733 réponses à ce sujet

[Jukaga]

An outright 'Evil' option wouldn't fly in DAI. Your inner circle would lynch you if you started to turn into a tyrant.

[omgodzilla]

An outright 'Evil' option wouldn't fly in DAI. Your inner circle would lynch you if you started to turn into a tyrant.

 

Then who else is gonna close all those rifts? The worst I can imagine is some of them simply leaving. No one is gonna attack you. They'd be committing suicide. Not only because the inquisitor is highly skilled at combat and has an army on his side but also because he is the only one that can close fade rifts (including both of the breaches we encounter in the game). Solas isn't gonna leave since he wants his orb back and he knows the inquisition is the only way he'll get it back. Cassandra won't leave either, she'll see it through to the end just as Alistair does in DAO even if he hates you. You could easily get away with being a tyrant. As long as you are smart and pragmatic about it. Torturing puppies for fun isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about being ruthless and doing whatever it takes to destroy your enemies and becoming the most powerful person in the world. Like Genghis Khan, Sulla, Julius Caesar or Joseph Stalin.

 

We need more options like shooting Mordin and sabotaging the genophage. THAT's the kind of ruthlessness I wanted from this game. 

[AlexMBrennan]

Then who else is gonna close all those rifts? The worst I can imagine is some of them simply leaving

Simple: Keep the "inquisitor" in a cage and cart him to rifts that need closing (the tutorial demonstrated that it's enough to grab your hand and point it at the rift) whilst someone else makes the decisions like who gets to be Emperor.

 

But again, this is a Bioware staple: we are some kind of hero, so we get to make decisions which realistically we have no business being involved with - how about letting the Admiral of the fleet decide which target to go after? After all, he is the one who can see the battlefield while we wouldn't have a clue as to what's going on if it wasn't for the omnicient observer's view the player (but not Shepard) shares...

[Biotic Flash Kick]

An outright 'Evil' option wouldn't fly in DAI. Your inner circle would lynch you if you started to turn into a tyrant.

Good then you get to kill them like you were able to in DA:O

 

I would LOVE to kill iron bull, vivienne, and solas.

 

Hell i'd love to make the last two

TRANQUIL

 

IT WOULD BE SUCH DELICIOUS IRONY

Vivienne: Pro-Circle!

*Vivienne becomes tranquil*

[KainD]

An outright 'Evil' option wouldn't fly in DAI. Your inner circle would lynch you if you started to turn into a tyrant.

 

That's not the point.. It just sucks that the story relies on you being ''good'' in order to work in the first place. 

[omgodzilla]

Simple: Keep the "inquisitor" in a cage and cart him to rifts that need closing (the tutorial demonstrated that it's enough to grab your hand and point it at the rift) whilst someone else makes the decisions like who gets to be Emperor.

 

 

Yeah and while everyone is busy killing the demons near the rifts, all it will take is a few demons to sneak up and kill the inquisitor while he's in the cage. What then? What if the inquisitor commits suicide? Who's gonna take up leadership of the inquisition? How are people gonna react to the herald of Andraste being locked in a cage? Also, why would they refuse to stand by and let the inquisitor be ruthless but still have the will to enslave him? I doubt that Varric, Solas, Josephine, Cullen, or Cassandra would tolerate enslavement. Also, keep in mind that the inquisitor can actively open up rifts. You would need some kind of magical prison to contain him, otherwise he can still cause tremendous amounts of damage even in a cage. The Mark of the Rift ability alone makes him extremely deadly. Not to mention that he's also very skilled at combat. A rogue or Warrior inquisitor wouldn't just stand by and let anybody come by and raise up their hand like Solas does in the tutorial mission. A mage inquisitor would be even more difficult to control. 

[Persephone]

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.

I gotta ask:

 

Choosing the following isn't meaningful?

 

• Who will be Divine after Corypheus is defeated?
• Who will rule Orlais?
• Banish the Wardens from Southern Thedas or give them a chance at atonement?
• Dissolve the Templar Order or recruit them as allies?
• Conscript the mages or recruit them as allies?
• Support Cassandra's plans re: the Seekers or not?
• Soften Leliana or support her hardened stance?
• Offer atonement to Blackwall, leave him to rot, give him to the Wardens?
• Drink from the Well Of Sorrows & thus be bound to Mythal/Flemeth/Solas or not?
• Which part of Cole's personality do you support?
• Agree to an alliance with the Qunari or choose the Chargers instead?
• Hawke vs. Loghain/Alistair/Stroud?

And that's just a bunch of things that DIRECTLY affect the game, play out IN GAME and in the epilogue slides. DAO wasn't really all that different & all that "changed" there were the pixels of your support units in Denerim and the epilogue? I mean.....let's be fair here? The decisions in DAI are actually much larger than those of the previous two combined.

[Seraphim24]

They should of at least just given you the NWN2 style rebellion option, where you literally just sided with the final boss. It might of been largely meaningless as I'd probably still pick the "good" side, but at least somewhat entertaining to know that it's there.

 

The problem though is systemic, one of my favorite things in BG2 was planning and ambushing the mage covenant that enforced magical laws in Amn, they seemed like such jerks anyway.

 

I wish in DA:2 you could of just joined some kind of 3rd party and wiped out both Templars and Mages, to be honest, they were both too warmongery to really feel good about siding with either party.

[ThreeF]

That's not the point.. It just sucks that the story relies on you being ''good'' in order to work in the first place. 

 

But does it? Many of your decision and actions can be described as necessary and even dangerous, not good.

[omgodzilla]

But does it? Many of your decision and actions can be described as necessary and even dangerous, not good.

 

It doesn't go far enough. Mass Effect 3 did a much better job with the morality system. Nothing in DAI can compare to the ruthlessness of sabotaging the genophage, shooting Samara's daughter or killing General Oraka to get aid from the Blue Suns. 

[IanPolaris]

I gotta ask:

 

Choosing the following isn't meaningful?

 

• Who will be Divine after Corypheus is defeated?
• Who will rule Orlais?
• Banish the Wardens from Southern Thedas or give them a chance at atonement?
• Dissolve the Templar Order or recruit them as allies?
• Conscript the mages or recruit them as allies?
• Support Cassandra's plans re: the Seekers or not?
• Soften Leliana or support her hardened stance?
• Offer atonement to Blackwall, leave him to rot, give him to the Wardens?
• Drink from the Well Of Sorrows & thus be bound to Mythal/Flemeth/Solas or not?
• Which part of Cole's personality do you support?
• Agree to an alliance with the Qunari or choose the Chargers instead?
• Hawke vs. Loghain/Alistair/Stroud?

And that's just a bunch of things that DIRECTLY affect the game, play out IN GAME and in the epilogue slides. DAO wasn't really all that different & all that "changed" there were the pixels of your support units in Denerim and the epilogue? I mean.....let's be fair here? The decisions in DAI are actually much larger than those of the previous two combined.

 

None of them are meaningful in DAI.  It doesn't matter which you pick, the game plays and people react to you exactly the same way.

[Persephone]

It doesn't go far enough. Mass Effect 3 did a much better job with the morality system. Nothing in DAI can compare to the ruthlessness of sabotaging the genophage, shooting Samara's daughter or killing General Oraka to get aid from the Blue Suns. 

"But alas.....subtlety is lost on me." (Leliana, DAO)

 

The Inquisition itself could be seen and played as a cult and that's more dangerous and morally gray than any murder knife scenes or underhanded betrayals. IDK, I prefer these shades of gray 'cause I reeeeeeeeeally not not view the Inquisition as "good", not necessarily. Just look at the Seekers, there's one possible future.

[Persephone]

None of them are meaningful in DAI.  It doesn't matter which you pick, the game plays and people react to you exactly the same way.

Um, no, they don't?

 

They reeeeeeeally don't. Just one example: Solas being furious if you spare the Wardens/drink from the well. Another: How Leliana's quest ends (Nathalie's fate) and how she feels about it/changes/doesn't change.

 

No choice in DAO was "meaningful" within that game either then.

[IanPolaris]

Um, no, they don't?

 

They reeeeeeeally don't. Just one example: Solas being furious if you spare the Wardens/drink from the well. Another: How Leliana's quest ends (Nathalie's fate) and how she feels about it/changes/doesn't change.

 

No choice in DAO was "meaningful" within that game either then.

 

You are mistaken.  Other than the immediate scene in question, Solas doesn't treat you any differently if you drink from the well or not.  Same goes for the Wardens.  Lelianna is a hardcoded change and it only depends on a couple of options......NONE of which actually impact the game.  Moreover, how others regard you in general doesn't change no matter what choices you make.

 

None of that is true in DAO or even ME.  In ME (for example), NPCs (and esp the council) will talk and treat you differently if you are high Renegade vs Paragon....and that's just scratching the surface.

[KainD]

But does it? Many of your decision and actions can be described as necessary and even dangerous, not good.

 

It's subjective. What I personally want in regards to evil is being able to roleplay a character that does not have a moral compass. I don't care where the story takes me, I just want the story to be able to make sense for such a character, to justify all the actions that such a character would take and to not force any emotional responses on my character. 

 

The old republic achieves this - as an example. 

[ThreeF]

It doesn't go far enough. Mass Effect 3 did a much better job with the morality system. Nothing in DAI can compare to the ruthlessness of sabotaging the genophage, shooting Samara's daughter or killing General Oraka to get aid from the Blue Suns. 

 

I mean to say that in DAI there is no extreme option of "evil", in the same way there is no extreme option of "good".  For the most part it's all grey and you can define each action by yourself.

 

The Inquisition itself could be seen and played as a cult and that's more dangerous and morally gray than any murder knife scenes or underhanded betrayals. IDK, I prefer these shades of gray 'cause I reeeeeeeeeally not not view the Inquisition as "good", not necessarily. Just look at the Seekers, there's one possible future.

 

Yes, very much so. It can be played as a cult, it can be played as a tool to further IQ's goals, it can be played in many ways.

 

It's subjective. What I personally want in regards to evil is being able to roleplay a character that does not have a moral compass. I don't care where the story takes me, I just want the story to be able to make sense for such a character, to justify all the actions that such a character would take and to not force any emotional responses on my character. 

 

The old republic achieves this - as an example. 

 

So in which situations you think DAI forces you to have a moral compass? I have in mind couple lines that make you sound as is you are goody-two-shoes, but they are not mandatory, so i'm curious.

[KainD]

So in what situations you think DAI forces you to have a moral compass?

 

Every step of the way. 

[ThreeF]

Every step of the way. 

Not true, you can make a choice and justify it as moral, and you can pick a choice (sometimes even the very same one) and justify it as being amoral, or even not morality related at all.

[Persephone]

You are mistaken.  Other than the immediate scene in question, Solas doesn't treat you any differently if you drink from the well or not.  Same goes for the Wardens.  Lelianna is a hardcoded change and it only depends on a couple of options......NONE of which actually impact the game.  Moreover, how others regard you in general doesn't change no matter what choices you make.

 

None of that is true in DAO or even ME.  In ME (for example), NPCs (and esp the council) will talk and treat you differently if you are high Renegade vs Paragon....and that's just scratching the surface.

And in DAI people treat you differently based on your approval and that goes beyond one choice. I've seen how low approval DAI companions treat Quizzy. Also, in DAO "choices" didn't matter either, approval did. I could be a total monster & people would yell at me & then everything was A OK again. Heck, I could even "cheat", using meaningless gift spam. In DAI companions actually remember what you said previously. I.E. Tell Vivienne you intend to restore the Circles/Chantries? She will bring that up, as in that you SAID that in a later conversation. Making the wrong choice in a conversation could lead to a romance ending later......but less ridiculously so than in DAO. According to your logic, every choice in DAO was even more shallow. It's pointless to discuss this further.

 

Again, the rose tinted glasses re: DAO need to vanish. DAO is no holy grail and I'm sick of it being worshipped tbh. *Shrugs*

[KainD]

Not true, you can make a choice and justify it as moral, and you can pick a choice (sometimes even the very same one) and justify it as being amoral, or even not morality related at all.

 

That's the problem, you don't have any say in the reason for the choice, it's played out for you. 

[ThreeF]

That's the problem, you don't have any say in the reason for the choice, it's played out for you. 

 

I'm not seeing this.

[KainD]

I'm not seeing this.

 

Sigh.. 

 

Ok, example - Lord Erimond judgement, just because that's the last video I watched about Dragon age today. 

 

1) Inquisitor has a pissed off tone to matter what option you choose.

2) Inquisitor believes that Erimond has done something wrong, no matter what option you choose. 

 

Clearly indicating that Inquisitor has morals. 

[Il Divo]

And in DAI people treat you differently based on your approval and that goes beyond one choice. I've seen how low approval DAI companions treat Quizzy. Also, in DAO "choices" didn't matter either, approval did. I could be a total monster & people would yell at me & then everything was A OK again. Heck, I could even "cheat", using meaningless gift spam. In DAI companions actually remember what you said previously. I.E. Tell Vivienne you intend to restore the Circles/Chantries? She will bring that up, as in that you SAID that in a later conversation. Making the wrong choice in a conversation could lead to a romance ending later......but less ridiculously so than in DAO. According to your logic, every choice in DAO was even more shallow. It's pointless to discuss this further.

 

Again, the rose tinted glasses re: DAO need to vanish. DAO is no holy grail and I'm sick of it being worshipped tbh. *Shrugs*

 

It is funny that I do see the Mass Effect series as a whole criticized for not having meaningful choices, so seeing it used as a counter-example to Inquisition does make me raise my eyebrows. Sometimes it's followed by some vague comment about how older Bioware games did choices with consequences better. 

[Persephone]

Sigh.. 

 

Ok, example - Lord Erimond judgement, just because that's the last video I watched about Dragon age today. 

 

1) Inquisitor has a pissed off tone to matter what option you choose.

2) Inquisitor believes that Erimond has done something wrong, no matter what option you choose. 

 

Clearly indicating that Inquisitor has morals. 

 

I see what you did there but the example is a bit weak 'cause......

 

After Adamant, who would NOT be pissed when dealing with the likes of Erimond?

[Persephone]

It is funny that I do see the Mass Effect series as a whole criticized for not having meaningful choices, so seeing it used as a counter-example to Inquisition does make me raise my eyebrows. Sometimes it's followed by some vague comment about how older Bioware games did choices with consequences better. 

There's that.

 

And as someone who has defended DAII since it came out........the sudden rose tinted glasses treatment DAII is receiving now is pretty telling as well.