91 réponses à ce sujet

[correctamundo]

You can do that with the mages, templers, the orlesians, and the wardens. Even call your self a demi god.

 

Exactly

[Dr. rotinaj]

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

 

This. DA should look to Mass Effect for it's morality stuff. Just fix a couple things

 

1) It doesn't need to be binary like Paragon/Renegade. Even though it's Idealism/Pragmatism instead of Good/Evil, it's still an archaic system. It's often arbitrary too, like how do you decide that brainwashing the heretics is Paragon and destroying them is renegade?

 

2) Make idealistic or "good" choices tougher on the character. The whole idea behind Paragon is that no matter how bad the situation is, we should never sacrifice morals and ideals. If my character chooses idealism over ruthless practicality, I expect them to have their ideals tested. Renegades should have to deal with alienation of allies, burnt bridges, and bad reputations as possible consequences for their actions. Paragons should deal with betrayal, mission failure, loose ends biting them in the ass, and situations where their ideals may not be relevant. Mass Effect gives renegades these consequences, but Paragons often didn't. A lot of the time, Paragon felt like "Yeah I'll get this job done all the same, but in my way everyone lives." With Paragon/Renegade choices there needs to be a reason to lean towards renegade.

 

Being Paragon is all about how being Paragon is its own reward. Being Renegade is all about getting rewarded. ME often forgot this and rewarded Paragons as well.

 

The Paragon/Renegade dichotomy of idealism vs pragmatism is a good one. I find that agonizing over how I killed Caridin (and maybe Shale) for the anvil of the void, is a lot more engaging than killing random people for the lulz.

[VWS Blaze]

I liked your post but you like Mass Effect so your very existence is invalid =(

  

Uhm......ok lol

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.

My point with that wasn't necessarily that's exactly how I'd like it to play out, but rather that because the end result of the game is that you and your Inquisition get crippled (literally and figuratively), it really wasn't an essential or at all relevant point of the story that the Inquisitor be inherently good or evil.

There was a huge threat to the existence of Thedas. He had to be stopped. Anyone no matter how good or evil (short of I wanna destroy everything) could get behind making stopping that threat a priority. Besides that....how you do it, what kind of person you are, what your goals for the Inquisition are afterwards.....all could have very easily been written for dual moralities, because Bioware's plan clearly was to make the Inquisitor and the Inquisition a relative non factor when all is said and done anyway. So....why limit me/him/her/it for those "15 minutes" of glory? It's pointless

[Daerog]

*snip*

2) Make idealistic or "good" choices tougher on the character. 

 

*snip*

 

By going with making "idealistic" or "good" choices tougher, one is already mentally making a dichotomy. Things are not always so simple.

 

One can find making the practical/pragmatic choices the ideal choices, because that one believes in pragmatism.

 

When choosing to support the Circle or oppose it, there was no "good/ideal" or "not good/pragmatic" choice. There was only the belief of the player and/or character.

 

When choosing to keep the Anvil or destroy it, it wasn't necessarily a question of ideals or pragmatism, it was which one does the player/character believe to be the best course of action? The golems could be seen as the ideal choice, since it could save a lot of lives, and destroying the anvil can be seen as the pragmatic choice due to not wanting the dwarves to be dependent on their own ancient devices while isolating themselves even more (or not wanting a foreign power gaining more power that could be used against Fereldan... one could be playing a paranoid Warden like Loghain...).

 

Choosing to disband the Inquisition or keep it could be for idealistic or pragmatic reasons, it is dependent on the view of the character/player.

 

I thought ME's morality system was okay, as it was kind of like playing JE and KotOR, but one could disagree with a choice being renegade or paragon which would break immersion a bit.

 

I like how it is more about relationships with people and groups in DA, not some overall morality system. You are punished by others disagreeing with you, whether or not you make a choice you think is pragmatic, idealistic, good or evil.

 

If I want to play an idealist, being a martyr or not won't change which options I choose. If I play a pragmatist, then making the "ideal/good" choice will be beneficial at times, because one can get good PR even if the super weapon is lost, or one could make the "not good/practical" choice to get the super weapon while gaining bad PR.

[vbibbi]

This. DA should look to Mass Effect for it's morality stuff. Just fix a couple things

 

1) It doesn't need to be binary like Paragon/Renegade. Even though it's Idealism/Pragmatism instead of Good/Evil, it's still an archaic system. It's often arbitrary too, like how do you decide that brainwashing the heretics is Paragon and destroying them is renegade?

 

2) Make idealistic or "good" choices tougher on the character. The whole idea behind Paragon is that no matter how bad the situation is, we should never sacrifice morals and ideals. If my character chooses idealism over ruthless practicality, I expect them to have their ideals tested. Renegades should have to deal with alienation of allies, burnt bridges, and bad reputations as possible consequences for their actions. Paragons should deal with betrayal, mission failure, loose ends biting them in the ass, and situations where their ideals may not be relevant. Mass Effect gives renegades these consequences, but Paragons often didn't. A lot of the time, Paragon felt like "Yeah I'll get this job done all the same, but in my way everyone lives." With Paragon/Renegade choices there needs to be a reason to lean towards renegade.

 

Being Paragon is all about how being Paragon is its own reward. Being Renegade is all about getting rewarded. ME often forgot this and rewarded Paragons as well.

 

The Paragon/Renegade dichotomy of idealism vs pragmatism is a good one. I find that agonizing over how I killed Caridin (and maybe Shale) for the anvil of the void, is a lot more engaging than killing random people for the lulz.

 

Yes, I think renegade choices should actually be the easier choices. Less short term consequences but maybe longer term ones like burning bridges you mention. Paragon should be the tougher path, having to go the extra mile just to reach the same conclusion renegade does. Otherwise, if paragon and renegade have the same level of effort but paragon has the better outcome, why would you choose renegade (other than to see the mustache twirling results that pop up)

 

 

By going with making "idealistic" or "good" choices tougher, one is already mentally making a dichotomy. Things are not always so simple.

 

One can find making the practical/pragmatic choices the ideal choices, because that one believes in pragmatism.

 

When choosing to support the Circle or oppose it, there was no "good/ideal" or "not good/pragmatic" choice. There was only the belief of the player and/or character.

 

When choosing to keep the Anvil or destroy it, it wasn't necessarily a question of ideals or pragmatism, it was which one does the player/character believe to be the best course of action? The golems could be seen as the ideal choice, since it could save a lot of lives, and destroying the anvil can be seen as the pragmatic choice due to not wanting the dwarves to be dependent on their own ancient devices while isolating themselves even more (or not wanting a foreign power gaining more power that could be used against Fereldan... one could be playing a paranoid Warden like Loghain...).

 

Choosing to disband the Inquisition or keep it could be for idealistic or pragmatic reasons, it is dependent on the view of the character/player.

 

I thought ME's morality system was okay, as it was kind of like playing JE and KotOR, but one could disagree with a choice being renegade or paragon which would break immersion a bit.

 

I like how it is more about relationships with people and groups in DA, not some overall morality system. You are punished by others disagreeing with you, whether or not you make a choice you think is pragmatic, idealistic, good or evil.

 

If I want to play an idealist, being a martyr or not won't change which options I choose. If I play a pragmatist, then making the "ideal/good" choice will be beneficial at times, because one can get good PR even if the super weapon is lost, or one could make the "not good/practical" choice to get the super weapon while gaining bad PR.

 

I agree, but it's much more difficult to implement this for the average gamer, I think. We want easy moral choices in our games: the good and the funny-but-over-the-top-sadistic. I do wish more choices were like anvil of the void and Orzammar king, or even have longer lasting consequences, like if siding with the mages over the templars actually allowed a cabal of blood mages loose in the battle of denerim and then you had to fight them as well, or the werewolves turn on you, etc.

[TheRevanchist]

Well I left a post on the Dragon Age subreddit about the general white washing of the IP. I expect to get blasted for it over there. But I suspect the Devs have a higher chance of seeing it there.

 

https://www.reddit.c...lfillment_does/

[Daerog]

Well I left a post on the Dragon Age subreddit about the general white washing of the IP. I expect to get blasted for it over there. But I suspect the Devs have a higher chance of seeing it there.

 

https://www.reddit.c...lfillment_does/

 

I'd expect it to get blasted here as well.

 

I don't think you are right, myself.

 

Example being the Sten thing - He told the female warden that she was either a warrior or a woman, and not both. As in, she can be a warrior, but Sten would not consider her a woman, he was never arguing against her being a warrior, just being a warrior and identifying as a woman.

 

Such is the case explained by Iron Bull. A woman who seen to be better at being a soldier in the military will be considered a man, because identity is dependent on the role the person is fulfilling, not the person. The Qunari still don't care if that woman doesn't see herself as a man, she is a man because she is fulfilling a role that is supposed to be for a man according to the Qun, and the Qun is Truth.

 

The Ben-Hassrath fall under the priesthood part of the Qun, which men and woman can be a part of. It is not the military branch, which is all men. Well, all the soldiers anyway, maybe military engineers can be women or something... whatever the Qun and the Qunari priesthood dictates.

 

The Iron Bull was starting to go rogue and fall into heresy anyway, being open to the ideas of the south and such....

[Erstus]

Well I left a post on the Dragon Age subreddit about the general white washing of the IP. I expect to get blasted for it over there. But I suspect the Devs have a higher chance of seeing it there.
 
https://www.reddit.c...lfillment_does/

Just read it - Great post, man. It adresses my current issues with the new direction this series seems to be taking.

It is a shame to see the responses not even attempt to discuss your points. They just get their knickers in a wad because you mentioned slavery and other topics that are very prevalent in this universe....or were.

[Lumix19]

Just read it - Great post, man. It adresses my current issues with the new direction this series seems to be taking.

It is a shame to see the responses not even attempt to discuss your points. They just get their knickers in a wad because you mentioned slavery and other topics that are very prevalent in this universe....or were.

What do you mean? I think the first few replies nicely address the topic. I especially agree there was too much tell and too little show but there's a reason that Inquisition has the most codex entries.

I'm just came here because I liked JE but I strongly disagree that this "new direction" is a bad one. In fact a lot of the stuff is completely consistent with what we knew already, it doesn't even really strike me as a new direction.

[fizzypop]

I miss the days where I could flog Alistair, make him suck my fake ****, and then put in his...oh that's not where we are going with it is it? ****.

[Phoe77]

The only times I ever make the most over-the-top evil choices like despoiling the Urn of Sacred Ashes are when I've decided to play an evil run just for the heck of it.  There's nothing wrong with wanting to do that every now and again, but I've never considered those kinds of options to add any depth to the character when I'm in effect only selecting them because they're the evil choice.  

 

Some of the dilemmas have more depth to them and I enjoy those a great deal, but then again I don't feel as though Inquisition has noticeably less of those than previous games.  The scenarios may not always be so overt or dramatic as executing a child with a knife, but I think that they allow your character to display a range of values and ideals if the player is interested in engaging in that way.  I imagine that some people consider that to be the same thing as coming up with "headcanon", but I don't agree.  

 

I personally get much more fulfillment from the moral choices presented in Inquisition than I do from dramatic acts of chaotic evil, but to each their own.

[TheRevanchist]

I'd expect it to get blasted here as well.

 

I don't think you are right, myself.

 

Example being the Sten thing - He told the female warden that she was either a warrior or a woman, and not both. As in, she can be a warrior, but Sten would not consider her a woman, he was never arguing against her being a warrior, just being a warrior and identifying as a woman.

 

Such is the case explained by Iron Bull. A woman who seen to be better at being a soldier in the military will be considered a man, because identity is dependent on the role the person is fulfilling, not the person. The Qunari still don't care if that woman doesn't see herself as a man, she is a man because she is fulfilling a role that is supposed to be for a man according to the Qun, and the Qun is Truth.

 

The Ben-Hassrath fall under the priesthood part of the Qun, which men and woman can be a part of. It is not the military branch, which is all men. Well, all the soldiers anyway, maybe military engineers can be women or something... whatever the Qun and the Qunari priesthood dictates.

 

The Iron Bull was starting to go rogue and fall into heresy anyway, being open to the ideas of the south and such....

 

As I said over there, I cannot possibly see the Qun even bothering to make a distinction between Sex and Gender. Why would they when that is a trait of an individual, and as we know such things do not exist inside the Qun. 

[Erstus]

What do you mean? I think the first few replies nicely address the topic. I especially agree there was too much tell and too little show but there's a reason that Inquisition has the most codex entries.
I'm just came here because I liked JE but I strongly disagree that this "new direction" is a bad one. In fact a lot of the stuff is completely consistent with what we knew already, it doesn't even really strike me as a new direction.

By new direction I mean the devs are starting to move away from the darker aspects of the DA universe. Instead of showing us these aspects we mostly read about it in codex entries, many of which were copy/paste from previous titles. This seems to be even more evident for future titles given the interview of Weekes and his wife who seem opposed to these aspects.

There are no real morally grey choices to be made when compared to the choices of Origins - Killing Connor, putting down the circle of Magi, so on. Those were choices that were neither white or black.

I'm not requesting that we are allowed to just kill-knife everybody, that was ridiculous (and funny). If you remember the first display demo of DAI when you had to make the choice to pull back and defend the keep or defend the town, then you know that is more of what I am speaking in regards too. The player made the choice to defend the keep which had a consquence of the whole town being slaughtered. After it showed an emotional cutscene of the dead and burning town. The devs also said others would now think more I'll of the Inquisition.

We have NONE of that. No real choice and consquence. I also want more "Paragon and Renegade" styled playthroughs but obviously more improved upon. I enjoy playing a "for the greater good" and "by any means necessary" while still proping myself up to a position of power.

I would explain my point better if I was not typing this from my phone. Apologies if that seems like a ramble

[Hiemoth]

As I said over there, I cannot possibly see the Qun even bothering to make a distinction between Sex and Gender. Why would they when that is a trait of an individual, and as we know such things do not exist inside the Qun. 

 

Individuals exist within the Qun, they specifically point out, individuals roles are simply defined within their roles. We constantly see and read discussions between individuals and their viewpoints within the Qunari. Which brings us the central point which your argument misses. The Qun focuses on the role one is assigned in their society and that role defines a person. Thus being male doesn't define one as a warrior, but being a warrior defines one as a male.

 

I also continue to be utterly confused why Krem is constantly dragged up in discussions as he is a minor character in the game and, most importantly, not actually a Qunari.

[Hiemoth]

As pointed out by others in the thread, the OP seems to rather be asking a possibility for being an evil dick instead of having moral choices. And I do not necessarily agree that DAI didn't have such moral choices, even though most of them felt somewhat bland, as there were several points, for example the judgements, where the Inquisitor will make choices based on their morals. I am also confused by the constant ignoring of DA2 in this discussion as Hawke could be an utterly horrible monster while smiling and making polite comments.

 

For the discussion here, I think it is important to separate two concepts: Moral choices and consequences. While consequences are great and there could be more of them in the game, the choice itself is not defined what is the consequence we experience, but rather by what is the reason the PC makes the choice and can there be several viewpoints to be used to justify that choice. The old good-evil choices were actually pretty bad, because in most of the cases there was no moral justification for that choice and thus they were simply 'Evil' choices. The example used here, defiling Andraste's ashes in the name of a murderous blood cult, that isn't any where near a moral choice, that is just doing a horrible thing for minor personal gain.

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

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.

I hears it's poorly optimized and buggy. Can refute?

 

It has its flaws: lots of invisible walls in combat, a handful of nonsense-babble lines instead of actual VO for many characters to cut costs and disc space (same as in KotOR), and a domestic violence victim as comic relief AKA Bioware's worst character f*ckup ever.

Um...who specifically? This was like a decade ago right? And as I understand male? Of course they did, it was/still is funny.
(It isn't funny but the masses still wouldn't care because a man getting beat by a women is something for the woman to be proud of, it seems. >.>''')

[Daerog]

I hears it's poorly optimized and buggy. Can refute?

 

 

I can't.

 

I played the Limited Edition for the Xbox.

 

I did purchase the PC version some months ago, planning on playing it again, but haven't gotten around to it. I probably won't care if it is buggy or poorly optimized, as long as I can do the quests and finish the game I will be neck deep in nostalgia.