Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Feb 25, 2019 0:17:35 GMT
I will agree that while grey choices and darker realities were present in the DAI they did feel a little more distant then in previous games. Though it's trickier to put the finger on why exactly. I just wanted to mention that things didn't just seem more distant, they were actually farther away. The camera was a lot closer in DAO and DA2 than in DAI. ETA: I would also mention that Inky's real role had more to do with running an organization - the war table, sitting in judgement, that sort of thing. Although s/he does spend a fair amount of time out in the field, I saw plenty of complaints about the Inquisitor collecting elfroot and doing other such trivial things. The distance from events you describe might also be similar to the difference between, say, a foot soldier out in the field and the general sitting behind a desk issuing orders from headquarters.
|
|
Kaibe
N2
Posts: 134 Likes: 152
inherit
28
0
Apr 23, 2024 11:11:44 GMT
152
Kaibe
134
August 2016
kaibe
|
Post by Kaibe on Feb 25, 2019 4:55:04 GMT
I would prefer that the tone returns to that of DAO. I think Inquisition could be dark, but a lot of it wasn’t in your face. I feel that in order to see that darkness it either had to come from out own interpretations or was hidden in the codex.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Feb 25, 2019 5:43:02 GMT
I will agree that while grey choices and darker realities were present in the DAI they did feel a little more distant then in previous games. Though it's trickier to put the finger on why exactly. I just wanted to mention that things didn't just seem more distant, they were actually farther away. The camera was a lot closer in DAO and DA2 than in DAI. That is incorrect for DAO. You could zoom quite a bit further out, and you had a significantly better overview over the combat situation. DAI's tactical mode aimed to re-introduce something similar, but it didn't match DAO. I don't think that was much of a factor. There was plenty of opportunity for a different presentation while you were out in the field, and DAO wasn't dark all the time. It also wasn't particularly extreme. As someone else said, possibly the playable origins were a bigger factor. They brought home to you that the world itself, not just the exceptional events of the main plot, had its dark aspects, and you did not remain untouched by them while you weren't the focus of exceptional events yet.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Feb 25, 2019 7:41:21 GMT
This dichotomoy of good = stupid/wimpy and douchey = pragmatic is just sheer goddamn nonsense.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Feb 25, 2019 8:37:14 GMT
This dichotomoy of good = stupid/wimpy and douchey = pragmatic is just sheer goddamn nonsense. Yeah....if anyone was actually arguing that.
In fact, the good is usually rightly overrepresented in the protagonist's actions in stories because there's always a point in being good. However, there's *sometimes* a point in being evil, namely if it's pragmatic in the service of a worthwhile goal rather than simply malicious. And sometimes that pragmatism has such a weight in the decision that the good option comes across as stupid. A story that does not recognize that comes across as artificial. DA has usually recognized that, though in different degrees. DAO was more open about it, but it wasn't totally absent from DAI either.
Furthermore, there are people who have different meta-ethics. I am somewhat consequentialist, which means I say that some actions intuitively regarded as evil by most people actually are good if and only if they are done in the service of a good outcome.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Feb 25, 2019 9:00:45 GMT
Really? That is your argument? "There are dead bodies around"? That doesn't mean anything. And I believe what really makes DAI too light hearted is that the Inquisitor rarely can do anything questionable. I can think of maybe two exceptions, but that's it. The most pragmatic Inquisitor still is a cute puppy compared to a pragmatic HoF. I would suggest that maybe the reason why the Inquisitor's options were more limited is more due to Inky's role and status, instead of because the game was "sanitized" (as others have suggested). I always felt that the Inquisitor (and the Inquisition itself) had a lot to prove to the general public in order to gain their cooperation and support. Nobody much cared (if they even knew) if the Warden nicked a few trinkets, visited the brothel, or collected reagents for some wayward mages. The GW as a whole were not particularly well-regarded, recruited members of questionable character, and had been accused of high treason. Hawke was independent of any organization. For story reasons, it was important for Inky to gain and maintain the trust and support of Cassandra and Leliana. That wouldn't work out so well if Inky was engaging in dirty deeds done dirt cheap. Can't you outright say you're doing this for your own power when you're made Inquisitor? I haven't ever used that option, so I don't know what you actually say if you choose it, but if the paraphrase is any indication, that's one of the most stupid things to say right there in front of everyone. Considering that this option existed, I very much doubt that the Inquisitor's role was the reason for the options everywhere else being more limited.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Feb 25, 2019 9:11:07 GMT
This dichotomoy of good = stupid/wimpy and douchey = pragmatic is just sheer goddamn nonsense. Yeah....if anyone was actually arguing that.
In fact, the good is usually rightly overrepresented in the protagonist's actions in stories because there's always a point in being good. However, there's *sometimes* a point in being evil, namely if it's pragmatic in the service of a worthwhile goal rather than simply malicious. And sometimes that pragmatism has such a weight in the decision that the good option comes across as stupid. A story that does not recognize that comes across as artificial. DA has usually recognized that, though in different degrees. DAO was more open about it, but it wasn't totally absent from DAI either.
Furthermore, there are people who have different meta-ethics. I am somewhat consequentialist, which means I say that some actions intuitively regarded as evil by most people actually are good if and only if they are done in the service of a good outcome.
Well, I don't consider the decisions I make in any BioWare game to be morally wrong. I wouldn't make them if I thought they were. But that doesn't mean that I only pick the kind or merciful options. Iddy said earlier in this thread that "The most pragmatic Inquisitor still is a cute puppy compared to a pragmatic HoF". I think that sentence pretty clearly situates mercy and kindness as being un-pragmatic. And I see that sort of opinion around here a lot ,ie, the notion that succeeding in the world of Dragon Age should require ruthlessness, and the fact that the games allow you to succeed just as easily while being kind/merciful/whatever, is a sign of bad writing. I suspect that a lot of these complaints come from people who play Dragon Age BECAUSE it allows them to behave in ways that are considered widely unacceptable now, and resent that the game doesn't particularly reward them for doing so. I have no problem with SOME kind or merciful decisions having negative consequences in the long term. I always allow Grace to go free in DA2, for instance, even knowing as a player what she will go on to do, because no matter what the future may hold, letting her go is still the right thing to do in that moment. But then I also don't consider myself remotely responsible for any of her actions. She is an independent individual who makes her own choices.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,023
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Feb 25, 2019 9:49:53 GMT
In fact, the good is usually rightly overrepresented in the protagonist's actions in stories because there's always a point in being good. However, there's *sometimes* a point in being evil, namely if it's pragmatic in the service of a worthwhile goal rather than simply malicious. And sometimes that pragmatism has such a weight in the decision that the good option comes across as stupid. A story that does not recognize that comes across as artificial. DA has usually recognized that, though in different degrees. DAO was more open about it, but it wasn't totally absent from DAI either.
Furthermore, there are people who have different meta-ethics. I am somewhat consequentialist, which means I say that some actions intuitively regarded as evil by most people actually are good if and only if they are done in the service of a good outcome.
Same, I almost always roleplay my Wardens and Inquisitors as fairly utilitarian, willing to recruit pretty much anyone willing to join their cause, regardless of their moral alignment, values or previous crimes.
Why kill someone or let them spend the rest of their lives rotting in a cell, when they can still possibly serve some use to you? That doesn't mean I trust them, like them or even think they won't betray me at some point, but as long as they help me reach my goal, I will accept them as an ally for the moment. Afterwards... well, that's a different conversation.
(It kinda worries me that I may be closer to Qunari than I'd want to admit?)
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Feb 25, 2019 9:51:40 GMT
Yeah....if anyone was actually arguing that.
In fact, the good is usually rightly overrepresented in the protagonist's actions in stories because there's always a point in being good. However, there's *sometimes* a point in being evil, namely if it's pragmatic in the service of a worthwhile goal rather than simply malicious. And sometimes that pragmatism has such a weight in the decision that the good option comes across as stupid. A story that does not recognize that comes across as artificial. DA has usually recognized that, though in different degrees. DAO was more open about it, but it wasn't totally absent from DAI either.
Furthermore, there are people who have different meta-ethics. I am somewhat consequentialist, which means I say that some actions intuitively regarded as evil by most people actually are good if and only if they are done in the service of a good outcome.
Well, I don't consider the decisions I make in any BioWare game to be morally wrong. I wouldn't make them if I thought they were. But that doesn't mean that I only pick the kind or merciful options. Iddy said earlier in this thread that "The most pragmatic Inquisitor still is a cute puppy compared to a pragmatic HoF". I think that sentence pretty clearly situates mercy and kindness as being un-pragmatic. And I see that sort of opinion around here a lot ,ie, the notion that succeeding in the world of Dragon Age should require ruthlessness, and the fact that the games allow you to succeed just as easily while being kind/merciful/whatever, is a sign of bad writing. I suspect that a lot of these complaints come from people who play Dragon Age BECAUSE it allows them to behave in ways that are considered widely unacceptable now, and resent that the game doesn't particularly reward them for doing so. I have no problem with SOME kind or merciful decisions having negative consequences in the long term. I always allow Grace to go free in DA2, for instance, even knowing as a player what she will go on to do, because no matter what the future may hold, letting her go is still the right thing to do in that moment. But then I also don't consider myself remotely responsible for any of her actions. She is an independent individual who makes her own choices. I think there are two different questions here:
1. Should a game acknowledge the merit of pragmatic decisions? An example is that you get a bigger army for the endgame in DAO if you don't destroy the Anvil of the Void. My answer would be yes, that a game should absolutely acknowledge that. I agree it should not be required, but I think the player should feel that a moral choice sometimes has a very noticeable cost. Moral choices are valuable because they are often hard, and they are often hard exactly because they have a cost. The story should acknowledge that.
2. Should a game give you the option to be an evil bastard just because you want to be? Well, *ideally* it should, limited only by the ways it can be expected to be an evil bastard in that specific fictional world, because you should be free in your roleplaying, but the resources that go into a game aren't unlimited, and games can have different philosophies here. I'll get to specific answers later, RL is interfering with my posting....
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Feb 25, 2019 10:08:37 GMT
Well, I don't consider the decisions I make in any BioWare game to be morally wrong. I wouldn't make them if I thought they were. But that doesn't mean that I only pick the kind or merciful options. Iddy said earlier in this thread that "The most pragmatic Inquisitor still is a cute puppy compared to a pragmatic HoF". I think that sentence pretty clearly situates mercy and kindness as being un-pragmatic. And I see that sort of opinion around here a lot ,ie, the notion that succeeding in the world of Dragon Age should require ruthlessness, and the fact that the games allow you to succeed just as easily while being kind/merciful/whatever, is a sign of bad writing. I suspect that a lot of these complaints come from people who play Dragon Age BECAUSE it allows them to behave in ways that are considered widely unacceptable now, and resent that the game doesn't particularly reward them for doing so. I have no problem with SOME kind or merciful decisions having negative consequences in the long term. I always allow Grace to go free in DA2, for instance, even knowing as a player what she will go on to do, because no matter what the future may hold, letting her go is still the right thing to do in that moment. But then I also don't consider myself remotely responsible for any of her actions. She is an independent individual who makes her own choices. I think there are two different questions here:
1. Should a game acknowledge the merit of pragmatic decisions? An example is that you get a bigger army for the endgame in DAO if you don't destroy the Anvil of the Void. My answer would be yes, that a game should absolutely acknowledge that. I agree it should not be required, but I think the player should feel that a moral choice sometimes has a very noticeable cost. Moral choices are valuable because they are often hard, and they are often hard exactly because they have a cost. The story should acknowledge that.
2. Should a game give you the option to be an evil bastard just because you want to be? Well, *ideally* it should, limited only by the ways it can be expected to be an evil bastard in that specific fictional world, because you should be free in your roleplaying, but the resources that go into a game aren't unlimited, and games can have different philosophies here. I'll get to specific answers later, RL is interfering with my posting....
That's all fine, but what I was sort of trying to get at is that being kind or merciful or morally 'good' can ALSO be the most pragmatic course of action, and I think the argument that kindness and pragmatism are somehow diametrically opposed is intellectually dishonest. It is perfectly possible for me to have pragmatic reasons for sparing the lives I spare, just as it's possible for others to have pragmatic reasons for killing the people they kill.
|
|
inherit
3532
0
Jan 22, 2022 10:09:38 GMT
2,504
ComedicSociopathy
1,037
Feb 12, 2017 21:39:59 GMT
February 2017
delightdul
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by ComedicSociopathy on Feb 25, 2019 11:12:19 GMT
Doing any of the evil/pragmatic choices lose their value when the protag will always win no matter how much they hobble their chances at victory by doing the right thing. I don't absolutely need the golems, templars or werewolves to defeat the darkspawn, so I don't bother making the moral sacrifices necessarily to get them on my side. I'm the protag after all and I'll win no matter what, so why even bother being a dick and pretending I'm being pragmatic.
Most of the time when I choice evil actions I did so less because I thought I was being pragmatic and more because I really, really disliked an NPC and wanted them dead. This is meta-knowledge of course but I think it highlights a problem that most narrative video games when it comes to making "tough" choices, which is that "good" choices are rarely fatal or significantly hobble the PC.
|
|
Little Bengel
N3
Partying like it's 1999
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 950 Likes: 2,613
inherit
3354
0
Apr 23, 2024 23:52:49 GMT
2,613
Little Bengel
Partying like it's 1999
950
February 2017
geminifreak
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Little Bengel on Feb 25, 2019 11:54:13 GMT
Semi-related: A few days ago, I did a similar (more like the same) poll for the Dragon Age subreddit, and it also picked up some activity. While there are a couple similarities between the two in terms of votes, there are also a few differences I found interesting. At the time of writing, there have been 53 votes in total: - Just like the poll over here, the majority of users (29 votes - 55%) prefer a darker tone a la DAO or DA2;
- 12 users (23%) want DA4 to go full dark. This is the second most voted choice by the subreddit so far;
- The middle 3 choices are next, with 6, 2 and 4 votes (11%, 4%, 8%) respectively;
- The most astonishing difference between here and the subreddit lies with wanting DA4 to stick to the tone of DAI. While it may be the 2nd most voted option so far over here, no one on the subreddit voted for that one;
- Finally, the Andromeda choice has also been ignored so far. As expected.
Here's the poll results so far: www.strawpoll.me/17475529/r
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Feb 25, 2019 12:10:08 GMT
I think there are two different questions here:
1. Should a game acknowledge the merit of pragmatic decisions? An example is that you get a bigger army for the endgame in DAO if you don't destroy the Anvil of the Void. My answer would be yes, that a game should absolutely acknowledge that. I agree it should not be required, but I think the player should feel that a moral choice sometimes has a very noticeable cost. Moral choices are valuable because they are often hard, and they are often hard exactly because they have a cost. The story should acknowledge that.
2. Should a game give you the option to be an evil bastard just because you want to be? Well, *ideally* it should, limited only by the ways it can be expected to be an evil bastard in that specific fictional world, because you should be free in your roleplaying, but the resources that go into a game aren't unlimited, and games can have different philosophies here. I'll get to specific answers later, RL is interfering with my posting....
That's all fine, but what I was sort of trying to get at is that being kind or merciful or morally 'good' can ALSO be the most pragmatic course of action, and I think the argument that kindness and pragmatism are somehow diametrically opposed is intellectually dishonest. It is perfectly possible for me to have pragmatic reasons for sparing the lives I spare, just as it's possible for others to have pragmatic reasons for killing the people they kill. That I agree with. For instance, it's perfectly fine to save both the werewolves and the elves in DAO in the expectation that you'll get support from both factions. That this doesn't happen is incidental and doesn't change that you can act that way both because it's good and because it might be most useful. If this isn't talked about much, it's because it's non-controversial and decisions like this are basically no-brainers. I contend, however, that situations exist where a "pragmatic and good" option does not exist, just as there are situations where a "pragmatic and evil" option does not exist. The former are often a matter of contention in debates because some people are unwilling to accept that sometimes good decisions have costs they might not want to pay.
Also, I do not think you should be shielded from bad consequences of any stupid decision you make (good or evil alike), if you can see them coming. For instance, in Pillars of Eternity it's possible to kill an NPC who would've given you critical information. You know this person has critical information, and there is no reason to kill her other than "I'm an evil bastard", so I'm fine with the outcome of such an action, which is basically "you lose the game". I don't recall if lacking the information prevented you from moving on with the plot, resulting in a non-standard game-over, or if it just prevented you from winning the final encounter and the game waited until then to tell you that you're fucked - that would be delightfully devious - but you definitely couldn't win any more.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Feb 25, 2019 12:14:59 GMT
Doing any of the evil/pragmatic choices lose their value when the protag will always win no matter how much they hobble their chances at victory by doing the right thing. I don't absolutely need the golems, templars or werewolves to defeat the darkspawn, so I don't bother making the moral sacrifices necessarily to get them on my side. I'm the protag after all and I'll win no matter what, so why even bother being a dick and pretending I'm being pragmatic. That is meta-knowledge, however. At the point when you make the decision, you, as the Warden, absolutely do not know what it will cost you. As a player on a first playthrough, you will probably suspect that you won't need the golems, but again that's meta-knowledge, rooted in your awareness of the fact that this is a story, which IMO should not affect your roleplaying.
IMO a better example for a bad setup in that regard is the decision about the krogan in ME3. With all the in-world information you have, it came across to me as ultra-stupid to cure the genophage, no matter what your meta-knowledge and your genre-savviness tells you. Here, I would have expected, well, not a no-win scenario, but an epilogue scenario that acknowledged that stupidity.
|
|
Little Bengel
N3
Partying like it's 1999
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 950 Likes: 2,613
inherit
3354
0
Apr 23, 2024 23:52:49 GMT
2,613
Little Bengel
Partying like it's 1999
950
February 2017
geminifreak
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Little Bengel on Feb 25, 2019 12:48:54 GMT
IMO a better example for a bad setup in that regard is the decision about the krogan in ME3. With all the in-world information you have, it came across to me as ultra-stupid to cure the genophage, no matter what your meta-knowledge and your genre-savviness tells you. Here, I would have expected, well, not a no-win scenario, but an epilogue scenario that acknowledged that stupidity. IIRC, Wrex in 2 didn't think Maelon's cure was worth it, and was trying to build a new civilization in spite of the genophage. Which only makes it more jarring when ME3 leans fully on the pro-cure side. No room for debate, and everyone who argues against it is presented as a bad guy.
|
|
wright1978
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Prime Posts: 8,116
Prime Likes: 2073
Posts: 1,632 Likes: 2,469
inherit
1492
0
2,469
wright1978
1,632
Sept 8, 2016 12:06:29 GMT
September 2016
wright1978
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
8,116
2073
|
Post by wright1978 on Feb 25, 2019 13:00:32 GMT
I think there are two different questions here:
1. Should a game acknowledge the merit of pragmatic decisions? An example is that you get a bigger army for the endgame in DAO if you don't destroy the Anvil of the Void. My answer would be yes, that a game should absolutely acknowledge that. I agree it should not be required, but I think the player should feel that a moral choice sometimes has a very noticeable cost. Moral choices are valuable because they are often hard, and they are often hard exactly because they have a cost. The story should acknowledge that.
2. Should a game give you the option to be an evil bastard just because you want to be? Well, *ideally* it should, limited only by the ways it can be expected to be an evil bastard in that specific fictional world, because you should be free in your roleplaying, but the resources that go into a game aren't unlimited, and games can have different philosophies here. I'll get to specific answers later, RL is interfering with my posting....
I feel the game should acknowledge the potential benefit of both and the potential cost of both. If the player priortises the moral choice they can in one instance succeed without incurring a consequence but in another choice in the game the player may suffer a significant downside for priortising that moral choice. Equally pragmatic choices should sometimes suffer blowback. As for evil, well i'd like to side with Solas in restoring the old world. I doubt that's going to be allowed as it would break future games.
|
|
Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Feb 25, 2019 16:29:25 GMT
I just wanted to mention that things didn't just seem more distant, they were actually farther away. The camera was a lot closer in DAO and DA2 than in DAI. That is incorrect for DAO. You could zoom quite a bit further out, and you had a significantly better overview over the combat situation. DAI's tactical mode aimed to re-introduce something similar, but it didn't match DAO. I couldn't speak to the tactical camera differences, since I played DAO & DA2 on PS3 - connected to a CRT TV - and the tactical camera wasn't supported on the console version. I play DAI on PC with an HD monitor, and always felt like the camera was farther away from the characters. That may be due to the larger screen real estate, the larger maps - I dunno, but will concede the point. Well, DAO kicks off with a cinematic of Duncan describing the genesis of the darkspawn, the blight and the GW role in it. Then the origin story followed by Ostagar where you see people and animals suffering from the taint, the GW and King overwhelmed by the horde, etc. - so yeah, it starts off on a much darker note. I kind of wished DAI would have started at the Conclave, showing us some of the negotiations underway and whatnot. I guess they decided to save some of that for storytelling beats in the form of big reveals later. In any case, the Warden really was acting as a foot soldier for most of the journey, and one wanted for treason at that. The Inquisitor was set up as the Herald of Andraste and made the leader of a multi-national organization. Some players found it a bit silly that someone in that role would be out collecting elfroot and whatnot. Shrug.
|
|
Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Feb 25, 2019 16:40:35 GMT
I would suggest that maybe the reason why the Inquisitor's options were more limited is more due to Inky's role and status, instead of because the game was "sanitized" (as others have suggested). I always felt that the Inquisitor (and the Inquisition itself) had a lot to prove to the general public in order to gain their cooperation and support. Nobody much cared (if they even knew) if the Warden nicked a few trinkets, visited the brothel, or collected reagents for some wayward mages. The GW as a whole were not particularly well-regarded, recruited members of questionable character, and had been accused of high treason. Hawke was independent of any organization. For story reasons, it was important for Inky to gain and maintain the trust and support of Cassandra and Leliana. That wouldn't work out so well if Inky was engaging in dirty deeds done dirt cheap. Can't you outright say you're doing this for your own power when you're made Inquisitor? I haven't ever used that option, so I don't know what you actually say if you choose it, but if the paraphrase is any indication, that's one of the most stupid things to say right there in front of everyone. Considering that this option existed, I very much doubt that the Inquisitor's role was the reason for the options everywhere else being more limited. I'm sorry, but I don't see how accepting a role for personal power has much to do with then going out and breaking laws left and right. Regardless of your personal reason for accepting a role, you're still expected to fulfill that role.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Feb 25, 2019 16:59:25 GMT
If this was specifically about the herb collection in person by the Inquisitor, I agree, that did feel odd, but this line of arguments started about the Inquisitor feeling more detached from the horror because of their role, and there I don't agree. "In Hushed Whispers", for instance, put you right in the middle of it with a perfectly fine plot rationale. It still didn't hit home for me.
|
|
Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Feb 25, 2019 17:21:53 GMT
Also, I do not think you should be shielded from bad consequences of any stupid decision you make (good or evil alike), if you can see them coming. For instance, in Pillars of Eternity it's possible to kill an NPC who would've given you critical information. You know this person has critical information, and there is no reason to kill her other than "I'm an evil bastard", so I'm fine with the outcome of such an action, which is basically "you lose the game". I don't recall if lacking the information prevented you from moving on with the plot, resulting in a non-standard game-over, or if it just prevented you from winning the final encounter and the game waited until then to tell you that you're fucked - that would be delightfully devious - but you definitely couldn't win any more. Huh. They let you go outright stupid evil, or is there some possible reason to kill that character? I'd agree with denying a win on a stupid evil playthrough, but if the character gives you some reason to kill them, that's... a pretty steep price for one wrong decision. (Bethesda will let most any character die, but some of them are marked essential and will resurrect. I accompanied dear old dad across the wasteland in FO3, and he got killed over and over again, always popping right back up. It was hysterical.) IMO a better example for a bad setup in that regard is the decision about the krogan in ME3. With all the in-world information you have, it came across to me as ultra-stupid to cure the genophage, no matter what your meta-knowledge and your genre-savviness tells you. Here, I would have expected, well, not a no-win scenario, but an epilogue scenario that acknowledged that stupidity. IIRC, Wrex in 2 didn't think Maelon's cure was worth it, and was trying to build a new civilization in spite of the genophage. Which only makes it more jarring when ME3 leans fully on the pro-cure side. No room for debate, and everyone who argues against it is presented as a bad guy. I don't really remember the specifics, but my sense of Wrex's position in ME2 was more along the lines that he didn't think it was worth it to put the females through that, because he didn't think Maelon would be successful. By ME3, he'd learned that a cure was possible and had the leverage to demand it.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
Apr 21, 2024 16:32:22 GMT
26,664
gervaise21
10,782
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Feb 25, 2019 19:28:58 GMT
Can't you outright say you're doing this for your own power when you're made Inquisitor? I haven't ever used that option, so I don't know what you actually say if you choose it, but if the paraphrase is any indication, that's one of the most stupid things to say right there in front of everyone. Yes, that struck me as pretty stupid. Most clever power hungry individuals have the good sense not to actually admit that is what they are, instead presenting a benevolent face to the world in order to manipulate people into supporting them. This is where I feel it works better if your actions make it apparent what your true motives are. If this was specifically about the herb collection in person by the Inquisitor, I agree, that did feel odd, but this line of arguments started about the Inquisitor feeling more detached from the horror because of their role, and there I don't agree. "In Hushed Whispers", for instance, put you right in the middle of it with a perfectly fine plot rationale. It still didn't hit home for me. The problem with Hushed Whispers is that you knew it was taking place in the future so it didn't have the same impact. Also most of the people being affected by it had only briefly been acquainted with us so we had no emotional attachment to them. Whilst Leliana was the exception to this, her torture was unconvincing to me precisely because I knew that hanging by the hands should have left her incapable of doing anything but she was totally unaffected by it, able to strangle her torturer with her legs and then carry on as normal. (This isn't just a fault of DAI, film-makers generally seem not to understand just how terrible such a torture was in the medieval period and so they always show their hero as being able to just shrug it off). Now I was affected by the attack on Haven precisely because I had been given time to get to know these people. First run I was trying my hardest to rescue everyone because they were now my people. The Exalted Plains were pretty horrific if you think about it, with bodies everywhere and burnt out settlements, but we never saw any of these people alive so they did seem like part of the scenery. May be if there had been a village of survivors that we needed to save, this would have brought home the fact that all those bodies had once been real people. Back when they first introduced DAI back in 2013 and had a trial section for people to try out, there was the intent to make your actions more significant in the moment. Back then there was going to be the option to save Crestwood village or not; I believe if you opted to help the village then the Keep would have been lost. Basically your choices would have been meaningful and the "good" choice to help the villagers would have come at a cost, just as the "pragmatic" choice of choosing to save the Keep would have done (loss of reputation generally, loss of approval with certain followers and no village to trade with in the future). In the trailer we see Varric looking saddened at a load of dead bodies and apparently this was showing the outcome if you didn't save the village. It is a pity that this whole concept was dropped when the final version came out as this would seem to have had the emotional impact and genuine consequences to making certain choices that people seem to want.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Member is Online
9,168
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,822
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 25, 2019 20:04:20 GMT
Doing any of the evil/pragmatic choices lose their value when the protag will always win no matter how much they hobble their chances at victory by doing the right thing. I don't absolutely need the golems, templars or werewolves to defeat the darkspawn, so I don't bother making the moral sacrifices necessarily to get them on my side. I'm the protag after all and I'll win no matter what, so why even bother being a dick and pretending I'm being pragmatic. That is meta-knowledge, however. At the point when you make the decision, you, as the Warden, absolutely do not know what it will cost you. As a player on a first playthrough, you will probably suspect that you won't need the golems, but again that's meta-knowledge, rooted in your awareness of the fact that this is a story, which IMO should not affect your roleplaying. Some of Bio's design habits force meta-knowledge on the player. When a choice is framed as being a risky attempt to save everyone, spoiler alert: it's perfectly safe and leads to optimal results. Pragmatism in a Bio game always fails on its own terms.
|
|
inherit
529
0
7,815
Nightscrawl
3,266
August 2016
nightscrawl
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Nightscrawl on Feb 25, 2019 20:11:16 GMT
The problem with Hushed Whispers is that you knew it was taking place in the future so it didn't have the same impact. I don't get this at all. To me, the mission was impactful because it shows what happens if you fail. It is definitely a significant event for my Inquisitor's roleplay and he carries that with him as part of the weight of being Inquisitor.
|
|
Little Bengel
N3
Partying like it's 1999
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 950 Likes: 2,613
inherit
3354
0
Apr 23, 2024 23:52:49 GMT
2,613
Little Bengel
Partying like it's 1999
950
February 2017
geminifreak
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Little Bengel on Feb 25, 2019 22:25:10 GMT
The problem with Hushed Whispers is that you knew it was taking place in the future so it didn't have the same impact. I don't get this at all. To me, the mission was impactful because it shows what happens if you fail. It is definitely a significant event for my Inquisitor's roleplay and he carries that with him as part of the weight of being Inquisitor. It could certainly have more impact if we had more conversation options after the mission to show how the Inquisitor was affected. I don't feel like there were enough. That and cinematic conversations... as long as Bioware keeps with their zoom-in formula, I think a big part of the impact will keep being thrown out the window in favor of convenience.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
31,213
colfoley
16,553
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Feb 25, 2019 22:38:49 GMT
I don't get this at all. To me, the mission was impactful because it shows what happens if you fail. It is definitely a significant event for my Inquisitor's roleplay and he carries that with him as part of the weight of being Inquisitor. It could certainly have more impact if we had more conversation options after the mission to show how the Inquisitor was affected. I don't feel like there were enough. That and cinematic conversations... as long as Bioware keeps with their zoom-in formula, I think a big part of the impact will keep being thrown out the window in favor of convenience. To be fair this does seem to be a problem of the genre. I mean really how many options did we get in Origins where we could discuss Hespith's fate? I don't really remember a one. I think that is the big reason why everyone thinks BioWare games aren't dark or lack impact anymore. And while the criticism is valid I would certainly prefer more cinematic conversations and it does help with the weight of moments...I also think that its improper to be confusing that with a *lack* of 'darkness'.
|
|