Yeah, that's what It implies.So in other words, they view "Fantasy Fulfillment" as "Be as politically correct and as inoffensive as possible". Wonderful...
It's a moral decision if I decide whether euthanisia is good or bad - the liberty to do the darndest evil things, which I assume you are referring to, has nothing to do with morals, because they are/have been typically as fickle as myself when I have two dudes over watching me play GTA Online.
Most of the "moral choices" in "the good old days" of RPGs were the more silly the more extreme they were. To be honest with you, basically every single of the more noteworthy "bad guy" things in the ever flawless DAO had nothing to do with neither morals nor pragmatism. They felt like they were there to check a standard of a list to qualify for the oldschool RPG club - the fact that they effortlessly did that with other things already nonwithstanding. They got lucky I didn't start a petition complaining that at no point was it made availible to my character to randomly pet a giraffe.
BioWare went for a very rigid plot leash, and kept it that way for years now. It is my opinion that this level of freedom has no place in it, nor must it. I have Bethesda games for that - or I could just revisit ye old Fallout 2 and hit some minors in "the groin" with a Powerfist.
I agree with the whole post, but this, this so much. It bothered me quite a lot when I played.
It's mind-boggling that the character ever got the okay to be in the game. Mind, another thing Bioware has been doing right IMO is moving away from "violence is hilarious, let me tell you awesome stories about my mass murder sprees" characters in general.
Fantastic game but Bioware failed utterly to provide an RP experience for people wanting to RP darker or villanous characters. [...]The Inquisitor is a one-dimensional character with a linear story and personality arc.
Why should you be able to do that in the first place? That's not the point of this story. And yes, the Inquisitor is not the best character, but adding evil choices would have made the game much worse, not better. Evil without consequences is one-dimensional and the opposite of "dark" or "gritty" or "mature" or whatever other words people want to link to cheerfully commiting vile acts. Evil without consequences when surrounded by people who want to do good, in a story about saving the world, is even worse.
Restrictions in terms of what is acceptable for a character's place in a story are a good thing, you'd weaken the story and characters alike without them. To really play evil, you'd essentially need a whole separate game.
My issue with that much freedom in the game is, it's just as pointless to have evil choices without consequences. Yes, your warden could be an utter dick and create just as much havoc as the villains. But at the end of the day to regain companion disapprovals, he could pass out shinies. If he broke them by doing something that was their breaking point (despoiling the ashes) they would either fight him or leave him. An immediate consequence, if it even happens rather than something far reaching. At the end of the day, Redcliffe recovers from what happened during the Blight and looks exactly the same as Redcliffe helped.
He could have talked Zerlinda into leaving her child to be eaten by darkspawn, abandoned Redcliffe to undead, defiled a woman's last resting place, used the murderknife for lulz. murdered a child or bartered his soul to a demon for a quickie. At the end of the day, there were absolutely zero consequences and almost no reaction in game at all from his companions. And none (except for the moment) from NPCs. By the end of the game, he still ended the darkspawn threat and was hailed as a 'beloved' hero. Now that's a Mary Sue. At least if he attacked Leliana in the temple of Sacred Ashes, Inquisition Leliana was 'less than gushing' over his behavior.
In DA2, Hawke could be a vampire of a blood mage, murderknife with impunity, run around killing people right and left and at the end of the day, this truly dangerous apostate was ignored by the templars who were supposed to rein in/kill that kind of menace. It didn't matter, at the end, the Circles still rose up regardless of how much of a douchenozzle or how heroic Hawke was.
Far worse than being pidgeonholed in the role of hero is this seeming of 'choice' that reflects absolutely squat of real consequence in the game. At least Bioware is starting to get it right in Trespasser with Iron Bull's reaction to his personal quest actually having real consequences, and far reaching ones depending on which way he goes on the game world.
Personally the game didn't make me care enough about those choices to care which one I choose and it ends up functionally the same no matter what. If the choices in DA:I were like the choices in TW3 it would be a different story but sometimes it's also fun to be super campy and evil rather than neutral or polite.
I don't know what you mean. The Witcher never allowed you to be evil, because that's against Geralt's character. At best, you get a lesser of two evils type of choice, which Inquisition also has (for instance the Well of Sorrows choice, Hawke vs Warden, also the one at the end of Trespasser).
For the record, I think you're totally right about actions, good or evil, needing appropriate consequences, but I think you're missing a rather crucial point. The reason those evil decisions you make in Origins don't have far reaching consequences isn't because back when they made that game there attitude was "who cares what evil **** they do, it's just for lolz." It's in all likelihood because they realised that when you go down this route of franchises with so much game to game continuity and letting players carry over every major decision imaginable, the variable world states that would account for real consequences of all those actions would be hugely challenging to create. You'd practically be designing 2 different games.My issue with that much freedom in the game is, it's just as pointless to have evil choices without consequences. Yes, your warden could be an utter dick and create just as much havoc as the villains. But at the end of the day to regain companion disapprovals, he could pass out shinies. If he broke them by doing something that was their breaking point (despoiling the ashes) they would either fight him or leave him. An immediate consequence, if it even happens rather than something far reaching. At the end of the day, Redcliffe recovers from what happened during the Blight and looks exactly the same as Redcliffe helped.
He could have talked Zerlinda into leaving her child to be eaten by darkspawn, abandoned Redcliffe to undead, defiled a woman's last resting place, used the murderknife for lulz. murdered a child or bartered his soul to a demon for a quickie. At the end of the day, there were absolutely zero consequences and almost no reaction in game at all from his companions. And none (except for the moment) from NPCs. By the end of the game, he still ended the darkspawn threat and was hailed as a 'beloved' hero. Now that's a Mary Sue. At least if he attacked Leliana in the temple of Sacred Ashes, Inquisition Leliana was 'less than gushing' over his behavior.
In DA2, Hawke could be a vampire of a blood mage, murderknife with impunity, run around killing people right and left and at the end of the day, this truly dangerous apostate was ignored by the templars who were supposed to rein in/kill that kind of menace. It didn't matter, at the end, the Circles still rose up regardless of how much of a douchenozzle or how heroic Hawke was.
Far worse than being pidgeonholed in the role of hero is this seeming of 'choice' that reflects absolutely squat of real consequence in the game. At least Bioware is starting to get it right in Trespasser with Iron Bull's reaction to his personal quest actually having real consequences, and far reaching ones depending on which way he goes on the game world.
There's more to moral choices than just good versus evil. Personally I'd like to see more choices that reflect different personality types or ethics, but they need not always revolve around good/evil. There are a lot of other dimensions to morality....idealism versus pragmatism, utilitarianism versus duty, etc. DAI did bring a lot of these other kinds of moral probelms to the fore, though unfortunately they mostly revolved around companion quests, while the main plot to stop Corypheus was pretty straight forward.
I think the other issue is just one of scale.... When the premise of the game is to the save the world, you either suceeed or fail, and being the villian just makes little sense in this context. It really doesn't work in a series where the outcome isn't self contained, and there are sequels to account for. A world state where the IQ replaces Cory as evil God king of Thedas really can't go anywhere story wise.
A story premise with smaller stakes, like DA2, could work. It was plausible Hawke could have been a violent thug who really only cared about conquering Kirkwall, etc. It was a smaller and more self contained story, so the outcome of that worldstate was always limited enough. Hawke wasn't saving or destroying the world by being a noble hero or villian.
There's more to moral choices than just good versus evil. Personally I'd like to see more choices that reflect different personality types or ethics, but they need not always revolve around good/evil. There are a lot of other dimensions to morality....idealism versus pragmatism, utilitarianism versus duty, etc. DAI did bring a lot of these other kinds of moral probelms to the fore, though unfortunately they mostly revolved around companion quests, while the main plot to stop Corypheus was pretty straight forward.
I think the other issue is just one of scale.... When the premise of the game is to the save the world, you either suceeed or fail, and being the villian just makes little sense in this context. It really doesn't work in a series where the outcome isn't self contained, and there are sequels to account for. A world state where the IQ replaces Cory as evil God king of Thedas really can't go anywhere story wise.
A story premise with smaller stakes, like DA2, could work. It was plausible Hawke could have been a violent thug who really only cared about conquering Kirkwall, etc. It was a smaller and more self contained story, so the outcome of that worldstate was always limited enough. Hawke wasn't saving or destroying the world by being a noble hero or villian.
This is similar to my thoughts. Good vs. evil is too simplistic and unrealistic. It's the methods and reasoning behind reaching the same conclusion which can be interesting. I've posted in another thread, that it would have been great to have different options of playing as the Herald. We have the flavor responses of "I believe" "I don't believe I'm chosen" and "I'm not sure what I believe" but other than companion approvals and some special dialogue options, I'm not sure there's much of an impact. I wish we could have played as a zealot who truly embraces the role of Herald and ends up overreaching their original purpose.
It would actually be fairly easy to rewrite Inquisition with the Inquisitor being a powerhungry villain. All it would take is throwing in some scenarios where you're forcing people into your service by force, making threats, etc
You all work for me now. 
Oh wait, we already got that one.
@vbibbi - I feel the same way. The first time I played the Templar quest, I reached the part where you decide their fate and make a speech. I chose the dialogue option to say my pc believed she was chosen by Andraste. There was an echo while she said that line and it felt epic. I remember at the time thinking "holy shiznit" is Bioware really going to let me do this, play an ultra religious maybe even fanatical character. Unfortunately, the moment didn't extend to the rest of the game but for that one moment it was exciting in a fun way. There may be games out there that let you play that kind of role but I've never played one that does, so I was looking forward to the experience. Oh well, that one moment was great anyway. LOL
It would actually be fairly easy to rewrite Inquisition with the Inquisitor being a powerhungry villain. All it would take is throwing in some scenarios where you're forcing people into your service by force, making threats, etc (rather than running around trying to appease everyone). Give your the player the option to voice their intention to take Cory's orb and once he's gone, use your power and newly established influence to basically run Thedas as you see fit. But then Solas comes along, jacks the orb (like he does anyway), 2 years later as your power fades due to spies, your mark killing you, etc....you're called in front of the remaining figures of power/influence (like you are anyway) to demand the end of the the Inquisition/your reign (which they do anyway), you go confront Solas to try and kill him and he removes your arm (like it can happen anyway), effectively ending the Inquisitor's potential dominion of Thedas.
It's really not that complicated
It would actually be fairly easy to rewrite Inquisition with the Inquisitor being a powerhungry villain. All it would take is throwing in some scenarios where you're forcing people into your service by force, making threats, etc (rather than running around trying to appease everyone). Give your the player the option to voice their intention to take Cory's orb and once he's gone, use your power and newly established influence to basically run Thedas as you see fit. But then Solas comes along, jacks the orb (like he does anyway), 2 years later as your power fades due to spies, your mark killing you, etc....you're called in front of the remaining figures of power/influence (like you are anyway) to demand the end of the the Inquisition/your reign (which they do anyway), you go confront Solas to try and kill him and he removes your arm (like it can happen anyway), effectively ending the Inquisitor's potential dominion of Thedas.
It's really not that complicated
You do actually do this in Inquisition. Blackmailing Tanner to join you and using Nobility Knowledge to make that lord in Sera's companion quest join you after you take his lands, money and title.
Oh, and there's conscripting the mages, templars and blackmailing all three of Orlais's leaders into working for you in Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts.
Ah, I see that I am not the only one.
“Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic”, the original, contained two interconnected features. When dealing with morality choices, based upon dialogue options, you were able to shift between good and evil. If you made good moral choices, your alignment swung to the light side. If you made evil moral choice, your alignment swung to the dark side. You earned points that went towards light or dark. As you worked through your options, your choices also ‘influenced’ how your companions reacted. Your character’s alignment determined how the game ended.
A.K.A. – BioWare’s hallmark ‘influence system’.
“Dragon Age: Origins” was built upon the ‘consequential system’. As a result of making certain choices, your actions determined the game’s outcome. Even though the ‘consequential system’ acted similar to the ‘influential system’, the way they were implemented was slightly different. Within the last twenty minutes of “Knights of the Old Republic”, the choices you made previously could be wiped out. Players can change their alignment in seconds. Throughout the entire game of “Dragon Age: Origins”, all of your choices, romances to side-quests, determined how the game ended.
Each play-through can have different results.
“Dragon Age: Inquisition” still has an ‘influence system’; however, the game does not have a ‘morality based influential system’. Instead of having your choices determine an alignment, good or evil, they determine your romance and relationship options.
“SW: the Old Republic” has a very similar issue. Even though you can make light-side and dark-side choices, the game currently does not allow you to switch sides. Other words, you cannot start the game off as a Jedi and end up as a Sith Lord. “SW: Knights of the Old Republic” allowed players to start off neutral, and people were able to swing towards light and dark side.
I personally think BioWare focused too much on relationships. Instead of focusing on the core story, BioWare used it to fill gaps in-between romance progression. BioWare should have kept the romances in the background, so they would not affect the other game mechanics.
I think BioWare truly doesn’t understand why “Dragon Age: Origins” and “Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic” are successful.
The way the story is written though, the IQ starts off already being thought of as a villian. Also you already have great power (the mark) given to you for nothing. It comes easily, literally falling into your hands suddenly by accident. And then you spend the rest of the game trying to prove to your companions, that you are not the enemy/villain they expected at first, and that you are worthy of the power and title you possess. So that scenario doesn't fit, in the sense that it isn't really a "rise to power" story as such. It's a premise more about earning respect than power, or at least that is how it came across to me.
Unfortunately (IMO) this failed to be realized to its potential. Yes, the PC starts in chains, but minutes into the game suddenly becomes a messiah figure, at least to the Inquisition troops if not the Chantry and political rivals. We have the scene in Val Royeux with the clerics, but then most people seem to accept our status as Herald fairly quickly. The game makes us prove our competence and effectiveness in stopping Corypheus, but it doesn't make us prove our intentions, at least not until Trespasser.
I've mentioned this a lot before, but religious zealotry and conflicting interpretations of religious dogma and events should have played a larger role in the story. I think this was the perfect time in Thedas' timeline to introduce a Reformation. Divine Leliana seems to be doing this already in practice, if not in name. But I think there should have been some factions who never accepted the PC as Herald, and would be the ones reminding us that the Maker is not supposed to have any interaction with the world. Other factions would see the Herald as holy in a similar way as Andraste: if not a god, then at least divinely touched. And if the PC is going to be non-human, this would have even greater implications (like restoring the Canticle of Shartan, etc.)
Sounds like you should go play GTA 5 to release your repressed urges
Don't worry, I do it too sometimes
Unfortunately (IMO) this failed to be realized to its potential. Yes, the PC starts in chains, but minutes into the game suddenly becomes a messiah figure, at least to the Inquisition troops if not the Chantry and political rivals. We have the scene in Val Royeux with the clerics, but then most people seem to accept our status as Herald fairly quickly. The game makes us prove our competence and effectiveness in stopping Corypheus, but it doesn't make us prove our intentions, at least not until Trespasser.
I've mentioned this a lot before, but religious zealotry and conflicting interpretations of religious dogma and events should have played a larger role in the story. I think this was the perfect time in Thedas' timeline to introduce a Reformation. Divine Leliana seems to be doing this already in practice, if not in name. But I think there should have been some factions who never accepted the PC as Herald, and would be the ones reminding us that the Maker is not supposed to have any interaction with the world. Other factions would see the Herald as holy in a similar way as Andraste: if not a god, then at least divinely touched. And if the PC is going to be non-human, this would have even greater implications (like restoring the Canticle of Shartan, etc.)
Yeah, Bioware had already done the "rise to power" through DA2. This game was more about issues of faith, and I would have liked more exploration of faith. I really like Cassandra and her crisis of faith, and to a lesser degree Leliana's temporary breakdown over Justinia's death.
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?
I liked your post but you like Mass Effect so your very existence is invalid =(
You all work for me now.
You can do that with the mages, templers, the orlesians, and the wardens. Even call your self a demi god.
Yeah, Bioware had already done the "rise to power" through DA2. This game was more about issues of faith, and I would have liked more exploration of faith. I really like Cassandra and her crisis of faith, and to a lesser degree Leliana's temporary breakdown over Justinia's death.
The game was not real about faith. More so why people attach themselves to religion. The game's story was more about truth and how one reacts and do with it.
It would actually be fairly easy to rewrite Inquisition with the Inquisitor being a powerhungry villain. All it would take is throwing in some scenarios where you're forcing people into your service by force, making threats, etc (rather than running around trying to appease everyone). Give your the player the option to voice their intention to take Cory's orb and once he's gone, use your power and newly established influence to basically run Thedas as you see fit. But then Solas comes along, jacks the orb (like he does anyway), 2 years later as your power fades due to spies, your mark killing you, etc....you're called in front of the remaining figures of power/influence (like you are anyway) to demand the end of the the Inquisition/your reign (which they do anyway), you go confront Solas to try and kill him and he removes your arm (like it can happen anyway), effectively ending the Inquisitor's potential dominion of Thedas.
It's really not that complicated
See, this is what I'm talking about. You get to be a dick, but no consequences for it, which makes it seem pointless and 'just for the lulz'. No matter what you do, at the end, it's status quo and just as many people would be on the BSN bitching "whatever happened to choices mattering?" forgetting that, they never really mattered in the first place. The 'choices' you refer to are just window dressing to the RP. In the end, the game ends the same, and NPC's don't react to what you're doing differently, you just get to roleplay a jerk instead of a hero. For me, that's worse than pidgeonholing you to one role.
Here's the problem with your statement....The villain was never Cory. he was just a pawn doomed to Falure from the start.
The villain was by your side from the start.
The devils greatest trick was getting the world to believe he was not real.
And thanks to Trespasser, we now know that, should he have succeeded, he would've used the Orb to tear the Veil completely, destroy Thedas and reshape reality according to his will. Never mind killing the Inquisitor and his friends in the process.
Cory's plot seems quite harmless compared to the Dread Wolf's one. No wonder some people believe he has psychotic tendencies. What else explains his capability of lying straight to our face all the time while concocting a genocidal plan?
"I hear you're making a killing. Me too!"
Deep moral choices
Retour en haut
