135 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

Remember DA:O? Remember Connor? You could kill him to save Redcliffe. You could commit Isolde to a blood ritual to save him and Redcliffe. You could sell his soul to a Desire Demon. And of course you could save everyone. Remember Zathrian's Clan? You could feed them to werewolves as penance for their Keeper's crime. You could also ignore the werewolves and butcher them like the victims they were on behalf of Zathrian. Remember the Anvil of the Void? You could kill Caradin to preserve it damning countless more souls for the protection of Orzammar. Remember the City Elf Origin? It's basically fantasy Kill Bill Volume 1.  I can keep going, but you get the picture by now.
 
You know what people didn't like about Dragon Age 2? It wasn't that it was "too dark". It's that all the dark **** was happening to Hawke. Hawke was a douchebag at most. But definitely not "dark". 
 
Please bring it back. I don't want another Disney Sing-A-Long for the next Dragon Age game. Thank you.

To me, there is a difference between the game being darker and the game having more options to roleplay as an evil character. I can't tell which one you are asking for

[ComedicSociopathy]

 

Couldn't help it. 

[Sweawm]

So basically, the reality is that the OP has mistaken a 'dark fantasy' story for being able to roleplay a character of questionable morality. So really, this has nothing to do with "darkness" or dark fantasy at all.

 

And with that, I totally agree. While I could never actually bring myself to do an aggressive playthrough of DA2 (basically, eight playthroughs of bouncing back between diplomatic and sarcastic), even Hawke had a distinctive set of personalities, even if at the end of the day, there was really just three. I will contend you on the point that DA2 isn't dark, because it is. Hawke isn't just the receiver, he has the option to sell his ally into slavery at one point. So really, like many things in DA2, the evil is simply limited. 

 

The Inquisitor meanwhile, basically has a single personality: a lawful neutral who never really shows moral qualities anytime whatsoever, only just does "what's right".  So really, while Inquisition boiled the PC down to total blank slate for the hardcore roleplayers, they never gave the Inquisitor any direction. DA:I just cheerily bounded through the story with a "save the world" fantasy that while had dark moments, never really evolved into a proper dark fantasy story or anywhere near the tone that DA:O set for the series. 

 

The Inquisitor could be setting a barrel of kittens alight and still have a totally neutral tone and suddenly spout that he only burns kittens for the greater good. 

[Ashagar]

DA:O wasn't dark fantasy in the first place. it was a heroic fantasy with some dark overtones that were at times but very firmly heroic fantasy without the stupid evil options which DA:I lacks and wouldn't fit the tone of the game anyway.

 

It likely doesn't help that some people wouldn't understand subtle and implied horror if it bludgeoned them over the head, set them on fire and threw them into the grand canyon or feel simply if it doesn't happen to them personally its somehow not dark.

[TheJediSaint]

Maybe lower the gamma?

[TEWR]

https://www.youtube....zNWN5cDWsk#t=79

 

Is this enough darkness for you?

 

....really wish the BSN wasn't so wishy-washy on when it puts a video in the post....

[Eliastion]

(...)

It likely doesn't help that some people wouldn't understand subtle and implied horror if it bludgeoned them over the head, set them on fire and threw them into the grand canyon or feel simply if it doesn't happen to them personally its somehow not dark.

Some subtle or implied horror it is  

But you definitely are right, if something is not shown in primarily visual medium like a video game, nor can be in any way affected or acted upon in primarily interactive medium like a video game, then it is not really in the video game. It's mentioned, it's referenced, but it is not really present, making the climate much more sterile than it could - or should - be if at least some of the "subtle and implied horror" were present as things you can actually interact with, do something about or be able/forced to commit. Even at the price of it being less subtle and not-really-implied. Basically, a girl raped by templars you can read about is some background information. A girl you stumble upon that a templar is about to rape is something that shows how evil and rotten the war-torn world has become. And you know what? You can kill/scare off the templar, the girl can live and never get raped - and the story still has much more impact than an actual atrocity you get to read about in some codex entry. Not because a rape that didn't happen is more horrifying than one that happened, obviously - but because one story is something you read about and the other - a story you're actually involved in. The world isn't more or less evil for that, but for the atmosphere it does matter. A lot.

[DomeWing333]

You're hilarious. No, really. I'm not even being sarcastic. Thank you for your irrelevant contribution.

 

You're very welcome. And having filled my Lego Movie references quota for the day, I suppose I'll actually say something relevant about the topic now.

 

The reason why we saw fewer "dark" events in the game is because this time around, we're the leader of the organization rather than the grunt. When shady things need to get done, we're not the ones who have to dirty our hands. We have agents, spies, a whole network of people to handle all the lies, betrayals, murders, and tortures for us. We don't have to carry it out. Most of the time, we don't even have to hear about it. At one point we overhear Leliana plotting to kidnap the cherished nephew of a grand cleric for political gain. Did that sound like it was a new thing for her? No. That's her bread and butter. You need something and it's provided for you, no questions asked. So while it's true that this time around you're not directly commanding that people be thrown to the wolves, the game makes it clear that there are still people being thrown to the wolves for your benefit.

[TEWR]

You forgot my personal favorite: messing with Cammen's head and sleeping with the girl he loves.

 

hehe, I do that too. Though I still hook them up.

 

Gheyna's pregnant with a half-Dwarf though, and Cammen's none the wiser. Yay for Gheyna!

[Warden Commander Aeducan]

hehe, I do that too. Though I still hook them up.
 
Gheyna's pregnant with a half-Dwarf though, and Cammen's none the wiser. Yay for Gheyna!

"Mother, why I'm shorter and why my bones is larger than other children. I'm old enough so please tell me why I'm different."

"A Dwarf did it."

At least Gheyna can brag about sleeping with the Hero of Ferelden now.

[Precursor Meta]

Drown in darkness!

[Thane4Ever]

If they ever go back to giving you the option to really do morally questionable or downright evil things, then the entire premise would have to change entirely. In this game you're the leader of the Inquisition formed by the Divine with morally just/heroic people like Cassandra and Cullen advising you, and you're supposed to inspire people, lead armies and save the world. Doesn't leave much room to do petty crap like you could do in DA:O or DA2 which you were a leader of a ragtag group of misfits. I will admit that it would have been cool if you could break bad to such an extent that the Inquisition disbands and your advisors leave in disgust, mission failed.

 

I concur with the assertion that there were a lot of dark and disturbing elements of the game, but we felt far removed from them finding out through war table quests or scattered notes.

[phaonica]

I don't usually play as a purposefully evil character, so having more obviously evil choices, or a more black-and-white choice mechanic would not personally be more fun for me. I find the game to be "darker" when the morality of the options is more open to interpretation.

[TevinterSupremacist]

 

The reason why we saw fewer "dark" events in the game is because this time around, we're the leader of the organization rather than the grunt. When shady things need to get done, we're not the ones who have to dirty our hands.

 

Indeed, it all makes perfect sense that we don't get to carry out the bloody work, because we're the leader and not the grunt. Never mind all the gathering quests we are sent to do, that is a true leader's place, but morally questionable actions, no sir, that's for the grunts.

[KainD]

It could be the other way around tbh, if you played as female. You can instead messing with Cammen's head and sleep with him, but regardless their relationship is ruined because of you. 

 

No, that's not how it works. It was consensual, so their relationship is ruined because of them. 

[KainD]

Probably because those decisions weren't evil. They just prioritized different things. They weren't meaningless puppy kicking.

 

Meaningless actions don't exist, nobody does anything without a reason. 

[KainD]

To people that say that it doesn't make sense to be ''evil'' according to the plot at hand - that's actually a fair point. But it kinda sucks that the plot in the first place was not made to make sense for diverse moralities or the lack of there of. 

[Master Warder Z_]

I shot Mordin in the back o.o

[Master Warder Z_]

if it bludgeoned them over the head, set them on fire and threw them into the grand canyon

Caesar doesn't accept failure, not even at the highest levels.

[Abelas Forever!]

I'm not sure does Dragon Age needs to have more darkness but I would want it to be more darker and I definitely wouldn't want it to be any lighter. I guess one reason why DAI feels like it's lacking darkness is that so many situations which leads to tragedy happens so far away from you or that they are somehow very distant events. For example if you play as a dalish elf then it's possible that your whole clan can be destroyed. But because the player has never met them and it's a war table mission it doesn't feel as bad as it is. In DAO the whole Redcliffe village could be destroyed if you don't help the villagers to defend themselves and that was quite horrible because you saw what the consequences of your actions were. I think it was made very well because you could play the situation in a way that you want to help everybody or that you really don't have time to help everybody which means that you will leave so it wasn't an evil decision although the consequences of your leaving were awful. So I think that Dragon Age might feel much darker when the horrible events would be more visible.

 

It's also true that you don't have many choices how you can handle different situations. At Adamand you will have to decide who will leave behind. There is no third option. In DAO you could sacrifice yourself in the final battle or Alistair/Loghain could sacrifice himself or you could do the DR and nobody would die in the final battle. If you were a male warden then you could do the DR yourself or persuade Alistair/Loghain to do it. If you are female warden who is romancing Alistair then you don't have any good choices in that situation but at least you can have a happy ending with Alistair. It's far better than if one of you will die and you can't do anything about it.

[Ryzaki]

Meaningless actions don't exist, nobody does anything without a reason. 

 

Meaningless other than for the express reason of hurting someone and/or garnering pleasure from it I meant.

[Pierce Miller]

I'd always be more pleased with evil options.

[o Ventus]

I must disagree. Darkness is all about presentation

 

Darkness is darkness is darkness, whether its upfront or hidden behind something.

 

 

 

the fact that bad things happen in the world but are almost always in the background makes it significantly less dark than a story in the very same world that would actually show you the bad things rather than make a decoration out of them.

 

No it doesn't. And they certainly aren't 'almost always' in the background. Many of them are, but many of them at the same time are not.

 

 

 

 

If you have a dragon that threatens a city into giving him a virgin to eat every month, but then a knight arrives and kills the beast to marry the princess, that can be pretty dark or not dark at all, depending on how you present the story and to what extent you gloss over those dead girls before the hero arrived.

 

If we go by this shallow premise with no other context, sure. But then if you make up a scenario to fit your own argument, of course it's going to be a stronger representation, because you made it up specifically to further your case.

 

 

 

High/dark fantasy has, of course, a lot to do with the setting, but presentation remains the main element, usually.

 

Tell that to literally any novel series, ever.

 

 

 

Look at Lord of the Ring - it sits firmly on the high fantasy side of the fence, but you literally have orcs shooting severed heads into Minas Thirith to destroy their morale. And you also have relatively limited assortment of great spells and fantastic creatures - there are some, but much less in many dark fantasy stories/settings. Look how much fantastic/magical elements is there in Warhammer universe, but it still remains far on dark fantasy end of the spectrum.

 

What does the presence of fantastical elements have to do with whether or not a type of fantasy is 'dark' or 'high', when merely the presence of fantastical elements has no impact on the darkness or lightness of a story?

[KainD]

Meaningless other than for the express reason of hurting someone and/or garnering pleasure from it I meant.

 

And how is that position any less valid?