733 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

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.

 

Pretty much hits the nail on the head.

 

Granted, the scope of choices offered in DA:I (and all games) fails compared to table top, but the point remains: if your character behaved in a table top campaign the way he behaves as a chaotic evil character in a cRPG, the campaign wouldn't function. 

 

Because games are more limited in scope than free form role-playing, they're better off restricting obviously non-sensical role-playing options rather than encouraging them, imo. 

[Sasie]

Lack of real options is why Dragon Age will never top Baldur's gate 2 with the path they taken. Sure our companions might have a lot more content now then they had back then however they are all made with a rather specific hero in mind. I love that not all the NPCs in Baldur's gate can be in the party at the same time and you have to pick and choose who you want to take a long. Even better that they will leave if you act against their morals and some just don't get along with each other. You can't have Keldorn and Viconia in the same party without them killing each other for example.

 

Inquisiton does some of this but hold itself back, probably because of gameplay. A few of the companions will never leave no matter how badly they disagree and you can't kick them out either. I don't see why the Inquisitor can tell Sera to leave but not Vivienne after she's been recruited. Regardless of their influence I can't imagine the entire Inquisition would turn on us if we told them to drag Vivienne or Cassandra out of Skyhold if they refused to leave on their own. Especially not when they are the only ones I had negative approval with.

Sadly for us the Inquisitors power seems to be highly limited for a leader. If we actually do have an army of faithful at our back that should allow us to do almost anything as long as their faith in us remain. Don't like how mother Giselle keep trying to manipulate us? Have her arrested and make up some excuse how she tried to take over in the name of the Chantry. If the Envy demon would have been able to do it so should we. 

 

It's not just evil options that are lacking though but all these small things that Bioware just didn't include because it interfere with the gameplay or the story they wanted to tell. Even if the story in this game would not change much if we were allowed to express ourselves a bit more freely.
 

[JackPoint]

? No you can't. Varric and Cass never leave you. Vivienne doesn't leave you once you've recruited her. (Hell I don't even think you can make her leave either.)

The only ones you can force out are Sera, Cole and  blackwall via his trial or exile. i've tried getting shut of vivienne it doesn't work .

[Captain_Crunch]

Lack of real options is why Dragon Age will never top Baldur's gate 2 with the path they taken. Sure our companions might have a lot more content now then they had back then however they are all made with a rather specific hero in mind. I love that not all the NPCs in Baldur's gate can be in the party at the same time and you have to pick and choose who you want to take a long. Even better that they will leave if you act against their morals and some just don't get along with each other. You can't have Keldorn and Viconia in the same party without them killing each other for example.

 

Inquisiton does some of this but hold itself back, probably because of gameplay. A few of the companions will never leave no matter how badly they disagree and you can't kick them out either. I don't see why the Inquisitor can tell Sera to leave but not Vivienne after she's been recruited. Regardless of their influence I can't imagine the entire Inquisition would turn on us if we told them to drag Vivienne or Cassandra out of Skyhold if they refused to leave on their own. Especially not when they are the only ones I had negative approval with.

Sadly for us the Inquisitors power seems to be highly limited for a leader. If we actually do have an army of faithful at our back that should allow us to do almost anything as long as their faith in us remain. Don't like how mother Giselle keep trying to manipulate us? Have her arrested and make up some excuse how she tried to take over in the name of the Chantry. If the Envy demon would have been able to do it so should we. 

 

It's not just evil options that are lacking though but all these small things that Bioware just didn't include because it interfere with the gameplay or the story they wanted to tell. Even if the story in this game would not change much if we were allowed to express ourselves a bit more freely.
 

 

They kinda gave a glimpse of that with the Templar quest.

 

Personally, I just miss the option of being able to pull out my murder knife every chance I get.  DAI has a few, but they seem to only be in instances where the guy deserves it (like a venatori boss or whatever).

[Sekondar]

The thing is in this game you don't need to play as a traditional one-dimensional evil character in order to be evil. The game's point is legends=/=what really happened and this give you quite a bit of room to do things your way.

And really, would any sane villain get his hands on a organization that gives him so much power and not take advantage of it? The limitation of DAI is that it focuses on "evil" in a different way than many fantasy games and that means that the games that let you play the traditional "evil" have their own limitations. I'm not saying that the way it is handled is perfect, it does need to be polished but still. You get to be ruthless in WT missions, you get the opportunity to create chaos when choosing the Divine and at the Winter Palace Ball and destabilize Ferelden and Orlais, help Qun to have a better footing. If you think of it you really get to build your own little empire and most of the population will be none the wiser and that is pretty "evil". No sane competent person who wants power will go around pissing powerful people off and killing them on purpose just because it's the "evil" thing to do, it's not "evil" it's "insane" and sometimes "stupid". A competed villain will see and take advantage of the opportunity given them and realize that he can not do it alone. In a way you can't be Sera's evil twin, but you get to be Vivienne.

The relationship IQ has with the world is symbiotic.

But I don't get to express any evil intentions, whatsoever. Everytime I do something "evil", I end up apologizing for it. Why? Take Iron Bulls personal quest: If I sacrifice the Chargers, I have to stand there and tell him how sorry I am. The most ruthless thing to say is "It had to be this way". Why can't I say something like: "Don't be foolish. What do you think I care more for, a single mercenary group or the aid of the Qunari? Pull yourself together." I mean, I just wish there was more of that. Also, sarcastic answers does a lot towards me being able to play an evil guy. I could do lots of it in Origins. Tell Alistair how stupid he is, the same way Morrigan did.

[Farangbaa]

I think this is a great improvement over 'Hi, I am Shepard, I murder everyone on sight.... but everybody loves me'.

[Sekondar]

I think this is a great improvement over 'Hi, I am Shepard, I murder everyone on sight.... but everybody loves me'.

I don't. The improvemt would be, that everybody didn't love me.

[Farangbaa]

I don't. The improvemt would be, that everybody didn't love me.

No. Renegade Shepard is absolutely nuts. A guy like that would never even be considered for Spectre status, or any serious position in the military. The entire story wouldn't exist with Psycho Shepard.

[ThreeF]

But I don't get to express any evil intentions, whatsoever. Everytime I do something "evil, I end up apologizing for it. Why? Take Iron Bulls personal quest: If I sacrifice the Chargers, I have to stand there and tell him how sorry I am. The most ruthless thing to say is "It had to be this way". Why can't I say something like: "Don't be foolish. What do you think I care more for, a single mercenary group or the aid of the Qunari? Pull yourself together." I mean, I just wish there was more of that. Also, sarcastic answers does a lot towards me being able to play an evil guy. I could do lots of it in Origins. Tell Alistair how stupid he is, the same way Morrigan did.

 

"It had to be this way" is pretty neutral and it can imply  "Don't be foolish. What do you think I care more for, a single mercenary group or the aid of the Qunari? Pull yourself together."

 

I see it as the game giving you an option to put your own intentions behind the line. Instead of excluding people who don't want to say "Don't be foolish. What do you think I care more for, a single mercenary group or the aid of the Qunari? Pull yourself together." specifically it gives the room for you to decide your own motive by it being vague.

 

The game gives you an opportunity to be manipulative and sneaky villain, instead of being an insane villain with poor peoples skills, you get to be ruthless with your actions instead of words and you do get opportunity to tell people to suck it up and deal with it too in some cases.

[Spooky81]

The consequences and effects people want to achieve from being chaotic neutral/evil and taking the Joker approach of wanting to see the world burn or take it over for yourself would present design challenges and an investment of resources that the dev team just doesn't have the time for.  Even if you decide to roleplay all out CE and kill everything that moves like in BG or the original Fallout series, they all diverged onto the same endings anyway.

 

I can live with the outcome and where things end in DAO, ME and DAI without having to have the option of going the psychotic route by aiding the Archdemon or deliberately helping the Reapers bring about the next cycle

[Sekondar]

No. Renegade Shepard is absolutely nuts. A guy like that would never even be considered for Spectre status, or any serious position in the military. The entire story wouldn't exist with Psycho Shepard.

I only played the first one as a Renegade, but I found that to be fairly reasonable?

[Sekondar]

"It had to be this way" is pretty neutral and it can imply "Don't be foolish. What do you think I care more for, a single mercenary group or the aid of the Qunari? Pull yourself together."

I see it as the game giving you an option to put your own intentions behind the line. Instead of excluding people who don't want to say "Don't be foolish. What do you think I care more for, a single mercenary group or the aid of the Qunari? Pull yourself together." specifically it gives the room for you to decide your own motive by it being vague.

The game gives you an opportunity to be manipulative and sneaky villain, instead of being an insane villain with poor peoples skills, you get to be ruthless with your actions instead of words and you do get opportunity to tell people to suck it up and deal with it too in some cases.

No, I really don't feel like I can. And I feel like vague isn't necessarily good enough. I mean, just make me completely silent then. Let met nod or shake my head, interpret as you will.

[Sekondar]

The consequences and effects people want to achieve from being chaotic neutral/evil and taking the Joker approach of wanting to see the world burn or take it over for yourself would present design challenges and an investment of resources that the dev team just doesn't have the time for. Even if you decide to roleplay all out CE and kill everything that moves like in BG or the original Fallout series, they all diverged onto the same endings anyway.

I can live with the outcome and where things end in DAO, ME and DAI without having to have the option of going the psychotic route by aiding the Archdemon or deliberately helping the Reapers bring about the next cycle

But I don't need to be The Joker, I feel like I've said this countless times by now.

[Aren]

First drop the "stupid evil" there is no such thing.

 

ehm   Corypheus........

[ThreeF]

No, I really don't feel like I can. And I feel like vague isn't necessarily good enough. I mean, just make me completely silent then. Let met nod or shake my head, interpret as you will.

Erm.. ok? No one can argue about what one feels or what one doesn't feel. the fact that it didn't worked for you doesn't mean it's not there.

[Sekondar]

Erm.. ok? No one can argue about what one feels or what one doesn't feel. the fact that it didn't worked for you doesn't mean it's not there.

But the fact, that you feel like it's fine, makes you the one who's right?

[Sekondar]

ehm Corypheus........

Nah, he wanted to be a god. That's fair.

[ThreeF]

But the fact, that you feel like it's fine, makes you the one who's right?

No. I was merely pointing out that the option exists.

[Sekondar]

No. I was merely pointing out that the option exists.

Yeah, because you feel like it does. I don't.

Just want that to stress, that even tho I may come of as cross right now, that is not my intention.

[ThreeF]

Yeah, because you feel like it does. I don't.

Just want that to stress, that even tho I may come of as cross right now, that is not my intention.

That's ok, no need to worry about it, I'm not offended or anything.

 

It's impossible to argue whenever it works for everyone or even if the implementation is the right one. I think it's a step into a right direction, but is something that needs to be worked on more. It's a different way of presenting evil within the story and it is worth exploring. The ability to give the PC their own intend instead of a fixed one is also a really liberating one too, imo, but is also something that need to be planned carefully.

 

If I wanted to complain about lack of choices and being forced into things then for me it's the way the game handles the Mages quest, because I really felt like I had no option there but to shop for cabbages mages and the way the whole allying with Mages/Templars/Wardes was worded was very restrictive and had discarded my own reasoning and intend. I feel that these lines really needed to be more vague, so one can own them without being told how to feel about a situation, it beats having tons of options and having some players still not finding the right one. The game does it for the most part, just not there.

[Biotic Flash Kick]

I don't want Envy's vision of the Inquisition, so DA:I 'good guy' works for me.

 

This latest character is clicking whatever evil RP. Did I imprison some grand cleric or have her assassinated?  Imagine that. You can bargain with Ismael, genocide ancient elves for power, and be a nasty ****** at times, so what do you want?

 

I know, more evil.

 

you bastards

i wanted to kill iron bull with the assassins and keep the chargers for myself 

 

i wanted vivi to meet the murder knife or the tranquil knife

i wanted to travel to bars and see and drunken distraught cassandra after i kicked her out of the party

i wanted  to make solas tranquil

hell making dorian and vivenne tranquil would have been fun too 

blackwall serves the inquistion until death is fun! especially if you are necromancer because after he dies he will also serve in DEATH. 

 

i wanted the ability to duel and kill sera.

 

i wanted to break cole and make him kill that templar and become a bloodthirsty demon

 

 

and let's get real

not allowed to have an evil army of the faithful?

Isn't that with Muslim extremists are?

Terrorizing Terrorists that strike fear into the hearts of many?

 

 

and if your party left you because of how evil you were? it would make the game more challenging.

 

hell i've solo'd the game

that's part of the reason i wanted to eliminate my party: they are not needed

[Sekondar]

i wanted to kill iron bull with the assassins and keep the chargers for myself

i wanted vivi to meet the murder knife or the tranquil knife
i wanted to travel to bars and see and drunken distraught cassandra after i kicked her out of the party
i wanted to make solas tranquil
hell making dorian and vivenne tranquil would have been fun too
blackwall serves the inquistion until death is fun! especially if you are necromancer because after he dies he will also serve in DEATH.

i wanted the ability to duel and kill sera.

i wanted to break cole and make him kill that templar and become a bloodthirsty demon


and let's get real
not allowed to have an evil army of the faithful?
Isn't that with Muslim extremists are?
Terrorizing Terrorists that strike fear into the hearts of many?


and if your party left you because of how evil you were? it would make the game more challenging.

hell i've solo'd the game
that's part of the reason i wanted to eliminate my party: they are not needed

Please don't make this into a religious debate about Islam... Because, if we do get real, there's extremists on all sides. I'll just blame extremists in general, and not muslim extremists.

[Sekondar]

That's ok, no need to worry about it, I'm not offended or anything.

It's impossible to argue whenever it works for everyone or even if the implementation is the right one. I think it's a step into a right direction, but is something that needs to be worked on more. It's a different way of presenting evil within the story and it is worth exploring. The ability to give the PC their own intend instead of a fixed one is also a really liberating one too, imo, but is also something that need to be planned carefully.

If I wanted to complain about lack of choices and being forced into things then for me it's the way the game handles the Mages quest, because I really felt like I had no option there but to shop for cabbages mages and the way the whole allying with Mages/Templars/Wardes was worded was very restrictive and had discarded my own reasoning and intend. I feel that these lines really needed to be more vague, so one can own them without being told how to feel about a situation, it beats having tons of options and having some players still not finding the right one. The game does it for the most part, just not there.

But if you present a ton of options, whereas some may be vague, wouldn't that satisfiy everyone? Well, I know it wouldn't, but to the degree that it's possible. I just think too much vagueness will make the character bland, which they, to me, managed to do anyway.

[ThreeF]

But if you present a ton of options, whereas some may be vague, wouldn't that satisfiy everyone? Well, I know it wouldn't, but to the degree that it's possible. I just think too much vagueness will make the character bland, which they, to me, managed to do anyway.

How would you measure this degree? It's tricky. The vagueness gives you the opportunity to be as bland or as complex character as you want, a PC can be the vehicle of the story instead of participant and it's up to you, a PC can be anything in this case, but not everyone who is given this kind of freedom will know how to use it, or will want to use it. It's another kind of tricky.  I think the first option with defined number or replies is more accepted because it's a well traveled path, it doesn't  necessary makes it a better option, just more familiar.

[Sekondar]

How would you measure this degree? It's tricky. The vagueness gives you the opportunity to be as bland or as complex character as you want, a PC can be the vehicle of the story instead of participant and it's up to you, a PC can be anything in this case, but not everyone who is given this kind of freedom will know how to use it, or will want to use it. It's another kind of tricky. I think the first option with defined number or replies is more accepted because it's a well traveled path, it doesn't necessary makes it a better option, just more familiar.

I was talking about the degree to which people is satisfied, and I guess you just measure it on what people themselves say... I don't know.

I find hum to be bland, since being vague doesn't add much personality. One could argue, that he'd have a vague personality then, but that would just mean we'd be locked into that. I just think the whole "you're defined by your actions" doesn't add a whole lot of replayability, since it's only in those critical "choice" moments, that there is any difference as to who my character is. Everywhere else I'm just being vague.