91 réponses à ce sujet

[VWS Blaze]

So don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed Inquisition, and I really enjoy pretty much every Bioware game, but I can't help but notice that their games have seriously regressed in terms of the moral choices provided in their games.

I mean sure it's fun being the hero that saves the world.....but must we always be that?

Whatever happened to the days of Jade Empire and even Dragon Age Origins (to a slightly lesser degree) where yes, there was clearly big bad you had to go stop, and you do, but along the way you can potentially become a worse problem for the people in those worlds. I mean seriously, we used to be able to do some seriously messed up ****. Now it seems the best we can hope for is some gray area choices, but hero status must be maintained at all times.

It really takes away from the replayability of the games, and it makes me sad. I love the idea of franchise continuity as much as the next guy, carrying all your decisions forward to new games and such, but you're so caught up in it that you're streamlining character and story branches too much. I'd happily settle for more one and done games if we could get back to the options we used to get in your games.

Anyone else feel this way?

[Serza]

I'm not sure if I smell a booze opportunity, or if you're serious...

 

But on the chance you're serious... I see a point in there, somewhere.

 

Sacrificing the Alienage for a few points in Constitution... Murdering an entire Dalish clan, based on one man's sins... Yeah. There's something there.

[vertigomez]

I miss NWN, where I could steal a baby, kill his mother, turn him into a drider and sic him on my enemies.

Good times.

[VWS Blaze]

I'm serious. Not sure what gives you the impression that I wouldn't be.

I mean Jade Empire especially was brilliant in terms of the options it gave you. I mean you could literally end the game enslaving your entire party and ruling the empire as just as bad a tyrant (if not worse) as the game's villain. You could kill a man's fiancé and force him to marry another woman for money......then kill them both after for lolz anyway. I could go on.

Dragon Age Origins you could corrupt the holy ashes of a savior figure for....again....essentially lolz. I mean you get a new specialisation the first time, but other than that it's essentially just you being evil. Depending on who you take you murder 2 party members.


Now with Inquisition the extent of being evil is you talking tough when you first get to Skyhold.....and then never doing ****

[leaguer of one]

So, you just want to super villain evil again.

[vertigomez]

I'm serious, too.

That was actually something you could do in NWN.

[leaguer of one]

I'm serious, too.

That was actually something you could do in NWN.

Ya, and you can make a woman spend the rest of her day look for the droid she obsesses over in the wild of a planet when in truth you personally destroyed it.

[VWS Blaze]

I'm serious, too.
That was actually something you could do in NWN.

My reply was aimed at Serza ;-)


@leaguer of one, yes I would like that option. Tbh I probably always played the good and evil sides pretty equally in old Bioware games, but the point is just having the option of that contrast adds a lot to the games for me. It leads to some really cool unique scenarios in different playtrhough, whereas now if I replay Inquisition for example, no matter what I do/say, the experience remains pretty much the same. My character can say A/B/C, but it will always lead to X.

Also, EVERY game has you playing a hero. Why WOULDN'T I wanna play a supervillain for a change? lol

[Serza]

I'm serious. Not sure what gives you the impression that I wouldn't be.

I mean Jade Empire especially was brilliant in terms of the options it gave you. I mean you could literally end the game enslaving your entire party and ruling the empire as just as bad a tyrant (if not worse) as the game's villain. You could kill a man's fiancé and force him to marry another woman for money......then kill them both after for lolz anyway. I could go on.

Dragon Age Origins you could corrupt the holy ashes of a savior figure for....again....essentially lolz. I mean you get a new specialisation the first time, but other than that it's essentially just you being evil. Depending on who you take you murder 2 party members.


Now with Inquisition the extent of being evil is you talking tough when you first get to Skyhold.....and then never doing ****

 

Good. A person that is serious. Far too many trolls and haters for the sake of hate these days. I apologize for my doubt, and once again, there is point in what you say.

 

 

Also, you can kill Connor, then Isolde, and let Redcliffe suffer, as I recall? That's... borderline psychopath. And definitely huge jerk material.

 

Yeah, there are some "evil" choices in DAI, but none so exceptionally evil as things in DAO. That I agree with.

[VWS Blaze]

Good. A person that is serious. Far too many trolls and haters for the sake of hate these days. I apologize for my doubt, and once again, there is point in what you say.
 
 
Also, you can kill Connor, then Isolde, and let Redcliffe suffer, as I recall? That's... borderline psychopath. And definitely huge jerk material.
 
Yeah, there are some "evil" choices in DAI, but none so exceptionally evil as things in DAO. That I agree with.

Ya the whole Redcliffe section of Origins definitely included some truly evil decisions. You could go into the Fade and trade away a child's soul for some ability points.....or worse, a short cutscene of you making out with a desire Demon lol

I mean that's baaad

[vertigomez]

My reply was aimed at Serza ;-)

Oops, my bad. Apparently I can't be arsed to read tonight.

[Lumix19]

I'm serious. Not sure what gives you the impression that I wouldn't be.

I mean Jade Empire especially was brilliant in terms of the options it gave you. I mean you could literally end the game enslaving your entire party and ruling the empire as just as bad a tyrant (if not worse) as the game's villain. You could kill a man's fiancé and force him to marry another woman for money......then kill them both after for lolz anyway. I could go on.

Dragon Age Origins you could corrupt the holy ashes of a savior figure for....again....essentially lolz. I mean you get a new specialisation the first time, but other than that it's essentially just you being evil. Depending on who you take you murder 2 party members.


Now with Inquisition the extent of being evil is you talking tough when you first get to Skyhold.....and then never doing ****

You forgot about siding with the Mother and getting her special "treatment". Damn the open palm path, the options are so boring.

[Korva]

Good riddance to things like that, I say.

 

The stories of these games are written as heroes' journeys. Being evil breaks them because hardly anyone is ever allowed to react to such actions except possibly for one or two "crisis moments". If neither companions nor allies, most of whom aren't written as willing to support or even just tolerate evil, are allowed any agency when faced with a "leader" who is turning into the kind of villain they wish to stop, if the story progresses the same either way except for the very endgame, if there are no consequences, something is messed up. Bioware has a history of doing a really crappy job at allowing protagonists to actually be characters and influence the world around them, and have it react to them in turn -- extreme choices with zero follow-up only exacerbate the problem. I have a lot of criticism for Inquisition, but ditching the evil-for-the-sake-of-evil choices is one of the best things Bioware has done in a good long while.

 

I'd much rather have more restrictions in terms of expected and accepted behavior, but more depth and nuance within these restrictions. To make an evil or ruthless protagonist work, the story would have to be written with that in mind, IMO.

[Boost32]

You forgot about siding with the Mother and getting her special "treatment". Damn the open palm path, the options are so boring.

What  was the treatment? I remember I killed the  the Forest Shadow and the Mother in my Closed Fist playthrough and I dont know what this treatment is.

[VWS Blaze]

You forgot about siding with the Mother and getting her special "treatment". Damn the open palm path, the options are so boring.

Oh trust me, I did not forget

Jade Empire is probably my favorite Bioware game. So many crazy choices in that game. The first time I got to the Water Dragon part I was actually speechless for a minute lol

[Aimi]

This isn't a thread about 'real moral choices', this is another 'why can't I do spectacularly evil things while avoiding any probable negative consequences for them?' thread.

[Lumix19]

Oh trust me, I did not forget

Jade Empire is probably my favorite Bioware game. So many crazy choices in that game. The first time I got to the Water Dragon part I was actually speechless for a minute lol

As was I, I was doing a full open palm run but I was so tempted to spill some blood.

What was the treatment? I remember I killed the the Forest Shadow and the Mother in my Closed Fist playthrough and I dont know what this treatment is.

You basically become something of a cannibal, in gameplay terms you get a new technique.

[VWS Blaze]

This isn't a thread about 'real moral choices', this is another 'why can't I do spectacularly evil things while avoiding any probable negative consequences for them?' thread.

In the case of say Jade Empire, there were no real consequences because aside from seeing the horrible effects your actions had on those around you, the story was well contained either way in that while end result was very different, good or evil, you still ultimately triumph in a very ultimate way. And it never got a sequel.

In other games, like Origins, the reason you don't see real consequences is because they have built it all around being a franchise of very consistent continuity, and it's much easier for them to only write to account for one extreme, because otherwise they could potentially end up with some many different world states (or at a minimum 2 so starkly contrasting ones) that one game would essentially have to turn into 2 to cover the player's choice.

It's understandable to a degree, but also disappointing, as it leads to them coming up with excuses to make every decision in a game ultimately lead to the most similar result possible the next time out. It's pretty frustrating to me.

[Lumix19]

In the case of say Jade Empire, there were no real consequences because aside from seeing the horrible effects your actions had on those around you, the story was well contained either way in that while end result was very different, good or evil, you still ultimately triumph in a very ultimate way. And it never got a sequel.

In other games, like Origins, the reason you don't see real consequences is because they have built it all around being a franchise of very consistent continuity, and it's much easier for them to only write to account for one extreme, because otherwise they could potentially end up with some many different world states (or at a minimum 2 so starkly contrasting ones) that one game would essentially have to turn into 2 to cover the player's choice.

It's understandable to a degree, but also disappointing, as it leads to them coming up with excuses to make every decision in a game ultimately lead to the most similar result possible the next time out. It's pretty frustrating to me.

Yeah that last choice basically meant that either your past crimes would be forgiven or nobody could really stop or reprimand you anyway.

[DeathScepter]

i do see where the OP is coming from. Any good RPG should let you have several choice ranging from meaningless to meaningful, to good to neutral to evil, and Lawful to neutral to chaotic. As long as the choices are balance out with the context of the story.

[Erstus]

Good. A person that is serious. Far too many trolls and haters for the sake of hate these days. I apologize for my doubt, and once again, there is point in what you say.


Also, you can kill Connor, then Isolde, and let Redcliffe suffer, as I recall? That's... borderline psychopath. And definitely huge jerk material.

Yeah, there are some "evil" choices in DAI, but none so exceptionally evil as things in DAO. That I agree with.

Killing Connor is far from being evil and actually a very logical choice seeing as how it resolves matters.

In regards to the OP - I agree fully. I thought being the Inquisitor leading an organization called the Inquisition was the perfect setup for these branching paths...but in DAI we are more forced down a good moral playthrough, which is a shame.

I wanted to persucute mages and elves, and commit other insane acts while proping myself up using faith as a justification.. Hell, it's even mentioned that the old inquisition was brutal and zealous.

I personally loved Mass Effects Renegade path. It was not necessarily evil but it was ruthless

[Cantina]

Never played this Jade Empire.

 

I have a love/hate relationship when it comes to DAI. One of the things I dislike about the game is: giving the illusion your choices matter. Yes, it does change dialog. Yes, it does affect companions, talk, approve/disapproval and their outcomes. I'm talking in regards of the main story.  

 

There are no damn consequences - ever in the main story.  

 

I recall seeing a video of the developers showing off the prologue. They made a big song and dance about how choosing the mountain pass or the other direction was your first choice and making an impact.  

 

I get there on my play - through and what happens? I find out saving the scouts or not has no impact on the game whatsoever. It's basically a choice of "Do you want to take a shortcut to Haven or not?"

 

Then we get into the more "important" choices of the game. You have a choice, either go for the Templars or the Mages. This has always bothered me. There is a giant hole in the sky and we have to choose between? I don't recall in Origins were The Warden had to choose between helping the Elves or the Dwarves. We were able to recruit both.  I don't see why we could not do the same in DAI.  

 

Since I choose to ally with the Mages. There were no consequences other then Cullen slapping my wrist and a few companions gaining disapproval. There were no abominations running a muck. No Blood Mages. Nothing. Again your action had no effect.

 

The worst offender is the Grey Wardens. I choose to allow the Grey Wardens to stay and help. In the choice box it clearly says, "The Grey Wardens will stay but may be subjected to Cory's corruption (something to that effect). I assumed since allying with the Wardens, it might bite me the ass. I would find out that a bunch of Wardens became influenced, went crazy and ran from Skyhold. Thus I had to track them down. But what happens instead? Nothing (again). The Wardens pretty much hold hands and sing kumbaya.  

 

I for one am all about choices and the consequences that follow in games. Considering this is an Inquisition you would think from a logical standpoint that previous choices/consequences from other games would be ants compared to those in DAI. But they are not. Hell they are not even there.  

 

And that is what bugs me. Telling players they have choices and consequences with those choices when in fact they do not. I just don't see the purpose of adding a choice if that choices only applies to what the player wants to do from an RP perspective.  If movies and books played out like this, people would stop reading/watching.

 

While I enjoy DA, I just feel the longer the games go on the more hand - holding it becomes. I for one enjoyed Origins cause what you did have an effect.  What makes a good RP game is the choices you make and the consequences that follow. Not the choices you make have no purpose what's so ever. If I wanted that I'd go play Farmville.

[Daerog]

Jade Empire... combat was kinda meh, but it was still a fun game and colorful world... I do wish they make a prequel where you play as those legendary warriors Sky talked about. I still think the Big Bad in Jade Empire was the best villain BioWare has made so far.

 

*stares off into space, reminiscing on Jade Empire*

 

It's $15 on Steam... the music just makes me want another JE or for Dragon Age to add an eastern influenced continent.

[Nefla]

I miss having the option to be evil or ruthless. In DA:I the choices are A or B rather than good or evil. The closest thing you can get to being evil is just not intervening when Celine gets assassinated, but even that is portrayed as for the "greater good" (Gaspard will be a better ruler, etc...). I also miss all the little flavor choices that helped define your character's personality. Finding lost goats and collecting rocks just doesn't cut it.