more than welcome to do so, but that doesn't make it true, it simply makes it what you want to be true. So just because you find grey morality and the writing to be thought provoking does not mean that everyone does. In the end you are right though, it is difficult to please everyone. The difference is they used to try. Now they have taken the easy road of everything being grey..instead of winners and losers, everybody gets to the push the ball around the courtyard together.
I didn't said intelligent or thought provoking, if you noticed, I said different, exciting and fun.
The plot in this game is not what I find appealing or well written, although I do like some parts of it for various reasons. On the other hand I can't think of a game that has a literature level story writing. Even if the original script could have been a piece of art it will always be mangled in the production line, one can hope of course, but in the meanwhile I find it pointless to be annoyed at every little thing that is wrong with this game, because it has several things that work very well for me and that's it.
I don't care if the decision is grey, I care that it's boring and for me utterly predictable. Nothing surprised me in this game, even Blackwall had his tells long before he says something. If you've read a few books or studied three act structure and irony then everything fits within a very nice tidy box labeled "Grey morality in a war torn fictional setting." I never had to think outside of a straight line in that subtext, its all very contrived and very easy to follow. As simple as any "disney good/evil" alternative that you can throw at it. If you want to pretend that it's something intelligent or sophisticated because it forces sacrifice and consequence then you are more than welcome to do so, but that doesn't make it true, it simply makes it what you want to be true. So just because you find grey morality and the writing to be thought provoking does not mean that everyone does. In the end you are right though, it is difficult to please everyone. The difference is they used to try. Now they have taken the easy road of everything being grey..instead of winners and losers, everybody gets to the push the ball around the courtyard together.
Basically. I was thinking Disney has out-edginessed Bioware in recent times (Maleficent, Frozen)
DM's usually don't allow omnicidal chaotic evil characters either, so what's your point?So you are essentially telling us that Bioware is no longer interesting in making ROLEPLAYING games.
Guest_Donkson_*
But Shep was a "hero"... yet you could be an absolute A-hole.
Hawke to a certain point, as well.
Personally, I would have liked to have made the Inquisition into a cult of demon worshippers.
the only evil choices in the game are to:
make erimond and alexius tranquil
that really is it
and you have to be mage to do that
i wanted to do some murder knife or selling some of my captured soldiers.
like if sutherland company got captured you could fight to free them or tell the venatori to pay and give rare mage schematics to you to make you walk away.
seriously. i missed letting the captured/slaves become slaves.
especially if i could stand to profit from it.
DM's usually don't allow omnicidal chaotic evil characters either, so what's your point?
This is a heroic campaign; if your character was an omnicidal chaotic evil maniac then he wouldn't be here, ergo you cannot roll an omnicidal chaotic evil character.
Yes we do.
I've had several. Sure only one made it to the end of the campaign.
But DMs allow this
-Don't give a damn about whole Andraste thing but use her name for your own power.
-Harden every companion...Leliana too.
-Don't be nice to anyone of your companions(make sure you really pi$$ them off).
-Chose to build Inquisiton as force of fear(use Cullen most on war table for this).
-When asked what will be purpose of Inquisition say it will be for your own power(logical choice 
)
-Help mages but conscript them(don't be pro mage that wants 100% freedom,more like mage that wishes other mages bound to his fingers).
-Play out someone's heart...meaning romance someone then break up with them.
-Leave Hawke to die rather then Stroud/Alistair/Loghain and then chose to exile Wardens xD(in another words survival of Warden from fade will mean nothing and sacrifice of Hawke will also mean nothing)
-Leave Celene as sole ruler(this way she will eat from your hands and once again you are one who has power)
-Don't do rituals and be one who drinks from well(simple reason is because you want power for yourself)
-Make sure to make Vivenne Divine.
-Have Cullen still addicted to lyrium.
-When judging make most harsh judgments like: execution and tranquil if mage is involved.
-Go kill Cory in end!
And that is how it goes "evil Inquisitor's play".
AlexMBrennan just kind of hit the nail on the head. I used to DM back in the day. I had a great group of friends and we would take turns but another friend and myself took on the bulk of the DM'ing duty and often would help each other with campaigns.
There was definitely bias/restriction/guidelines we designed for campaigns (not ALWAYS but most of the time) for our players. The tighter the story focus and frankly better planned out our campaigns were the more stringent our guidelines for character creation were. This could and did work both ways. We ran campaigns that were not inclusive of heroic characters, although that was (based on player feedback) not the norm.
The point is, this was still roleplaying. I just had to lay down a few guidelines for character creation at the beginning of the campaign so that things worked better for story and the setting and the other players.
The idea that having some guidelines in place for your roleplay makes something not a roleplaying game, is absolute BS and people should stop being dishonest.
AlexMBrennan just kind of hit the nail on the head. I used to DM back in the day. I had a great group of friends and we would take turns but another friend and myself took on the bulk of the DM'ing duty and often would help each other with campaigns.
There was definitely bias/restriction/guidelines we designed for campaigns (not ALWAYS but most of the time) for our players. The tighter the story focus and frankly better planned out our campaigns were the more stringent our guidelines for character creation were. This could and did work both ways. We ran campaigns that were not inclusive of heroic characters, although that was (based on player feedback) not the norm.
The point is, this was still roleplaying. I just had to lay down a few guidelines for character creation at the beginning of the campaign so that things worked better for story and the setting and the other players.
The idea that having some guidelines in place for your roleplay makes something not a roleplaying game, is absolute BS and people should stop being dishonest.
You always need guidelines in a story, you always need to railroad things. It's just how stories work. I'm baffled people don't understand this.
Even the most open-ended of RPGs, Planescape: Torment chief among them, railroad you a ton. If you want to proceed in the main quest, you have to care about the history of the Nameless One, you have to talk to X and Y people, you have to be nice to some people (who will otherwise kill your immortal self), and for the sake of dramatic tension the game forces some emotons on your character (notably being horrified at certain NPC's manipulations and treasons).
But when Dragon Age does it, oh sinner among sinners! What hast thou done to our RPGs?
Again, I understand that people want to play as Chaotic Evil types and it's true that the game doesn't allow it. But let's not act like any RPG in existence hasn't done similar things. Don't care about your village in Fallout 2? Tough luck, you're going to save it anyway if you want to progress in the main quest.
Meh, don't really care about the absence of evil in Inquisition.
The only "evil" character I ever played was when going Sith side in Knights of the Old Republic, and never completed the game that way. It was boring to merely "be evil" for the sake of being evil, without much to no back story about why you're evil (ok, you do know you're amnesiac, good excuse to be evil right there). You're... just evil. Hummm, ok, makes sense. See someone who needs help? Stab him and steal his money. See a damsel in distress being attacked by a bandit? Shoot the bandit and take the girl's money and leave her there injured, in shock and crying (oh and don't forget to laugh at her too). See someone who threatens to end his life because his girlfriend left him? Stop as you walk by the scene and yell "Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump!". See some fat guy choking on a piece of his hamburger? Stop by his table and take the hamburger and just walk away (don't forget the coca and nod at the guy too, after all you just got a free meal, might as well say thanks!).
Those are figurative examples btw. But it's generally just seriously stupid, or not done well... or it's just true evil anyway.
And being Renegade in Mass Effect was at least sometimes funny, because it wasn't being evil, but simply being a jerk, rude, harsh or selfish (but mostly just being a jerk). I'd rather have a harsh/rude/impolite and maybe verbally-aggressive character over one that just wants to figuratively force choke people he/she doesn't like "just because I'm evil [cue in evil maniacal laugh]". Give me good evil guys in movies or in novels, sure I'm in. In games? Not so much. But I do admit that I'm saying this perhaps because no developers out there actually managed to "do evil" in a game well so far. Maybe because it'd be too daring? Too violent? Too taboo? Too risky for sales? What about ESRB's rating issues?
This is a genuine question and I might not be aware of a few legitimately-good answers. Which games out there allow you to play a "really evil" character that you created yourself? Skyrim? Maybe... to some degree, perhaps because you can kill an entire town if you feel like it. Or perhaps the GTA series because you can highjack cars and kill the driver, or kill a pedestrian or kill... wait... is it just about killing? To be honest I think that playing a "truly evil" character in a game in the veins of say... Mass Effect or Dragon Age (Origins perhaps more than Inquisition, or even more so in DA2 maybe) would be too risky because then the devs would have to let us go "all the way" and they themselves (the devs) would have to create "opportunities" that maybe they wouldn't even be comfortable creating in the first place.
This seems a simple subject but it implies more than we might think at first glance. We gamers maybe ask for it but I'm not sure if devs out there are ready to take the leap and finally give us "true evil", so evil that after completing the game you actually feel bad about yourself and you immediately want to start a new game again as a good guy to "redeem" your chosen paths that previously lead you to murder, manipulate, control, enslave and rape. The only dev studio I can think of who might allow a few of such things happen is perhaps CDP Red, maybe they will in their future Cyberpunk game. But BioWare? Not sure. Not saying no but... too risky I think.
No one is saying being pure evil with army of evil soldiers killing everyone.
However they should have given us something like sometimes one has to do evil for the greater good.
Ex: like blackwall the choice should have been let him live or lose the support of orlais. The queen request that you execute him. Basically hard choice s. Do I risk losing a huge militry support or save a companion.... it seem they always give us the choice that saves everyone.
Sarah killing nobles is liability when u build connection and try to build support. Why not give us choice to assassinate her in secret. Sometimes you must do evil for the greater good.
I wish we could have played like lilianna.
For a game that emphasize on political power, it feels the inquisition hands are too clean.
Why the hell would Orlais pull support against a world-ending evil because the Inquisition didn't deliver some no-life who was a pawn of the Game years ago? Besides, Orlais might be run by Celene, Gaspard or Briala, probably the latter two don't care about any of that. Neither does Celene come to think of it.
What most people are asking for are more pragmatic choices, darker resolutions, consequences for both good and bad choices, perhaps some that requires betraying those close to you, to have more freedom with how we act with companions. I see no point in having such reactive companions when the PC is given nothing much for them to react to. Most of the time the game sets it up for the IQ to be justified in their anger.
Typical disapproval companion interaction for companions not named Sera:
Companion disapproves everything.
IQ: "Hey what's up?"
Com: "Screw you! Let me tell you how you suck!" *rants*
IQ: "Please leave." or *punch*(option for only two out of nine)
Com: "No!" or "I'm leaving."(option for one out of nine)
DA2:
Companion disapproves everything
*Hawke expresses opinions that is more than just one sentence.*
Hawke: "What's your problem?"
Com: "You suck! But I kinda still wanna bang ya." 
Hawke: "I know right? Rivalry system ftw!" 
DAO:
Companion disapproves everything (provided that they even live to make it back to camp)
Warden: "Hey."
Com: "You suck!"
Warden: "So? You suck too. Whiner."
Com: "This is a list of shyt you did that p*sses me off!"
Warden: "Yeah well let me tell about how you can take that list and go f*ck yourself with it."
Com: "I'm not talking to you anymore!" or *Fight* or "I'm leaving."
Is it too much to ask for a bit of all three? 
Retour en haut
