733 réponses à ce sujet

[Althix]

in case you didn't noticed, topic starter, murder knife for no reason, born and died in Origins.

 

because:

Spoiler

 

Chaotic Evil? Lawful Evil? Neutral Evil? hell no. go die in the corner oldfags.

[zeypher]

1a.Have a negative approval with Cassandra and make her a divine

or

1b.Have negative approval with Vivienne and make her a divine

2. Ally yourself with the Qun, to give the Qun a stronger foothold

3. Make Gaspard, Celene and Briala work with each other for you.

?????

chaos for everyone.

All hinted, it does not affect your game and we will likely never even return to this part of the world. Choice has to have proper interactive consequence not just hinted. Your entire list is nothing but a poor illusion of choice. Im sorry but i refuse to accept crap like that as C&C.

[KainD]

Unless your party is all stupid evil, you'd still have to have people murder you with extreme prejudice just for being stupidly open about an evil agenda. Chaotic stupid evil doesn't work except in a game designed in the group up for it.

Look at every brilliant villain mastermind ever portrayed in film, comics or gaming. The common thread is that the villain maintains the air of normalcy at all times.

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

Second, you could have different parties and organisations that you could work with depending on your alignment.

If there are party members that want to kill you for your actions - kill them and move along.

[KainD]

Playing as a too obviously evil character has certain problems with regard to the plot.

Because before even making the plot one has to make sure that it would make sense for multiple moralities.

[KainD]

Chaotic Evil? Lawful Evil? Neutral Evil? hell no. go die in the corner oldfags.

Says the person with the symbol of Slaanesh as the avatar..

[JackPoint]

Ultimately it doesn't matter, you can beat the game in 8hrs flat with 20 power lol, unless you feel the need to go out and do mindless fetch quests and have conversations with characters than have nothing of interest to say,  " looking at you Solas, Sera, Cole,Vivienne, Blackwall. Thee only intereesting npc for me was the barkeep in Skyhold, that guy knows ****.

[IanPolaris]

Remember that early on Bioware marketing did at least hint at the ability to make a real choice in this regard (when Morrigan asked if you would be the world's savior or it's nemisis).

 

However IMHO Bioware learned the wrong lesson from the ME3 ending debacle.  I believe the lession BW learned (wrongly IMHO) is that the best way to keep people from complaining about a canned 'no-choice' ending was to make sure that there weren't any choices in the actual game all along....which as I've said before means that Bioware has essentially decided to stop making roleplaying games.

[JackPoint]

Remember that early on Bioware marketing did at least hint at the ability to make a real choice in this regard (when Morrigan asked if you would be the world's savior or it's nemisis).

 

However IMHO Bioware learned the wrong lesson from the ME3 ending debacle.  I believe the lession BW learned (wrongly IMHO) is that the best way to keep people from complaining about a canned 'no-choice' ending was to make sure that there weren't any choices in the actual game all along....which as I've said before means that Bioware has essentially decided to stop making roleplaying games.

^^^ This

[In Exile]

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

Second, you could have different parties and organisations that you could work with depending on your alignment.

If there are party members that want to kill you for your actions - kill them and move along.

There's absolutely stupid evil. Like murdering someone in full view of apparently blind guards at Ostagar. 

 

And like I said, what you've reduced this to is the immortal PC getting to be evil because you win all combat encounters in virtue of the plot. 

 

Creating a game that permits whatever you consider "evil" requires building the game from the ground up to only do that. Allowing both an proper good and evil path requires creating two entirely different games, which is just a waste of resources, especially since most people will not pick the stupid evil choices. 

[Hazegurl]

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

Second, you could have different parties and organisations that you could work with depending on your allotment.

If there are party members that want to kill you for your actions - kill them and move along.

I personally think Mass Effect did a geat job of giving us pragmatic(renegade) choices.  Choices that were morally and ethically qustionable but at the same time benefitted most people in some way. I wouldn't mind companions having an issue with my choices, they can either leave or try to kill me. But in the Quizzy's case, trying to kill him would just make the companion a complete moron. Yeah, kill the guy who can send you into the fade at the snap of his fingers or can send his hardened spymaster to kidnap someone you love no problems. lol!

 

 

There's absolutely stupid evil. Like murdering someone in full view of apparently blind guards at Ostagar.

 

You mean the same guard who hated him, didn't even want to watch him, or be there? Since when has Dragon Age been advertised as a morally correct world full of honest noble folks?

[o Ventus]

So you are essentially telling us that Bioware is no longer interesting in making ROLEPLAYING games.

Because in order for it to be an RPG, you have to make ground-shaking, earth-shattering moral choices. 

 

I guess none of the Elder Scrolls games, none of the Fallout games, South Park: The Stick of Truth, any of the Diablo games, Torchlight 1 and 2, Arx Fatalis, System Shock 2, or either Dark Souls 1 and 2 + Demon's Soul aren't RPGs then, despite being a handful of the highest-rated "RPGs" of all time.

[Althix]

Says the person with the symbol of Slaanesh as the avatar..

but i love everyone.

[Fufunette]

Remember that early on Bioware marketing did at least hint at the ability to make a real choice in this regard (when Morrigan asked if you would be the world's savior or it's nemisis).

 

However IMHO Bioware learned the wrong lesson from the ME3 ending debacle.  I believe the lession BW learned (wrongly IMHO) is that the best way to keep people from complaining about a canned 'no-choice' ending was to make sure that there weren't any choices in the actual game all along....which as I've said before means that Bioware has essentially decided to stop making roleplaying games.

If that so, then next Bioware game I'll wait for Origin 50/70% sales... No deluxe or Day one anymore... I'm not interested in poor story and characters "RPG" with no choices, where I only can play the Hero they want me to play.

[ThreeF]

All hinted, it does not affect your game and we will likely never even return to this part of the world. Choice has to have proper interactive consequence not just hinted. Your entire list is nothing but a poor illusion of choice. Im sorry but i refuse to accept crap like that as C&C.

 

It was a jest, no need to be serious all the time (but they all can be seen as evil choices, if anything they are "clever" evil choices, instead of the random "let's kill everyone because I'm evil")

 

I'd like more interactive consequences but the point is BW is the dungeon master in their games and not the PC and as far as I know they have never made a game where PC was the dungeon master.

 

 

Chaotic Evil? Lawful Evil? Neutral Evil?

 

I"m honestly curious do people still play with that mindset? I mean if anything DA gives you a much fuller range, why restricting yourself, is it nostalgia?

[EmissaryofLies]

I want to play an evil, manipulative, power-hungry blood mage. Someone who's only after power, and will do anything to get it. Who's willing to sacrifice anything in that pursuit.

I can't, however, since even the most evil... Is kinda just rude. Such a shame. In DA:O I found it very possible, especially with options like the Dark Ritual. I will say tho, the Well of Sorrows was one point, where it was very possible, but apart from that... Have you guys tried playing as an evil guy? Sort of like Raistlin from Dragonlance, if anyone is familiar with him. How did it go?

 

It went badly because the Inquisitor never takes off the kid gloves.

 

The Warden could be a dark messiah and Hawke a dark anti-hero. This Inquisitor is a Disney character who wouldn't last 10 minutes in Origins.

 

It is not necessarily about playing an 'evil character' for me; it's about limitations where there once were none. It's about advancing a franchise while reducing what makes an rpg an rpg, choices.

[In Exile]

I personally think Mass Effect did a geat job of giving us pragmatic(renegade) choices.  Choices that were morally and ethically qustionable but at the same time benefitted most people in some way. I wouldn't mind companions having an issue with my choices, they can either leave or try to kill me. But in the Quizzy's case, trying to kill him would just make the companion a complete moron. Yeah, kill the guy who can send you into the fade at the snap of his fingers or can send his hardened spymaster to kidnap someone you love no problems. lol!

 

The vast majority of renegade choices were insane and "for the lulz". Aside from the false dilemma aspect of them (perpetrate genocide on the rachni Y/N) 

 

As for the Inquisitor, well, they could just imprison you, gimp you, and cart you around from rift to rift to close it. You don't, for example, need a second arm, legs, or even eyes to close the rift by sticking out your hand. If we're talking about actual evil, well, your existence is really not all that important. 

[Nykara]

There are far more evils in this world then simply picking up a weapon and killing everyone for the sake of killing everyone.

Devious, manipulation is at play in this game. There are a lot of dark choices here, you just have to be able to see them.

[IanPolaris]

Because in order for it to be an RPG, you have to make ground-shaking, earth-shattering moral choices. 

 

I guess none of the Elder Scrolls games, none of the Fallout games, South Park: The Stick of Truth, any of the Diablo games, Torchlight 1 and 2, Arx Fatalis, System Shock 2, or either Dark Souls 1 and 2 + Demon's Soul aren't RPGs then, despite being a handful of the highest-rated "RPGs" of all time.

 

No, in order for it to be a roleplaying games, you have to be able to make meaningful choices.  If you can't, then you have no way to distiguish your personality and your approaches (in character) and how others react to them from others.  Frankly the TES games are *barely* roleplaying games at best, and the character developement and NPC personality development in such games is typically (and traditionally) poor.  In fact poor character development and poor choice determination is almost a tradition in TES games. 

 

In DAO, you could make meaningful choices and the world responded to them....to the effect that while you still had to defeat the archdemon, the world and people you interacted with could and did feel and play much differently.  This is the kernel of what makes a roleplaying game a "roleplaying" game. 

 

If you make choices but they don't matter (or you can't make choices), then you are playing an adventure game.  That's fine if that's what you like, but don't call it what it's not.

[o Ventus]

No, in order for it to be a roleplaying games, you have to be able to make meaningful choices.  If you can't, then you have no way to distiguish your personality and your approaches (in character) and how others react to them from others.  Frankly the TES games are *barely* roleplaying games at best, and the character developement and NPC personality development in such games is typically (and traditionally) poor.  In fact poor character development and poor choice determination is almost a tradition in TES games. 

 

In DAO, you could make meaningful choices and the world responded to them....to the effect that while you still had to defeat the archdemon, the world and people you interacted with could and did feel and play much differently.  This is the kernel of what makes a roleplaying game a "roleplaying" game. 

 

If you make choices but they don't matter (or you can't make choices), then you are playing an adventure game.  That's fine if that's what you like, but don't call it what it's not.

So "it's an RPG when I say it's an RPG".

 

Gotcha. I also like how you pigeonhole choices into being solely about the plot, because building your character, character class, equipping them with weapons, taking professions... Those aren't meaningful choices, despite literally changing the way the game is played.

 

MMORPGs aren't RPGs either then, even though the very name of the genre has "RPG" in it.

[IanPolaris]

There are far more evils in this world then simply picking up a weapon and killing everyone for the sake of killing everyone.

Devious, manipulation is at play in this game. There are a lot of dark choices here, you just have to be able to see them.

 

Actually no, there really aren't.  Nothing you do makes a real difference and there isn't a 'good' or 'bad' choice in DAI at all at least in actual game play.

[KainD]

Creating a game that permits whatever you consider "evil" requires building the game from the ground up to only do that. Allowing both an proper good and evil path requires creating two entirely different games, which is just a waste of resources, especially since most people will not pick the stupid evil choices.

Making a proper rpg is a waste of resourses - ok.

[mLIQUID]

Evil... no. Less tolerant, yes. It would be cool to beat the bad guy at his own game... squash him and fill his shoes. Too many arcs make for an impossible development. They need to be more related to blend some of the common elements. Otherwise you have 2 games or something as dry as skyrim. You can be evil in skyrim at the cost of being absolutely nobody of substance. Options or depth... you can hold them out like scales because if you want both you're looking at 20 year development cycles.

[IanPolaris]

So "it's an RPG when I say it's an RPG".

 

Gotcha.

 

No, it's an RPG when it's a Role-Playing Game.  If you can't roleplay (and this requires meaningful choice), then it's not an RPG by definition...not matter what lots of gaming companies will try to claim.

[Althix]

I"m honestly curious do people still play with that mindset? I mean if anything DA gives you a much fuller range, why restricting yourself, is it nostalgia?

problem lies in the fact that it doesn't give me fuller range. Only 1/3 of it.

 

You can't be evil and you also can't be neutral. you has to be a hero. HAS to be a hero, there is no choice. Because it is so aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawesoooooom. not.