3 réponses à ce sujet

[htisscrimbliv]

I'd like to take a moment to compare 2 of the strongest games( my opinion) that bioware has made, and the difference in approach to choice given to the protagonist over the course of the game. Mass effect 2, and Dragon age origins.

Mass effect 2 had a simple system of dialogue choice similar to inqusition that generally gave you three options to chose from; hero, neutral, and i dont have time for this. Origins on the other hand gave you a wide array of choices in dialogue that ranged anywhere from kind hearted, to a sadistic bastard. But which has the better system overall? Of course the 2 systems being as different as they are makes it difficult to compare as a whole, but what about the lower end of the spectrum? Im of course talking about evil vs renegade. While me2 gave you the option to basically be a badass, is that actually better than the truly evil options given in origins? It's up to the player, lemme just get that out of the way. But which( in your opinion) actually made the game stronger as a whole?

[ComedicSociopathy]

Renegade always seemed weird to me because it felt like sometimes I was a pragmatist committing borderline ruthless acts to accomplish a goal and other times a cartoonish action hero from a crap action film, constantly spitting out one-liners. Seriously, am I a calculating military commander or Arnold Schwarzenegger in Commando. 

 

Anyways, I guess I ultimately liked the Origins wider range of options more than ME 2's binary method if only because we just got more options from Origins. I'm not necessarily a fan of the "Evil" options in that game since most of the time they were acts of sadism that served no purpose or were just "Stupid Evil" options that made no sense and would actually hurt your efforts to deal with the Blight. 

 

Really, your going to kill an entire clan of Dalish so you get a tribe of barely controlled werewolves? Have fun dealing with them as they randomly infect people in your patchwork army. 

[actionhero112]

I don't really think either makes a stronger game.

 

I think making choices that are clearly label based restricts roleplaying and is not conducive towards creating a diverse immersive experience.

 

Ideally we'd be able to make choices that are arguably even from a results standpoint, but in making the choice reveals something about how you are playing the character.

 

A prime example is the decision between sacrificing Isolde or Connor in Redcliffe. Both choices are tough to justify and result in a similar outcome, (redcliffe is saved) but each choice reveals something different about your character. 

 

Of course, you can go to circle for lyrium, but they shouldn't have put that option in the game, because it's easy and fits a label.

[The Hierophant]

*finished watching Commando for old times' sake*

 

Seriously, am I calculating military commander or Arnold Schwarzenegger in Commando.