733 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

but i love everyone.

No you don't.

[Giantdeathrobot]

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

 

Which it doesn't in the vast majority of RPGs. There is no reason for an ''evil'' Vault Dweller, Chosen One, Bhaalspawn (In BG1), Shepard, Warden, etc. to save the world or their Vault or whatever. The Witcher doesn't allow you to be really evil either. In other games, such as KOTOR or Jade Empire, it fits but the character is just as a boring psychopath going mwahahahaha. Planescape: Torment is the only RPG to have ever done an ''evil'' protagonist right, you can be a right bastard and you have a reason to besides gaining dark side points.

 

Bioware has kinda moved on from the binary Good vs Evil model from some time, and there are casualties along the way such as playing as in insane psychopath no one in their right mind would follow. I suppose for people who like it it sucks, but myself I have no attachement to it.

 

Inquisition is not about good or evil, but supporting faction X over faction Y. If you ask me, that's much more interesting roleplaying. And it's not like you can't be a dick who Tranquils mages, executes people, parades heads on spikes, makes Blackwall his slave and instills a tenuous peace in Orlais that's destined to break down while being assisted by a ruthless spawmaster. You can't go full-on medieval Gestapo, but the Inquisitor is not locked into good guy mode.

[IanPolaris]

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.

 

In a lot of cases MMORPGS aren't RPGs.  It depends.  One thing that computer gaming companies have become notorious for is slapping the "RPG" label on things that aren't RPGs.

[o Ventus]

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.

1. Way to completely ignore the rest of my post.

 

2. So I take it you invented the term? 

 

3. You can roleplay in just about every single game you play if you have the imagination to.

 

4. "RPG" doesn't only mean what you want it to mean.

[Althix]

No you don't.

i love you. because you are right on the half of it.

[IanPolaris]

 

Inquisition is not about good or evil, but supporting faction X over faction Y. If you ask me, that's much more interesting roleplaying. And it's not like you can't be a dick who Tranquils mages, executes people, parades heads on spikes, makes Blackwall his slave and instills a tenuous peace in Orlais that's destined to break down while being assisted by a ruthless spawmaster. You can't go full-on medieval Gestapo, but the Inquisitor is not locked into good guy mode.

 

The problem is that sure while you can do these things, none of it really matters in the direct gameplay that we experience the most.    In DAO, depending on what choices we made, our companions would start treating us differently including changes not only in conversation but tone (even in some cases to the point of violent confrontration).  Likewise non-party NPC would treat us differently depending on what choices we made (or didn't make).

 

None of that is true in DAI.  No matter how much of a bastard you try to be, the game (and companions) play the same.

[o Ventus]

In a lot of cases MMORPGS aren't RPGs.  It depends.  One thing that computer gaming companies have become notorious for is slapping the "RPG" label on things that aren't RPGs.

 

Except they ARE RPGs. They fit every criteria for being an RPG.

 

And no, moral choices are not one of them unless you're an idiot and you want the genre tailor-made to suit your interests.

[IanPolaris]

1. Way to completely ignore the rest of my post.

 

2. So I take it you invented the term? 

 

3. You can roleplay in just about every single game you play if you have the imagination to.

 

4. "RPG" doesn't only mean what you want it to mean.

 

If I were to take your point seriously, then I'd have to dilute the term "RPG" to the point of meainglessness.  I contend that RPG means what it says.  No more and no less.  If you can't RP (and you can't without meaingful choice), then it's not an RPG.  IMHO Bioware has shown of late they aren't interested in allowing their players meaningful choice and thus aren't really interested in RPGs.

[ThreeF]

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 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawersoooooom. not.

 

Hm...I guess it depends on what you consider to be neutral for instance? This is why i really find the LG/TN/CE thing restrictive, it strictly defines it and imo robs you of your own reasoning.

 

There are couple instances in the game where you are robbed of a choice, that mostly has to do with the way you end up wording some lines, but on overall there is a good range to play from a calculative and neutral perspective without going into a headcanon. The game disallows "omg, let's kill everyone because I'm evil" type of play, but it allows for a more nuanced evil type of play.  I've yet to play this game as a hero or in old terms LG. (I'm loving what they did with the LG trope in the game though)

[IanPolaris]

Except they ARE RPGs. They fit every criteria for being an RPG.

 

And no, moral choices are not one of them unless you're an idiot and you want the genre tailor-made to suit your interests.

 

No, many of them are only "RPGs" because their publishers wanted to call them that.  No other reason.  Computer gaming companies in particular are notorious for doing this.

[KainD]

Which it doesn't in the vast majority of RPGs. There is no reason for an ''evil'' Vault Dweller, Chosen One, Bhaalspawn (In BG1), Shepard, Warden, etc. to save the world or their Vault or whatever. The Witcher doesn't allow you to be really evil either. In other games, such as KOTOR or Jade Empire, it fits but the character is just as a boring psychopath going mwahahahaha. Planescape: Torment is the only RPG to have ever done an ''evil'' protagonist right, you can be a right bastard and you have a reason to besides gaining dark side points.

Bioware has kinda moved on from the binary Good vs Evil model from some time, and there are casualties along the way such as playing as in insane psychopath no one in their right mind would follow. I suppose for people who like it it sucks, but myself I have no attachement to it.

Inquisition is not about good or evil, but supporting faction X over faction Y. If you ask me, that's much more interesting roleplaying. And it's not like you can't be a dick who Tranquils mages, executes people, parades heads on spikes, makes Blackwall his slave and instills a tenuous peace in Orlais that's destined to break down while being assisted by a ruthless spawmaster. You can't go full-on medieval Gestapo, but the Inquisitor is not locked into good guy mode.

I want to role play a character that doesn't have morals. You named good examples yourself - Kotor, Jade empire, There's also Nwn2 motb.

Improvements on the type of possible evil personalities to play would be nice.

[In Exile]

The problem is that sure while you can do these things, none of it really matters in the direct gameplay that we experience the most.    In DAO, depending on what choices we made, our companions would start treating us differently including changes not only in conversation but tone (even in some cases to the point of violent confrontration).  Likewise non-party NPC would treat us differently depending on what choices we made (or didn't make).

 

None of that is true in DAI.  No matter how much of a bastard you try to be, the game (and companions) play the same.

 

That's insane and wrong. DA:I is many, many times more reactive to major things that you do. It also tracks approval in the same way, leading to the 100% disapproval conversations (e.g. punching Solas).

 

The only thing you don't have in DA:I is the Sacred Ashes kill Leliana/Wynne scene, and that's obviously been cut to avoid the fan-rage of Bioware deciding to bring a character back. Everyone bothered by that said there shouldn't be a choice to kill them at all if they were ever going to be brought back, so that's what Bioware did. 

[JackPoint]

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.

My warden was indeed a Dark Messiah, in Dai Leliana says as much and so does Alistair on the wardens conversation in the crestwood cave.As for Hawke, well she was just a Gangster lol.

[RobRam10]

We will never rule an empire as its God Emperor!

Where did we go wrong?

[o Ventus]

If I were to take your point seriously, then I'd have to dilute the term "RPG" to the point of meainglessness.

 

As opposed to abusing the term to fit only what you personally consider it to mean. Gotcha.

 

I contend that RPG means what it says.  No more and no less.

 

Really? Because you completely ignored that list of games I posted earlier.

 

If you can't RP (and you can't without meaingful choice), then it's not an RPG.

 

Except you kind of can. There are servers entirely dedicated to role-playing on World of Warcraft. But by your insane and made-up rules, WoW isn't an RPG.

 

IMHO Bioware has shown of late they aren't interested in allowing their players meaningful choice and thus aren't really interested in RPGs.

 

Yeah, because Bioware has, in the past, enabled you to completely change the outcome of the game with the choices you make. It isn't like you ALWAYS defeat the Archdemon, or that you ALWAYS kill Saren, or that you ALWAYS defeat Malak.

[Hazegurl]

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. 

That is your opinion and I disagree. Sure you can punch the reporter for lulz (which isn't even evil) but quite a few Renegade choices are understandable and makes far more sense than risking everyone's lives on hope and faith which is what some of the Paragon choices are all about.

 

No they couldn't do that to the Quizzy. Especially since he can eventually open a rift straight into the fade, a power he acquires almost directly after being made leader of the organization.  And something he can do at will. Good luck to any wannabe hero who thinks they can just cart the IQ around and not have him send them right into a pack of demons.

 

Besides, judging by the IB scene speaking to the soliders. The average person doesn't even know what the IQ looks like let alone what type of person he is. They are sheep willing to follow and many have their own moral reasons to join. The only people who have inside knowledge on the IQ is the advisers and inner circle. And most of the inner circle joined for their own selfish reasons and need the Inquisition more than it needs them. Plus you can have a badass spymaster who has no problems kidnapping kids and slitting the throats of anyone who would be dumb enough to proclaim themselves our enemy. And also, most of our support is because the Inquisitior is DA Jesus. So yeah.

[l7986]

That's insane and wrong. DA:I is many, many times more reactive to major things that you do. It also tracks approval in the same way, leading to the 100% disapproval conversations (e.g. punching Solas).

Pretty sure Origins and DA2 did the same thing, only during those two games you could actually see where you stood with your companions instead of having to guess.

[JackPoint]

That's insane and wrong. DA:I is many, many times more reactive to major things that you do. It also tracks approval in the same way, leading to the 100% disapproval conversations (e.g. punching Solas).

 

The only thing you don't have in DA:I is the Sacred Ashes kill Leliana/Wynne scene, and that's obviously been cut to avoid the fan-rage of Bioware deciding to bring a character back. Everyone bothered by that said there shouldn't be a choice to kill them at all if they were ever going to be brought back, so that's what Bioware did. 

hmm, but i got Leliana killed in Dao, so that statement about bringing chars back kinda irks me..

[IanPolaris]

That's insane and wrong. DA:I is many, many times more reactive to major things that you do. It also tracks approval in the same way, leading to the 100% disapproval conversations (e.g. punching Solas).

 

The only thing you don't have in DA:I is the Sacred Ashes kill Leliana/Wynne scene, and that's obviously been cut to avoid the fan-rage of Bioware deciding to bring a character back. Everyone bothered by that said there shouldn't be a choice to kill them at all if they were ever going to be brought back, so that's what Bioware did. 

 

Approval is essentially invisible in DAI.  The only thing that it matters for is unlocking some scenes (none of which affect the game in any meaningful way).  During the game itself, a companion with a low approval talks and plays the same as one with a high one.  Really.

 

It is not like DAO at all in that regard.  No matter what you do, the game itself plays out (and people react to the inquisitor) the same.

[mLIQUID]

Well, that plays into my point of too many story arcs.. in essence Leliana should be dead if I killed her, but that means entire paths of development for very specific choices... You can see that over time the story expands exponentially and is forced to either sever ties with prequals or become increasingly vanilla in their options. There's no way to incorporate chaos theory into a game. If you wanted to wait until 2020 instead of 2015 they could have doubled up... tripled up or more. Even still there'd be holes and at the end they'd be left with so many paths the series would have to break at that point.

[Chashan]

Totally agree with the lack of evil in the game, I love doing " Champions of the just " because man, if we could be that evil in the game, it would be the greatest game ever^^

 

Too true. Annoyed me to no end playing that in my second playthrough.

 

 

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.

 

I was thinking about that core objective as being key for my Qunari Inquisitor, as it were: use the Inquisition to sufficiently weaken the countries it operates in in the long run, making them that much more susceptible should the Qun decide to bring them into the fold.

 

Even so, it's still not quite...satisfactory enough.

 

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.

 

Wrong. BW used to be impeccable at serving two very distinct paths to follow in their games, examples being KotOR and JE. And they were magnificent for it, for more reasons than "stupid evil'/'lolz' as some here claim (and if it's just those, is there anything truly wrong with that?).

 

With the very deliberate choice of naming DA:I as it was, as far as its very obvious connotations are concerned, one certainly has to ask why the 'dark' side isn't truly a thing in the game.

[o Ventus]

Approval is essentially invisible in DAI.  The only thing that it matters for is unlocking some scenes (none of which affect the game in any meaningful way).  During the game itself, a companion with a low approval talks and plays the same as one with a high one.  Really.

 

It is not like DAO at all in that regard.  No matter what you do, the game itself plays out (and people react to the inquisitor) the same.

Quite literally the only thing that DAO's approval did that DAI's doesn't is enable people to leave. 

 

Such roleplay, so depth.

 

Bu then by this same token, I can argue that DAO's approval wasn't even role-playing, since the system was so simple and easy to game. You have to deliberately TRY to get someone to leave your party.

[JackPoint]

Well, that plays into my point of too many story arcs.. in essence Leliana should be dead if I killed her, but that means entire paths of development for very specific choices... You can see that over time the story expands exponentially and is forced to either sever ties with prequals or become increasingly vanilla in their options.

Yeup as soon as i saw Leliana i was like WTF, triple checked my world state imports re rolled seeveral times only to find out bioware invented some bullshit about the maker saving her

[l7986]

Yeah, because Bioware has, in the past, enabled you to completely change the outcome of the game with the choices you make. It isn't like you ALWAYS defeat the Archdemon, or that you ALWAYS kill Saren, or that you ALWAYS defeat Malak.

They allowed you to kill off the Quarians, exterminate the Rachni, let the Genophage continue, keep the Collecter Base, kill the Council or save them and a bunch of other stuff while still getting the eventual save the galaxy ending. There's many ways to get to the end, people want the choice to get there by means other then rescuing every kitten and old lady that's fallen and can't get up.

[Seraphim24]

They've been kind of consciously (or maybe unconsciously?) avoiding controversy in the DA series for some time now.. IMO. Most of the characters are generic "do good" types and the Viconias and such are mostly gone. I'd say it's a more vapid and uninteresting game but that's what a lot of fans/players have wanted.

 

It seems more modern gamers are more intimidated by conflicting viewpoints and seek to expel them from games, so I'd say you are not supposed to be "evil," or more accurately, the definition of good and evil is not in flux for the purposes of the game, it has been made more casual in the same way gameplay has been made more casual. The notion of "gray area" has fallen away in favor of high octane jokes and a flurry of epic action cutscenes.

 

Which again, a lot of people just prefer that over the gray area and moral complexity.

 

There were definitely though instances in the past where "moral complexity" just meant a silly kind of over-the-top evil though like Xzar and Montaron which didn't help create that gray area despite being present.