733 réponses à ce sujet

[javeart]

I'm all for more choices and more impact for all of them, but honestly, I've always thought that having to work with limited resources, those evil/psycopath choices that abound in BW games were kind of waste. I'm not against the good/evil duality per se, but I'm not a big fan of the kind of extremist options to wich it usually leads, and that I can only use if I'm doing a evil pt, because they make no sense for a more/less normal PC. Truth is I'm happy to have more options to play more/normal PCs, even if it means loosing the "evil playthrough".

[KainD]

I'm all for more choices and more impact for all of them, but honestly, I've always thought that having to work with limited resources, those evil/psycopath choices that abound in BW games were kind of waste. I'm not against the good/evil duality per se, but I'm not a big fan of the kind of extremist options to wich it usually leads, and that I can only use if I'm doing a evil pt, because they make no sense for a more/less normal PC. Truth is I'm happy to have more options to play more/normal PCs, even if it means loosing the "evil playthrough".

Anything I personally dont consider to be a reasonable canon choice is a waste.

[Realmzmaster]

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

Actually its been Bioware's story since BG1. The gamer simply gets to roleplay within that story. The only true roleplaying experience is tabletop and even that is limited by the adventure and story that the DM creates.

[KainD]

Actually its been Bioware's story since BG1. The gamer simply gets to roleplay within that story. The only true roleplaying experience is tabletop and even that is limited by the adventure and story that the DM creates.

Yes but the story can make sense for different moralities. There are games that achieve this.

[JackPoint]

A Templar can sleep with Morrigan just like a blood mage can sleep with Alistair, and they never make one comment on it.

 

I understand if people are dissapointed that Bioware did not push things farther (not sure it would be a good thing, locked out of a romance because you chose X spec?), but let's not act like this is anything new to the franchise.

Oh its nothing new at all, but i expect evolution not devolution in a game where our choices are " Suppose to matter". Like killing Leliana doesn't matter in your Da story?, then have bioware just whitewash it out like a shower scene from Dallas.

[Realmzmaster]

Or they could make companions with different morals or the lack of thereof that would not get along or even mutually exclusive.

 

They did that in BG1 and BG2 where certain party members wanted other party members dead and where other party members could not stay in the same party with others without trying to kill each other. 

 

The outcry on the forums over that was epic, because gamers could not make the parties they wanted.

[AresKeith]

People expected to be evil?

 

A douche maybe, but evil?

[KainD]

They did that in BG1 and BG2 where certain party members wanted other party members dead and where other party members could not stay in the same party with others without trying to kill each other.

The outcry on the forums over that was epic, because gamers could not make the parties they wanted.

And that's good. There should definitely be many mutually exclusive companions.

[KainD]

People expected to be evil?

A douche maybe, but evil?

Like I said, I personally want to play a char that doesn't have morals.

[Sekondar]

Anything I personally dont consider to be a reasonable canon choice is a waste.

To be fair, he only said that the majority of people wouldn't do a playthrough like this, and therefore they should rather spend resources om making those that people play better. I see where he's coming from, but then you might as well take the next stop, and disable choices entirely. That would allow for many other things narratively.

[KainD]

To be fair, he only said that the majority of people wouldn't do a playthrough like this, and therefore they should rather spend resources om making those that people play better. I see where he's coming from, but then you might as well take the next stop, and disable choices entirely. That would allow for many other things narratively.

Majority of people are straight, yet we have homosexual content. Should we follow his logic and cut it out because most people wont play through that content?

[Giantdeathrobot]

Oh its nothing new at all, but i expect evolution not devolution in a game where our choices are " Suppose to matter". Like killing Leliana doesn't matter in your Da story?, then have bioware just whitewash it out like a shower scene from Dallas.

 

I'm pretty certain that was down to ressources. For the very small amount of people who actually did kill Leliana, I assume Bioware didn't think it was worth it to change the entire plot of Inquisition.

 

''But they could have done so that Leliana wasn't vital to the plot!''. Yes, true, but then it means hamstringing their own story in order to deliver something that, let's be honest, few people will see or care about.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd like a game where absolutely everything I do is planified and accounted for. But I'm also a realist who knows that this will never happen unless you release a game that has very little choice and variances in the first place. Inquisition was in development for close to 4 years, Origins for even more than that. At some point a line needs to be drawn, I think.

[BraveVesperia]

Tbh, the only reason I think the Warden was able to get away with so many 'evil' acts was because of the whole 'we can do whatever we want, so long as it stops the Blight'. The Inquisitor doesn't really have that luxury, since they've got to build up trust/confidence in their new organisation.

 

Plus, they were operating much more under the radar than the Inquisitor, or even Hawke (who is famous by Act 2).

[Sekondar]

Majority of people are straight, yet we have homosexual content. Should we follow his logic and cut it out because most people wont play through that content?

Never said I agreed...

[KainD]

Never said I agreed...

Yeah I know. I sounded different there.

[Sekondar]

Tbh, the only reason I think the Warden was able to get away with so many 'evil' acts was because of the whole 'we can do whatever we want, so long as it stops the Blight'. The Inquisitor doesn't really have that luxury, since they've got to build up trust/confidence in their new organisation.

Plus, there were operating much more under the radar than the Inquisitor, or even Hawke (who is famous by Act 2).

True, true. Still wish there would be more cynical dialogue choices. Would also love a character more in the line of Morrigan and Zevran... Someone who is, to some, evil. Allows for more variation, I think.

[Sekondar]

Yeah I know. I sounded different there.

All good, all good.

[Darkly Tranquil]

STONE COLD! STONE COLD! STONE COLD!!

I might attempt a second playthrough of DAI as "Stone Cold" Steve Trevelyan.

[ashlover mark 2]

Just because they let you do this in Origins doesn't mean they'll let you do it always. In Orgins you were a Grey Warden with the authority to take whatever action  necessary to end the Blight; plus most of the truly despicable actions you do occur on the fringes, and away from everyones sight. If the Inquisitor did half the **** an Evil-Warden did No one would trust the Inqusition and they'd probably try to kick you out of their country once you defeat Corypheus.

[JackPoint]

I'm pretty certain that was down to ressources. For the very small amount of people who actually did kill Leliana, I assume Bioware didn't think it was worth it to change the entire plot of Inquisition.

 

''But they could have done so that Leliana wasn't vital to the plot!''. Yes, true, but then it means hamstringing their own story in order to deliver something that, let's be honest, few people will see or care about.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd like a game where absolutely everything I do is planified and accounted for. But I'm also a realist who knows that this will never happen unless you release a game that has very little choice and variances in the first place. Inquisition was in development for close to 4 years, Origins for even more than that. At some point a line needs to be drawn, I think.

So you're saying they data mined my choices out of DA . Good to know our choices in DAI won't matter for DA dlcs or da 4., because they'l just data mine a canon ending ala ME3.

[Sekondar]

[quote name="Darkly Tranquil" post="18397619" timestamp="1421524830"]

I might attempt a second playthrough of DAI as "Stone Cold" Steve Trevelyan.[/quote

Try doing that with the British male voice actor. "Ah yes, but I am so noble and posh, your concerns trouble me little. I realise you're empress, yes, but I'll still do what I want to." Damn, I really did find him to be overly posh, even if it was fitting for my Trevelyan. But he just sounded like some Prince Charming...

[Sekondar]

Just because they let you do this in Origins doesn't mean they'll let you do it always. In Orgins you were a Grey Warden with the authority to take whatever action necessary to end the Blight; plus most of the truly despicable actions you do occur on the fringes, and away from everyones sight. If the Inquisitor did half the **** an Evil-Warden did No one would trust the Inqusition and they'd probably try to kick you out of their country once you defeat Corypheus.

Don't tell me playing that game wouldn't be fun.

[JackPoint]

funnier than a brit dwarf carta assasssin?

[Maconbar]

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?

Was the Dark Ritual that evil? 

[Barathos]

As others have stated, being evil would clash royally with how the entire Inquisition thing. If you just killed every peasent, poor old man, and virgin noble you came across nobody would follow that and the Inquisition would fail. 

 

Now, if you're talking about decisions changing ever so slightly, like leaving BOTH Warden and Hawke behind, and things of that nature where people will never see / know it, then sure! That would work! But being otherwise evil? Not so much.