733 réponses à ce sujet

[javeart]

lol! No you don't have to agree, you're fine and not rude at all, and I hope I'm not coming across as rude. But I'm not understanding what you didn't get from the previous games by BW having "evil" choices. 

 

I was starting to worry    It's just that if they're going to give us only three options every time our PC opens her mouth or has to make a decision, I'd rather those options be less extreme options, so that I have three options that I could really see myself using.

 

I totally understand that for many people having the options to be evil it's important, but not for me, particularly because sometimes the evil choices are not just pragmatic, but almost sadistic (imo, of course). I'd rather have three different tones of grey, than white/grey/black

[Hazegurl]

Ah, I see. That makes sense. It is true that you got a ton of dialouge options that essentially catered to one or two playstyle types. Diplomatic and Neutral.

 

It's only fair now that the next DA game do the opposite then.

 

But seriously, I think it sucks for anyone to be stuck having to play one personality type and I hope they don't make the same mistake for the next game. But I know it's just wishful thinking.

[javeart]

Ah, I see. That makes sense. It is true that you got a ton of dialouge options that essentially catered to one or two playstyle types. Diplomatic and Neutral.

 

It's only fair now that the next DA game do the opposite then.

 

But seriously, I think it sucks for anyone to be stuck having to play one personality type and I hope they don't make the same mistake for the next game. But I know it's just wishful thinking.

 

On that I agree completely, the more options to roleplay your PC, always the better. I'd sacrifice a lot of things in the game just to get more choices and to make them more relevant.

[Nightdragon8]

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

yes because "Roleplaying game" as you put it have major long streching arcs that matter... Fabe Universe anyone? Does it matter if your evil in the other games? Nope. What about Witcher? Nope doesn't really matter what so ever.

 

Get it out of your head that this is a Table top Roleplaying game. Because that is the only place where if the DM wants it, the world can change.

[JackPoint]

Why shouldn't the protagonist try to manipulate the story for his own ends, bioware are basicly hamfisting you through the story with no actual personal choice to where you want to go. By doing so they negate any chance of character personality other than being a tool to finish the game.

 

Sorry but thats not how i recal DAO or even DAII, DAI is extremely Linear in its direction, may as well be the donkey following the carrot.

[Kroepoek]

Needs more renegade and less of this happy-smile-guy that accepts everything on a whim. 

[In Exile]

Soooo, I headcanon everything and convince myself that my character is a brilliant actor.

You have to convince yourself that your character is a clever villain instead of a mindless violent thug, yes.

[EmBlue]

Okay, I'm going to kind of defend the lack of potential to be evil in this game. To be fair, I've personally never understood the appeal. Honestly? I think that the main reason why it's expected in rpgs is because many games had/ have a binary system (Fable, Fallout, KOTOR etc) for recognizing ethical choices. I prefer the approval system of Dragon Age-- I think it's more complex and realistic.

 

   I mean, sure, it would be better to have the option to play as a complete psychopath than not because undoubtedly some people would appreciate it... but the lack of that option doesn't mean you're not role-playing. I think that role-playing is, largely, defined by choice but that the lack of the choice to behave monstrously doesn't mean that the game entirely lacks choice... just that particular one. Like in the Fable 2, for instance, you can only really express yourself as good or bad. In the DAI... there are a lot more variations of the Inquisitor because there are many more choices, and there's occasionally a whole myriad of reasons for making a particular choice-- and those motivations tend to say something about your character. Maybe your character shows they have egalitarian ideals by supporting mages and that they have a vengeful streak when they judge their prisoners. Maybe they're a strong Andrastrian but they don't believe they're The Herald because they think that's dumb. There's more roles to choose from, to put it another way. I think that the biggest let-down in terms of the role-playing in game was the Inquisitor's (kinda bland) dialogue rather than the lack of options when it came to decisions.

 

Also, creating branching story-lines in a game is difficult to economize and apparently only like 10% of (American) players choose the morally bad path when presented with a binary-- http://gamemoir.com/...e-good-options/. And maybe then they might mostly do it to be unique/ for variety's sake- because it's the only alternate option. I can see, too, that if you went ax-crazy and murdered everyone from the previous game then the next game can't feature many recurring characters that are essential to the plot (or you could go the Leliana-route)... so there's also that to consider.

[Sekondar]

Oh my, my english must be really awful and I must be sounding really different to what I intended

I'm not saying anyone should stop asking for anything, I'm just saying I don't miss evil choices, and that I prefer it this way. You had what you wanted in previous games, I got what I wanted in this one (more/less)

Am i suppossed to only participate in this thread if to support the OP or something? Am I being rude for not doing so or what?

No no, I get what you're at, but I can disagree, no?

[Sekondar]

Motivations of your character are always headcanon. They aren't spelt out in the game anywhere. And isn't being a brilliant actor a part of what you asked, a manipulative character?

No, they can give me dialogue options that reflect my motivation. True, but I like there being some inclination towards my true goal.

[JackPoint]

Lets see, you wake  with a magic mark on your hand, being questioned by the gestapo who then drag you off to test it on a rift, suddenly you're the bees knees , dogs nads of thedas. Now who wants to rule the world orr help some whiney ass chantry save it.

 

I know which i'd pick

[Sekondar]

Nah, compared to Hawke and the Warden, The Inquisitor was a less interesting protagonist. He's more like a plot device and less like a fleshed out character in the narrative.

That was my experience, yes.

[Vilegrim]

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.

 

 

Except we can't chose the interesting factions.  We are stuck with chantry approved bland and character less pulp.  I mean even the choice to actually be worth the name inquisitor would be an improvement, torture, mass executions of rivals, ruling thru fear and fanaticism.

[Sekondar]

I was starting to worry It's just that if they're going to give us only three options every time our PC opens her mouth or has to make a decision, I'd rather those options be less extreme options, so that I have three options that I could really see myself using.

I totally understand that for many people having the options to be evil it's important, but not for me, particularly because sometimes the evil choices are not just pragmatic, but almost sadistic (imo, of course). I'd rather have three different tones of grey, than white/grey/black

But why are we restricted to three in the first place?

[Sekondar]

On that I agree completely, the more options to roleplay your PC, always the better. I'd sacrifice a lot of things in the game just to get more choices and to make them more relevant.

Filler quests, maybe?

[JackPoint]

But why are we restricted to three in the first place?

You think there are 3 choices in DAI, try 1

[Sekondar]

You have to convince yourself that your character is a clever villain instead of a mindless violent thug, yes.

How does everyone get the idea, that I want to be Darth Vader?

[In Exile]

Except we can't chose the interesting factions. We are stuck with chantry approved bland and character less pulp. I mean even the choice to actually be worth the name inquisitor would be an improvement, torture, mass executions of rivals, ruling thru fear and fanaticism.

Yes, I wonder why Bioware wouldn't want a game focused on fulfilling your desire for a game centred on religious persecution.

[In Exile]

How does everyone get the idea, that I want to be Darth Vader?

Because subtle villany doesn't involve flashing a big sign that says "Check it, I'm evil."

[Sekondar]

Okay, I'm going to kind of defend the lack of potential to be evil in this game. To be fair, I've personally never understood the appeal. Honestly? I think that the main reason why it's expected in rpgs is because many games had/ have a binary system (Fable, Fallout, KOTOR etc) for recognizing ethical choices. I prefer the approval system of Dragon Age-- I think it's more complex and realistic.

I mean, sure, it would be better to have the option to play as a complete psychopath than not because undoubtedly some people would appreciate it... but the lack of that option doesn't mean you're not role-playing. I think that role-playing is, largely, defined by choice but that the lack of the choice to behave monstrously doesn't mean that the game entirely lacks choice... just that particular one. Like in the Fable 2, for instance, you can only really express yourself as good or bad. In the DAI... there are a lot more variations of the Inquisitor because there are many more choices, and there's occasionally a whole myriad of reasons for making a particular choice-- and those motivations tend to say something about your character. Maybe your character shows they have egalitarian ideals by supporting mages and that they have a vengeful streak when they judge their prisoners. Maybe they're a strong Andrastrian but they don't believe they're The Herald because they think that's dumb. There's more roles to choose from, to put it another way. I think that the biggest let-down in terms of the role-playing in game was the Inquisitor's (kinda bland) dialogue rather than the lack of options when it came to decisions.

Also, creating branching story-lines in a game is difficult to economize and apparently only like 10% of (American) players choose the morally bad path when presented with a binary-- http://gamemoir.com/...e-good-options/. And maybe then they might mostly do it to be unique/ for variety's sake- because it's the only alternate option. I can see, too, that if you went ax-crazy and murdered everyone from the previous game then the next game can't feature many recurring characters that are essential to the plot (or you could go the Leliana-route)... so there's also that to consider.

To be fair, all I want is dialogue options that allow me to express evil/selfish motivations. I don't need there to be new "evil" choices, as I am satisfied with the amount of "grey" options.

[Sekondar]

You think there are 3 choices in DAI, try 1

With varying degrees of diplomacy, of course.

[Sekondar]

Because subtle villany doesn't involve flashing a big sign that says "Check it, I'm evil."

Please tell me, where you hot the idea, that I wanted that?

[tmp7704]

Please tell me, where you hot the idea, that I wanted that?

Asking for the dialogue options to drop hints that your character is actually evil pretty much defeats the concept they're being manipulative and subtle in their bid for power.

[Hurbster]

Lets see, you wake  with a magic mark on your hand, being questioned by the gestapo who then drag you off to test it on a rift, suddenly you're the bees knees , dogs nads of thedas. Now who wants to rule the world orr help some whiney ass chantry save it.

 

I know which i'd pick

Save it, obviously. What's the point of ruling like an evil overlord if the world's fecked anyway ?

 

Unless you are roleplaying an evil overlord who is a bit dim, that is 

[EmBlue]

To be fair, all I want is dialogue options that allow me to express evil/selfish motivations. I don't need there to be new "evil" choices, as I am satisfied with the amount of "grey" options.

 

It would be nice for your companions to ask you about your motivation when you made a decision and for you to be able to give different answers.