439 réponses à ce sujet

[abisha]

Not entirely true. The player knows the choice is light/dark. The character RP is another issue entirely.
Yoda always said "forever will it lead your destiny" The consequences of making 1 DS choice.

DAO allowed more freedom what kind of protagonist the player wanted to be.

But that's neither here nor there. DAI is done. It is what it is. Personally - I'd be happy with less codex to tell the world state, and less comical death animations. DAI mature rating is wasted on animated sex and swearing.

 

you mean Swearing and very light erotic, seen in as the world turns even more action.

[Il Divo]

Not entirely true. The player knows the choice is light/dark. The character RP is another issue entirely.
Yoda always said "forever will it lead your destiny" The consequences of making 1 DS choice.
 

 

Not sure I'm following you here? 

[Il Divo]

But it's laughable to you. That's just a point of view from you. I don't share it and neither many folks apparently. Cutting the throat of a child for example because he was dangerous and I had no time to see the circles was morally wrong but justifiable, and I'm certain that with the new bioware we won't get any choice close to that in the future.

 

 

Ah, the "new" Bioware. I've heard that one a few times. Every game we seem to get a new Bioware.

 

But I do recall being able to shoot Mordin in the back in ME3 my first playthrough and that wasn't so long ago. I still get eyebrow raises when I tell other ME3 players about that. 

 

I also don't dispute the existence of morally grey scenarios, hence why I referenced ends justify the means style characters. Those are great, if done well. I'm speaking, in particular, of your desire to play a Psychopath, which is itself laughable in the context of most Bioware main quest lines, as they frequently involve playing openly sadistic characters, murdering people in open towns, etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sylvianus]

Ah, the "new" Bioware. I've heard that one a few times. Every game we seem to get a new Bioware.

 

But I do recall being able to shoot Mordin in the back in ME3 my first playthrough and that wasn't so long ago. I still get eyebrow raises when I tell other ME3 players about that. 

 

I also don't dispute the existence of morally grey scenarios, hence why I referenced ends justify the means style characters. Those are great, if done well. I'm speaking, in particular, of your desire to play a Psychopath, which is itself laughable in the context of most Bioware main quest lines, as they frequently involve playing openly sadistic characters, murdering people in open towns, etc. 

 

The new bioware for me is the Bioware caring first about political correctness nowadays ( I'm pretty sure that it is going to be their path for the next games ), while it wasn't the case with their first and even their second game. I was only talking about DA team, since we are on the DA board. I'll wait indifferently for Mass effect. No more things which could be seen as controversial, no more things or stories that could make people umconfortable ( like the death of our mother in DAII ), taking a safe road with not showing bloody things in their cutscenes, removings choices like cutting the throat of a child, or removing brothels, desire demons for reasons out of story. 

 

I don't really care playing a psychopat,  I am more thinking about doing evil things which would still make sense with the story with some motivations, and not necessarily because the end justifies the means. 

 

I'd like to be able to play a man who only cares about his power and his desires for example, as a flaw, to the expense of others if necessary, which has nothing to do with the main questline and my mission against Cory. As the inquisitor, i'd be able to abuse people thanks to my statut if I want to. 

 

I could have a noble man who could be mean with his servants for no other reasons than being certain that they are worthless and as a noble man he could do whatever the hell he wants with them while still caring about restoring order. I could do a genocide against elves simply because I'm a racist. I could choose to sell elven folks to Tevinter as slaves for money or just because I despise elves. That's evil there too. And despite doing this, I'd still want to restore order or save my country. 

 

I could have an inquisitor who is sadistic and likes to torture his prisoners but still caring about saving the world. There are many ways to do evil things without this ' the end justifies the means " logic. And it seems Bioware ( DA ) doesn't want anymore to have such things in their games. Again because of safety. 

 

I did that only once in one playthrough in DAO, but  just having the possibility to do such things in DAO made me think how awesome this game was. 

[In Exile]

The new bioware for me is the Bioware caring first about political correctness nowadays ( I'm pretty sure that it is going to be their path for the next games ), while it wasn't the case with their first and even their second game. I was only talking about DA team, since we are on the DA board. I'll wait indifferently for Mass effect. No more things which could be seen as controversial, no more things or stories that could make people umconfortable ( like the death of our mother in DAII ), taking a safe road with not showing bloody things in their cutscenes, removings choices like cutting the throat of a child, or removing brothels, desire demons for reasons out of story.

I don't really care playing a psychopat, I am more thinking about doing evil things which would still make sense with the story with some motivations, and not necessarily because the end justifies the means.

I'd like to be able to play a man who only cares about his power and his desires for example, as a flaw, to the expense of others if necessary, which has nothing to do with the main questline and my mission against Cory. As the inquisitor, i'd be able to abuse people thanks to my statut if I want to.

I could have a noble man who could be mean with his servants for no other reasons than being certain that they are worthless and as a noble man he could do whatever the hell he wants with them while still caring about restoring order. I could do a genocide against elves simply because I'm a racist. I could choose to sell elven folks to Tevinter as slaves for money or just because I despise elves. That's evil there too. And despite doing this, I'd still want to restore order or save my country.

I could have an inquisitor who is sadistic and likes to torture his prisoners but still caring about saving the world. There are many ways to do evil things without this ' the end justifies the means " logic. And it seems Bioware ( DA ) doesn't want anymore to have such things in their games. Again because of safety.

I did that only once in one playthrough in DAO, but just having the possibility to do such things in DAO made me think how awesome this game was.

Bioware was always relatively progressive. At the time it was more cultural differences with the US but really that's still true right now.

[Aimi]

So is it just me or is this thread's OP basically claiming that Inquisition doesn't have enough white American football players in it?

[Seraphim24]

I think since the switch to voiced protagonists, Bioware's writers increasingly tend to overdramatize everything in order to get an emotional reaction from people. This has lessened a bit in DAI, but it's still noticeable here and there, as in how the stakes of the plot are inexplicably increased with no grounding at all in plausible motivations of anyone. Also, the bad stuff is always aberration, never part of the world, and is always dramatized. That's why Geralt, in spite of being unable to get out of "good guy mode" as well, appears refreshing: he walks through a world he accepts as being imperfect. The same with relationships: Geralt can have affairs. In Bioware's games there are no affairs, only emotionally high-stakes relationships. I wish I could have an affair in DAI. No high drama. There's enough of that in the plot.

Bioware's writing has improved significantly in DAI, but yeah, I wish I could roleplay my Inquisitor to have Geralt's attitude here and there.

 

Well I think it gets a reaction, but not like a cathartic one more an agitated one. It's almost like, hey! Your life is chaotic! So is everyone in this world! Lets revel in total chaos! No one ends up very re-assured. It seems to me they made they were straining for Shakespeare in order to at least amp the spectacle to nuclear proportions to cover up the fact that everyone's always on with no notable contrasts of any kind.
 

I think what's grim and dark is when crazy stuff is happening and people are basically calm about it.

 

Also I don't think that applies only to more recent Bioware games or was from a voiced protagonist, I'm pretty sure BG and NWN were both significantly less stressed... Baldur's Gate etc seems like another universe entirely at this point. I think in order to be cool and confident you have to be bold and they have been sliding into generic comic territory recently.

[Ieldra]

Bioware was always relatively progressive. At the time it was more cultural differences with the US but really that's still true right now.

Progressive? Maybe in social issues, but in everything else they're fairly traditionalist. Everything is a cautionary tale about not stepping over certain boundaries, and as opposed to quite a few other things, you never get dialogue options that challenge that particular message. In DAI, you end up strengthening Andrastianism whether you want or not, and I'm pretty sure THAT - as opposed to quite a few other things, such as the interesting, radical but non-evil things the Inquisitor could do with their power, or the possibility to gain usage of the eluvian network - will eagerly be built into the next game.

I wonder what this is. Has our cultural climate grown fearful of what we might discover around the next corner?

[Nohvarr]

To be fair, after reading through a Song of Ice and Fire again, Watching Battle star Galactica, Watching Four Seasons of GoT on HBO, Playing through Dark Souls, and the Darkest Dungeon...I'm up for a positive upbeat story about an agent of a Faith living up to the responsibility placed upon them. Frankly after all the Grimdark in the entertainment industry and the real world I needed a good positive fix. Haven't been in this good a mood since playing Persona 4 Golden.

[In Exile]

Progressive? Maybe in social issues, but in everything else they're fairly traditionalist. Everything is a cautionary tale about not stepping over certain boundaries, and as opposed to quite a few other things, you never get dialogue options that challenge that particular message. In DAI, you end up strengthening Andrastianism whether you want or not, and I'm pretty sure THAT - as opposed to quite a few other things, such as the interesting, radical but non-evil things the Inquisitor could do with their power, or the possibility to gain usage of the eluvian network - will eagerly be built into the next game.

That's what being progressive in Canada means. We're very liberal on social issues, and have a tendency to preserve our social institutions in altered form.

Each of the thee Divine choices radically alters the Chantey. Vivienne is just the Tevinter Divine. Cassandra reorganised the entire chantry, surrendering large swathes of its power. Leliana so radically alters it that it becomes unrecognisable.

Destroying the institution entirely and replacing with nothing isn't just progressive - it's absolutely revolutionary. It is why even in your post you use the word "radical" to describe the options. While one might argue that radical options are also progressive options, the reverse is not true.

[Ieldra]

That's what being progressive in Canada means. We're very liberal on social issues, and have a tendency to preserve our social institutions in altered form.

Each of the thee Divine choices radically alters the Chantey. Vivienne is just the Tevinter Divine. Cassandra reorganised the entire chantry, surrendering large swathes of its power. Leliana so radically alters it that it becomes unrecognisable.

Destroying the institution entirely and replacing with nothing isn't just progressive - it's absolutely revolutionary. It is why even in your post you use the word "radical" to describe the options. While one might argue that radical options are also progressive options, the reverse is not true.

Perhaps you didn't understand me. The Institution of the Chantry is secondary. Belief in the Maker is secondary. I want to see events that challenge the ideological core of Andrastianism's position about magic. It's not about destroying institutions - I'm ok with the options we have there. I want to act in a way that undermines the dominance of certain memes, as part of the world and as part of the story. It wouldn't even need large-scale effects. It would just need to exemplify that crossing boundaries - for instance walking the Fade as the Inquisitor does - can have drastic *positive* effects, and please remove the sanction of faith because that nullified the effect. I want to light a bonfire against the fear of the unknown that has the cultures of Thedas in its thrall.

There'a also this: In DA2, Flemeth said change is coming to the world. I haven't seen anything fundamental yet.

[In Exile]

Perhaps you didn't understand me. The Institution of the Chantry is secondary. Belief in the Maker is secondary. I want to see events that challenge the ideological core of Andrastianism's position about magic. It's not about destroying institutions - I'm ok with the options we have there. I want to act in a way that undermines the dominance of certain memes, as part of the world and as part of the story. It wouldn't even need large-scale effects. It would just need to exemplify that crossing boundaries - for instance walking the Fade as the Inquisitor does - can have drastic *positive* effects, and please remove the sanction of faith because that nullified the effect. I want to light a bonfire against the fear of the unknown that has the cultures of Thedas in its thrall.

There'a also this: In DA2, Flemeth said change is coming to the world. I haven't seen anything fundamental yet.

That's a very particular ideology. I'm not saying it's wrong - but it's not a view that really exists in a particular corner of the world as something easily accessible for Bioware to incorporate beyond the personal philosophy.

I think Bioware would say they did a lot in DA to undercut the governing faith. They did it for the Dalish. They certainly repeatedly throw out notions that undermine the Chantry - we see them create a fiction about a savior *they know* is false in the Inquisitor. It's not even up for much of a debate when it comes to you, beside the tortured logic some party members and advisors use to preserve their faith.

It sounds to me like you want *others* convinced of a particular philosophy, and I think Bioware will resist change of that nature because of how unrealistic and unlikely it is IRL. Just think about how people cling to clearly disproven - often scientifically disproven - beliefs IRL.

[ThreeF]

There'a also this: In DA2, Flemeth said change is coming to the world. I haven't seen anything fundamental yet.

 

DAI  is an intermediate (at least I hope it is)

[Ieldra]

That's a very particular ideology. I'm not saying it's wrong - but it's not a view that really exists in a particular corner of the world as something easily accessible for Bioware to incorporate beyond the personal philosophy.

I think Bioware would say they did a lot in DA to undercut the governing faith. They did it for the Dalish. They certainly repeatedly throw out notions that undermine the Chantry - we see them create a fiction about a savior *they know* is false in the Inquisitor. It's not even up for much of a debate when it comes to you, beside the tortured logic some party members and advisors use to preserve their faith.

They did a lot to undermine the institution, and yes, in general I'm fine with how they dealt with the faith theme in this story on a personal level. However, regardless of what happens with the Chantry, most likely we'll end up strenghthening the faith nonetheless, simply by the fact that our Inquisitors saved the world. So as a result, any doubt that has been cast by the events of the story is nullified, and even turned around into an advantage for the dominant faith. It's all very plausible, but it makes it appear as if the story itself promotes the dominant faith and its ideology. It's that effect I'd like to see countered.
 

It sounds to me like you want *others* convinced of a particular philosophy, and I think Bioware will resist change of that nature because of how unrealistic and unlikely it is IRL. Just think about how people cling to clearly disproven - often scientifically disproven - beliefs IRL.

Not really. Events on the personal level are fine, as long their memetic power as part of the story - not necessarily in-world - is allowed to remain instead of being nullified by large-scale events (I count "millions of people come to believe you're sent by the Maker" as a large-scale event).

[Seraphim24]

That's a very particular ideology. I'm not saying it's wrong - but it's not a view that really exists in a particular corner of the world as something easily accessible for Bioware to incorporate beyond the personal philosophy.

I think Bioware would say they did a lot in DA to undercut the governing faith. They did it for the Dalish. They certainly repeatedly throw out notions that undermine the Chantry - we see them create a fiction about a savior *they know* is false in the Inquisitor. It's not even up for much of a debate when it comes to you, beside the tortured logic some party members and advisors use to preserve their faith.

It sounds to me like you want *others* convinced of a particular philosophy, and I think Bioware will resist change of that nature because of how unrealistic and unlikely it is IRL. Just think about how people cling to clearly disproven - often scientifically disproven - beliefs IRL.

 

Really? Anti mainline Christian sentiment is hard to find or hard to put in a game entirely at the discretion of the creators?

 

Personally an extremely easy way to accomplish this would simply have made the Inquisition one half, and made an option to join a counter-inquisition somewhere, actually adhering to player choice. Player choice went from "you can do anything!" to "you can be on either side!" to "You can choose how to respond/deal to people on the same side!" to "You can decide whether to respond our main plot by being polite, joking/sarcastic, or irritable!"

 

It's exactly like Ieldra said, the themes in DA:I are arch-conservative in concept and execution for the most part.

[Ieldra]

@Kefka:
That's not exactly what I said. I actually do think that it should be impossible to undermine a religion on a large scale, in-world, without extremely exceptional circumstances.

What I would like to see changed is the impression that the story itself, as experienced by a player, supports core memes of the faith dominant within the fictional world, basically telling the players "you should believe this as far as it applies to your world". That can be done, for instance, by attaching counter-memes to a non-evil faction or individual and have them succeed. The Inquisitor could do this, for instance, by doing quite a bit more with their mark than close rifts. The story could do this by letting the Inquisitor gain use of the eluvian network. The ultimate event would be a visit to the Black City, most notably without triggering a disaster.

The questionable meme is that crossing certain boundaries which are non-moral in nature is only done by the evil, or always results in evil or at least large-scale disaster. That such memes exist and have a great deal of power in the fictional world is unproblematic, but the story should not feel like a propaganda piece promoting them. Well, unless its writers really want to promote them, which is the impression I'm increasingly getting.

[Iakus]

 
What I would like to see changed is the impression that the story itself, as experienced by a player, supports core memes of the faith dominant within the fictional world, basically telling the players "you should believe this as far as it applies to your world". That can be done, for instance, by attaching counter-memes to a non-evil faction or individual and have them succeed. The Inquisitor could do this, for instance, by doing quite a bit more with their mark than close rifts. The story could do this by letting the Inquisitor gain use of the eluvian network. The ultimate event would be a visit to the Black City, most notably without triggering a disaster.
 

I agree with the first two examples (I actually think the eluvians could have and perhaps should have played a larger role in the story.)

 

But i do NOT think a visit to the Black City should be happening at all in the near future.  And perhaps ever.  part of the mystique of the religions of Thedas is the Question of what happened to the Golden City to Blacken it.  It's a fundamental basis on the Chantry and Andrastrean religions in general.  As well as the history of Tevinter and their Old Gods.  Now there is evidence to link it to the Elvhan Creators and perhaps the ancient dwarves as well.

 

If that were ever solved, or even if we got a good look at it, well...where does one go from there?  What's left in Thedas that can top that?

[Il Divo]

Honestly, regardless of a trip to the Black City, I don't think Bioware's going to be able to keep that a secret forever. As it stands, we're getting drawn further and further into the question of how the Elven Gods + Flemeth + Archdemons + Solas are related. Once that's solved, a visit to the Black City isn't too big an issue, in my opinion. 

[Ieldra]

@iakus:
That's why I said this would be the ultimate event. I've mentioned it exactly because it would destroy the memetic power of Andrastianism's tale of the Golden City. It's what I'd like to see at the very end of the greater story arc they're creating with their games. Most likely it won't happen, and that's ok, too - as long as the story doesn't feel like a propaganda piece.

[Aimi]

Honestly, regardless of a trip to the Black City, I don't think Bioware's going to be able to keep that a secret forever. As it stands, we're getting drawn further and further into the question of how the Elven Gods + Flemeth + Archdemons + Solas are related. Once that's solved, a visit to the Black City isn't too big an issue, in my opinion.

Gaider's already said that they're not going to provide a definitive answer on the Maker's reality.

Not that that prevents a trip to the Black City or anything, but...well.

[Il Divo]

Gaider's already said that they're not going to provide a definitive answer on the Maker's reality.

Not that that prevents a trip to the Black City or anything, but...well.

 

Was that in relation to the Black City or just regarding the Maker himself? 

 

At first, I didn't think there was any chance of us visiting the Black City, but I remember him saying something about Tevinter acknowledging the Maker's Existence even before they attempted to invade "the Heavens". Kinda like how the Old Gods aren't necessarily creations of the Maker, but could be something else entirely. 

 

If it's the former, then I think Bioware's writing themselves into a bind, given that Solas, Corypheus, the Old Gods, and the Black City all seem to be tied together. 

[Aimi]

Was that in relation to the Black City or just regarding the Maker himself? 
 
At first, I didn't think there was any chance of us visiting the Black City, but I remember him saying something about Tevinter acknowledging the Maker's Existence even before they attempted to invade "the Heavens". Kinda like how the Old Gods aren't necessarily creations of the Maker, but could be something else entirely. 
 
If it's the former, then I think Bioware's writing themselves into a bind, given that Solas, Corypheus, the Old Gods, and the Black City all seem to be tied together.

Just regarding the Maker himself.

I think it's very possible that we might eventually visit the Black City somehow, but I doubt that that will provide proof one way or the other about the Maker's reality. How could it? A deistic deity that is said to basically exist outside reality is unprovable one way or the other.

[Il Divo]

Just regarding the Maker himself.

I think it's very possible that we might eventually visit the Black City somehow, but I doubt that that will provide proof one way or the other about the Maker's reality. How could it? A deistic deity that is said to basically exist outside time is unprovable one way or the other.

 

That's how I was looking at it. I don't think Bioware needs to confirm the Maker at all (I'd actually prefer it if they don't).

 

But I think it's going to be extremely difficult to keep the Black City off limits forever, given where Inquisition's story takes us. 

[KaiserShep]

Only thing about going to the black city is the fact that everyone else who went there apparently got down with the sickness. It'd be a shame to go there and not have it be really wierd. Maybe not Vincent Price riding a giant polka dot horse with Bjork's face wierd but at least The Cell sans JLo.

[Iakus]

@iakus:
That's why I said this would be the ultimate event. I've mentioned it exactly because it would destroy the memetic power of Andrastianism's tale of the Golden City. It's what I'd like to see at the very end of the greater story arc they're creating with their games. Most likely it won't happen, and that's ok, too - as long as the story doesn't feel like a propaganda piece.

Okay, that I can agree with.