shriekalpha
N1
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 15 Likes: 33
inherit
10438
0
33
shriekalpha
15
August 2018
shriekalpha
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by shriekalpha on Oct 26, 2018 21:04:25 GMT
One problem I think Bioware games tend to have is that there is no reason to be ruthless. It is hard to play an ends justify the means character, who is willing to make sacrifices for a better outcome, when you can be friendly, and take all of the idealistic choices and face no consequences for it.
A good example of this is Cullen from Inquisition, you have the choice of making him continue to take lyrium, or allow him to quit it. This seems like a very hard decision on paper, on the one hand, the lyrium is clearly having negative effects on him, but on the other, do you really want the person currently commanding your armies to be going through a serious drug withdrawal? It would seem that letting him quit could get a lot of your soldiers killed if he makes a mistake, perhaps even leading to Corypheus's victory. No, in reality, the choice is really simple, there are no consequences to letting him quit, in fact, if you let him quit he gets a good ending with no problems, but if you don't let him quit, he loses his mind and dies as some withered empty husk. That isn't a choice, that is just "do you want to be evil or not?"
For clarity, my problem isn't that there are consequences like characters dying horrible deaths because of your character's ruthless actions, that is great actually, these decisions should have sacrifices, my problem is that there is also rarely any reward for doing so either. I'm not just talking about personal rewards, I have no issue with selfish options, but I want moments where you made a hard decision in which you made great sacrifices, but ultimately saved more lives in the process, or perhaps ended some great threat.
I think Dragon Age 4 is the perfect game to start implementing more choices like this, Tevinter is a great setting for Dragon Age to return to it's darker roots that Origins established. Thoughts?
(Also this is my first time making a thread, so please tell me if I'm breaking any forum rules I do not know about, and I apologize in advance if I did break any.)
|
|
inherit
2703
0
2,011
Lazarillo
1,025
January 2017
lazarillo
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, SWTOR
|
Post by Lazarillo on Oct 26, 2018 21:26:47 GMT
Eh, the games are about heroes. IMO, it should be totally possible to be idealistic and still have everything turn out for the best. Maybe it should take more work for such, but victory isn't something that should come on the backs of sacrifices. Victory is not having to make sacrifices.
Plus, if anything, it's too easy to go to far in the other direction. Take a look at the last couple expansions in SWTOR that Bioware did for a good example. Act like a complete psychopath, kill off even your most loyal companions, etc, suffer no repercussions whatsoever. That's honestly even more awkward.
|
|
shriekalpha
N1
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 15 Likes: 33
inherit
10438
0
33
shriekalpha
15
August 2018
shriekalpha
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by shriekalpha on Oct 26, 2018 21:38:58 GMT
Eh, the games are about heroes. IMO, it should be totally possible to be idealistic and still have everything turn out for the best. Maybe it should take more work for such, but victory isn't something that should come on the backs of sacrifices. Victory is not having to make sacrifices. Plus, if anything, it's too easy to go to far in the other direction. Take a look at the last couple expansions in SWTOR that Bioware did for a good example. Act like a complete psychopath, kill off even your most loyal companions, etc, suffer no repercussions whatsoever. That's honestly even more awkward. I have played very little of SWTOR, but I definitely agree, there should be consequences for taking the ruthless actions, especially how people view you.
There is precedent for this though, in Origins, your army could be better by making some "evil" decisions, like the golems. Another example is the werewolf questline, where, from an endgame perspective, the cure is the worst option, because you lose both Zathrian and Swiftrunner, one of them will accompany you on the roof of the fort if you side with their faction, but with the werewolves cured you get neither to join you in the final battle against the Archdemon, you just get the Dalish army.
|
|
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 Oct 26, 2018 21:47:37 GMT
Welcome to the forums. I think Dragon Age 4 is the perfect game to start implementing more choices like this, Tevinter is a great setting for Dragon Age to return to it's darker roots that Origins established. Thoughts? To be fair, DAO didn't do a great job of this either. Most of the choices are in the same vein as the one with Cullen: no real consequences in the game outside of whatever the epilogue tells you. Most are there for roleplay only. The Cullen choice allows you to roleplay your character in the manner that you suggested and the "consequence" is found in the epilogue. But let us not ignore what is the most consequential choice in DAI, even if it does play the long game: saving or sacrificing the Chargers. That has a direct in-game consequence and I'd argue is one of the most dramatic examples across all three games. I would say that the best singular example is in not helping Redcliffe defend itself. If you leave and come back, people will be dead. After that, however, everything is gravy. Despite dire warnings from the NPCs, leaving to fetch the Circle mages has no consequence. Siding with the templars and killing the mages still allows you to obtain the templars' aid in the final battle; you don't "lose" anything. Regardless of whether you pick the elves, werewolves, or the perfect solution, you still have their help in the final battle. Regardless of whether you pick Behlen or Harrowmont, or keep or destroy the anvil, you still have that help. Using the blood of the elves to increase your own power has no consequence outside of some disapproval from party members. Using the blood magic in Warden's Keep to increase your own power has no consequence outside of some disapproval from party members. Making a deal with a demon has no consequence outside of some disapproval from party members. Engaging in thievery and completing the thieve's guild quests has no consequence. I'll grant that there are follower crisis moments regarding the defilement of the ashes, and of course the infamous Alistair tantrum regarding Loghain, but all the games have moments where followers can leave after a certain point; DAO is not special in this regard. If you have concrete examples that show how DAO was unique, then feel free to post them. I for one, in having just recently played it, don't feel that it is "darker" than any of the other games and think that many people see the game through sepia-filtered glasses in their remembrance of it. There is precedent for this though, in Origins, your army could be better by making some "evil" decisions, like the golems. Another example is the werewolf questline, where, from an endgame perspective, the cure is the worst option, because you lose both Zathrian and Swiftrunner, one of them will accompany you on the roof of the fort if you side with their faction, but with the werewolves cured you get neither to join you in the final battle against the Archdemon, you just get the Dalish army. I think this boils down to personal preference. I don't know that the "army" is objectively better because of those things. I happen to prefer the Dalish (or the mages) on the rooftop because they are ranged and will attack the Archdemon when it flies to the inaccessible areas, and just generally without too much running around. Outside of that, the only time I call on the army is when I use the dwarves to push into the fort; I doubt using dwarves or golems makes much of a difference there.
Part of the reason I don't think the army is significantly better is because the devs aren't into making choices truly hurt the player. You aren't going to fail because you have dwarves instead of golems.
|
|
shriekalpha
N1
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 15 Likes: 33
inherit
10438
0
33
shriekalpha
15
August 2018
shriekalpha
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by shriekalpha on Oct 26, 2018 23:30:39 GMT
Welcome to the forums. I think Dragon Age 4 is the perfect game to start implementing more choices like this, Tevinter is a great setting for Dragon Age to return to it's darker roots that Origins established. Thoughts? To be fair, DAO didn't do a great job of this either. Most of the choices are in the same vein as the one with Cullen: no real consequences in the game outside of whatever the epilogue tells you. Most are there for roleplay only. The Cullen choice allows you to roleplay your character in the manner that you suggested and the "consequence" is found in the epilogue. But let us not ignore what is the most consequential choice in DAI, even if it does play the long game: saving or sacrificing the Chargers. That has a direct in-game consequence and I'd argue is one of the most dramatic examples across all three games. I would say that the best singular example is in not helping Redcliffe defend itself. If you leave and come back, people will be dead. After that, however, everything is gravy. Despite dire warnings from the NPCs, leaving to fetch the Circle mages has no consequence. Siding with the templars and killing the mages still allows you to obtain the templars' aid in the final battle; you don't "lose" anything. Regardless of whether you pick the elves, werewolves, or the perfect solution, you still have their help in the final battle. Regardless of whether you pick Behlen or Harrowmont, or keep or destroy the anvil, you still have that help. Using the blood of the elves to increase your own power has no consequence outside of some disapproval from party members. Using the blood magic in Warden's Keep to increase your own power has no consequence outside of some disapproval from party members. Making a deal with a demon has no consequence outside of some disapproval from party members. Engaging in thievery and completing the thieve's guild quests has no consequence. I'll grant that there are follower crisis moments regarding the defilement of the ashes, and of course the infamous Alistair tantrum regarding Loghain, but all the games have moments where followers can leave after a certain point; DAO is not special in this regard. If you have concrete examples that show how DAO was unique, then feel free to post them. I for one, in having just recently played it, don't feel that it is "darker" than any of the other games and think that many people see the game through sepia-filtered glasses in their remembrance of it. There is precedent for this though, in Origins, your army could be better by making some "evil" decisions, like the golems. Another example is the werewolf questline, where, from an endgame perspective, the cure is the worst option, because you lose both Zathrian and Swiftrunner, one of them will accompany you on the roof of the fort if you side with their faction, but with the werewolves cured you get neither to join you in the final battle against the Archdemon, you just get the Dalish army. I think this boils down to personal preference. I don't know that the "army" is objectively better because of those things. I happen to prefer the Dalish (or the mages) on the rooftop because they are ranged and will attack the Archdemon when it flies to the inaccessible areas, and just generally without too much running around. Outside of that, the only time I call on the army is when I use the dwarves to push into the fort; I doubt using dwarves or golems makes much of a difference there.
Part of the reason I don't think the army is significantly better is because the devs aren't into making choices truly hurt the player. You aren't going to fail because you have dwarves instead of golems.
I'll address the army first, all I was saying was that, objectively, you get the least army when you cure the werewolves, as if you sided with the elves, you get the Dalish + Zathrian, not just Dalish, even if you don't need Zathrian, that is an objectively worse army you get.
I agree, the Chargers decision was great, I just wanted more of that. I think origins is darker because, just look at what is going on, there is this ravenous horde of monsters rampaging across Ferelden, devouring and tainting everything they touch, and yet the true villains are actually the people around you, some are so stuck in the past they can't see the present dangers (Loghain), some are self consumed and only care about themselves (Howe), centuries old grudges still hurting people who don't even remember them (Zathrian and Werewolves), ruthless, kinslaying dictators willing to rip their own people apart to seize power (Bhelen), the list goes on and on. The point is, despite the Darkspawn being "evil," the actual villains have reasons for what they are doing, they aren't just cartoon caricatures like the villains of Inquisition are.
In Dragon Age 2, everyone was just losing their minds, and the ending seemed rushed and incomplete, so I won't use that for a measurement of the tone of the series.
If origins were like Inquisition, everyone you end up fighting would be secretly working for the Darkspawn, which seems goofy, and takes away from the evil people do, as everything can be traced back to Corypheus (or Solas I guess). Then, once Corypheus is defeated, Trespasser happens, and Solas tells you his plan is the exact same thing Corypheus was planning, become a god and restore the world of his past, even at the cost of destroying the world, except I don't think Corypheus even knew he might destroy the world with his plans, and the game thinks you will sympathize with Solas because "he doesn't want to do it," even though he is arguably the worse of the two.
Inquisition is not as dark, because while there is dark things happening, they are mostly hidden from the player, either in war table missions, or comics not everyone reads (Masked empire), and thus, the only people you really fight are the Qunari, and two near-godlike beings who have the same plans, you just don't know about one until the end. This means throughout Inquisition, you are mostly this white knight slaying unmistakable evil, instead of a Grey Warden fighting morally ambiguous battles in order to eventually stop the Darkspawn.
|
|
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 Oct 27, 2018 6:16:43 GMT
I mean, I don't see this as a problem, particularly the Cullen example. If you encouraged him to keep taking lyrium, then you don't care about his wellbeing, so what's the issue? You didn't bear any consequences for that choice, only Cullen did.
I don't see outcomes like that as anything other than the logical consequence of an action, which is how it should be. Whether or not the outcome ended up being 'positive' or 'negative' doesn't really matter to me. I do what I considered to be morally right in THAT moment, and I don't believe in accepting responsibility for every possible outcome of that decision. If I rescue X and they murder Y, that is not my fault. I am not responsible for the actions of X.
That said, I don't personally believe in "ends justify the means" thinking, and I suspect BioWare doesn't either, because the NPCs in their games that espouse that philosophy (Loghain, the Reapers) often end up in opposition with the player. And I side-eye anyone who says that the major appeal of any video game is that it lets them indulge in "ruthlessness".
As for whether or not the series is "dark", that word has been overused to the point of utter meaninglessness. Same goes for "mature".
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
May 15, 2024 14:56:51 GMT
26,692
gervaise21
10,812
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Oct 27, 2018 8:33:36 GMT
I get what you are saying OP and to an extent I agree with you. It is not just allowing you to be ruthless but even simply show a bit of common sense.
I am particularly thinking of the decision over the Grey Wardens. Whilst Corypheus had a particular influence over Grey Warden mages, all of those in Orlais (possibly Ferelden as well although there is conflicting information on this) were able to hear the false calling and if nothing else this impacted on their decision making. Who is to say that he might not come up with another way of controlling them in the future? The choice flag even suggests as much. So it seemed sensible to banish them temporarily until Corypheus had been dealt with. Keeping them around within the Inquisition seemed to pose too great a risk that they might cause disruption from within.
Then it turned out that there was absolutely no down side to keeping the Wardens in Orlais. In fact you get a useful chain of War Table missions if you do. You see Wardens fighting against you in the Arbor Wilds regardless of which decision you took. In the epilogue you are positively punished for having chosen to send them away for their own safety as well as that of the people around them. Apparently the banishment was considered to be permanent, which is not how I understood it at all, and our decision over the Wardens in Orlais affected relations with them across Thedas, even though my Inquisitor had specifically ordered Leliana not to use what happened in Orlais against the Order generally. The Order seemed doomed to gradual demise across the continent. By contrast, if you kept the Wardens in Orlais, against all common sense and the warning in the flag, those Wardens allied with the Inquisition embark on a new era of co-operation with people across Thedas, even if Warden HQ is in conflict with them, which also happens regardless of the choice you make.
Even the Chargers decision has no real downside if you opt for saving them over the alliance with the Qun. You are denied some War Tables missions that you might otherwise have got with the latter and I know people have argued that the consequences of these if you were not in the alliance would have been quite serious (for example a very bad impact on Denerim) but there is no indication of this whether in dialogue or epilogue screens. All the negative results are associated with opting for the Qun. (Okay so at the end of Trespasser the Qun are willing to still continue working with the Inquisition/Divine which might be considered a good thing but that is about all).
However, I'd also agree that whilst there are some choices in DAO where it pays to take the more ruthless (pragmatic) option, on the whole you aren't punished within the actual game if you reject it, opting for the "good" choice. A case in point being the decision over what to do with Connor, particularly if you go to Redcliffe before the Circle of Magi. In order to leave Connor alive you have to really throw all common sense out of the window. The demon has demonstrated how it can control people through Connor. You just spent the previous night fighting an un-dead army summoned by him and many people had died as the result of its actions before you arrived. Yet apparently you are meant to trust that Isolde can control him sufficiently when you travel to the Circle for aid. Then if you arrive at the Circle to find it overrun with demons, which time-wise has to take longer to deal with than simply asking for the First Enchanter's aid, the demon still stays quietly doing nothing until you return. First run, when I had gambled on leaving Connor alive until my return, on discovering the state of the Circle, I fully expected to find death and mayhem in Redcliffe on my return because of the delay but it turned out not to be the case. That said, so far as I am aware, killing Connor or sacrificing Isolde doesn't seriously impact on you either, apart from a tongue lashing from Alistair which I suppose a ruthless Warden can live with. Even so, it does feel like you are being labelled as ruthless if not evil if you take this option as opposed to just showing common sense considering what you are dealing with.
I like playing my character as a noble hero type but I acknowledge that given the alleged dark nature of the setting, it might be necessary at times for them to opt for what seems hard but sensible rather than risk other people's lives. That would still be an acceptable decision for my hero to make whilst staying in character. However, it does seem that making sensible, responsible decisions were depicted as ruthless in DAO but at least were not actively punished, whereas in DAI making sensible decisions were actively punished in the eventual outcomes. People have even said that it was obvious which would be the "best" choice to make. I would agree but that should not be the case. What is the point in making difficult but necessary decisions that weigh on your conscience if you will be punished for it by the writers and rewarded if you take the ideal heroic but illogical path instead?
|
|
helios969
N4
Kamisama
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Origin: helios969
Prime Posts: No Clue
Prime Likes: Who Cares
Posts: 1,854 Likes: 2,479
inherit
867
0
2,479
helios969
Kamisama
1,854
August 2016
helios969
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
helios969
No Clue
Who Cares
|
Post by helios969 on Oct 27, 2018 10:14:59 GMT
I'd like to see consequences run both ways...and it doesn't need to have any real significant endgame impact. Cullen was a missed opportunity imo. Supporting his continued abstinence should have resulted in some soldiers being lost...perhaps those captured in the Fallow Mire...or more losses when engaging Corypheus's forces in the Arbor Wilds. Instead we just kind of end up with a good/bad result.
I also like having a ruthless option...though to me it has never been about a desire to be evil for the sake of evil (too often Bioware's interpretation) rather it's a pragmatic view...making the hard choice or taking companions to task when they're being petty, selfish, or incompetent. Of course if you want to RP an evil character the story needs to lend itself to overall immersion. For example, I think DAI did a fantastic job setting you up as a benevolent Andrastian...not my normal cup of tea but a RP I thoroughly enjoyed. But it would have been equally as interesting to RP a wrathful Andrastian...one completely fearful of magic, distrustful of nonhumans, and willing to execute any who stand in the way of restoring the Chantry's "rightful" authority. Since the Chantry is restored either way in one form or another RP'ing good/evil has no real lasting consequences to Thedas.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
May 15, 2024 14:56:51 GMT
26,692
gervaise21
10,812
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Oct 27, 2018 13:03:36 GMT
But it would have been equally as interesting to RP a wrathful Andrastian...one completely fearful of magic, distrustful of nonhumans, and willing to execute any who stand in the way of restoring the Chantry's "rightful" authority. Since the Chantry is restored either way in one form or another RP'ing good/evil has no real lasting consequences to Thedas.
It was noticeable that this was only threatened as the result if you failed to defeat the envy demon in CoJ as this would have been the course of its leadership of the Inquisition. However, I think you could have got pretty close to this. There were several points where you could have made decisions along these lines:
Support and ally with the Templars Reject the assistance of Dorian - citizen of the heretic empire Reject the assistance of Iron Bull - there is no way you're having a Qunari spy around.
Reject the assistance of Cole - it's a demon. Insult Solas at every opportunity Embrace the role of the Herald of Andraste and insist you are the chosen one. Make judgements in the Maker's name and execute everyone (you can only make people tranquil as a mage) Banish the Grey Wardens Endorse Celene as Empress - she rules by the Maker's will so it is an offence to the Maker to challenge her rule. Give the findings about Red Crossing to the Chantry. Storm through the Temple of Mythal, killing the Sentinals and Abelas. Drink from the Well of Sorrows because the Maker will protect you and there is no way that Witch is getting the knowledge. Round it off by facing down Corypheus with the claim of Herald (I did this and it was really satisfying).
I have only done a few of these but I must admit I'm tempted to try it now, just to see the results (I've seen some of them on YouTube, particularly Solas reaction to an Inquisitor who makes these sorts of decisions, which was an eye opener). The closest I've come thus far was a Chantry loyalist mage and ultimately I couldn't finish that game because I had come to loath him.
|
|
inherit
4964
0
Jun 17, 2017 17:29:55 GMT
3,700
arvaarad
1,465
Mar 18, 2017 16:32:40 GMT
March 2017
arvaarad
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Jade Empire
|
Post by arvaarad on Oct 28, 2018 1:49:15 GMT
Even the Chargers decision has no real downside if you opt for saving them over the alliance with the Qun. You are denied some War Tables missions that you might otherwise have got with the latter and I know people have argued that the consequences of these if you were not in the alliance would have been quite serious (for example a very bad impact on Denerim) but there is no indication of this whether in dialogue or epilogue screens. All the negative results are associated with opting for the Qun. Which makes total sense, because sacrificing the dreadnought is the ruthless option. It’s morally equivalent to performing a blood sacrifice of 100 non-hostile, helpful Qunari (plus any civilian casualties caused by the Venatori running amok) in order to save the lives of 7 friends. Even Petrice doesn’t have those numbers.
|
|
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 Oct 28, 2018 2:38:10 GMT
Reject the assistance of Dorian - citizen of the heretic empire Reject the assistance of Iron Bull - there is no way you're having a Qunari spy around. Reject the assistance of Cole - it's a demon. These things, and others, can still exist in your head. There is nothing to stop you from using that reasoning as roleplay when making the choice. Something that people fail to consider time and time again is that they can't have have RP choices to accommodate everyone. Expecting that is completely unreasonable. While you might like the option to reject Dorian based on his being from a heretical empire, there will be someone else left out because they wanted to be able to say, "No more mages." Why should your preference matter more than theirs? Every single time I see remarks about choices everyone whines about the choices that they want. Well the game isn't only about you and the choices you want. The devs have to try to accommodate as many people as possible, which is why there are so many neutral options.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
May 15, 2024 14:56:51 GMT
26,692
gervaise21
10,812
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Oct 28, 2018 8:25:33 GMT
These things, and others, can still exist in your head. There is nothing to stop you from using that reasoning as roleplay when making the choice. Something that people fail to consider time and time again is that they can't have have RP choices to accommodate everyone. Expecting that is completely unreasonable. While you might like the option to reject Dorian based on his being from a heretical empire, there will be someone else left out because they wanted to be able to say, "No more mages." Why should your preference matter more than theirs I don't quite get the criticism here. Naturally the reasoning for making the decisions is something that would be in my head since you cannot state as much in the game. This is equally true of any decision you make since you can only qualify it to a limited extent by reasons you are given in the dialogue. For example, when Dorian implies I am an idiot for having conscripted the mages or Leliana (and others) seem to assume that implies I want them back inside Circles. This was not why I conscripted them but my real reason, I think they need a better leader than Fiona and I didn't totally trust all the rebels and would be a fool to give them autonomy straight away, was something that just had to stay in my head. I had been simply showing the previous poster how they could play a fanatical Andrastrian through their choices and the game does allow this. As they pointed out, going forward there would be absolutely no difference in the outcome since the Chantry survives regardless and the Inquisition is cut down to size. However, playing a Chantry fanatic would impact on who you decided to recruit and your relations with some of those you have no choice about, like Solas. I actually found it quite satisfying when I saw how hostile he is towards an Inquisitor of the type I described, it almost did make me want to play one simply to show how different the Dread Wolf can be. It is also an unknown factor whether the choices you made about the role of Herald, which are reflected in the Keep, will have any impact going forward. At the very least it may mean that when the Inquisitor is referred to in codices they will be described as a devout and ruthless adherent of the faith if they made the choices I described above, whereas a more moderate believer will be a different epithet.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
May 15, 2024 14:56:51 GMT
26,692
gervaise21
10,812
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Oct 28, 2018 8:36:37 GMT
Which makes total sense, because sacrificing the dreadnought is the ruthless option. Surely this was my point. Why are all the negative consequences associated with the common sense and pragmatic option of working with the Qun? Why is there no downside to sacrificing the dreadnought? Yes, people who choose the Qun get additional war table options but that has no effect on the world at large. There is nothing in the epilogue to show that people who sacrificed the dreadnought indirectly caused the destruction of the city of Denerim. There was not a sudden rise in the number of incidents involving the Venatori we had to deal with personally in Orlais as a result of not receiving Qunari intelligence reports. It is quite clear that the writers have a bias towards saving the Chargers and do not regard it as the ruthless option but rather the opposite, the ruthless option is to sacrifice the Chargers for a political alliance, the "good" option is to save them and the player who does this is rewarded with Iron Bull's loyalty, the Chargers still able to do missions for them and no negative consequences whatsoever.
|
|
helios969
N4
Kamisama
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Origin: helios969
Prime Posts: No Clue
Prime Likes: Who Cares
Posts: 1,854 Likes: 2,479
inherit
867
0
2,479
helios969
Kamisama
1,854
August 2016
helios969
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
helios969
No Clue
Who Cares
|
Post by helios969 on Oct 28, 2018 10:54:32 GMT
they can't have have RP choices to accommodate everyone Certainly true but I don't see the issue with providing players with a range of voices to role-play. I do think we need to meet the developers halfway in using our imaginations to fill in the blanks, but having benevolent, neutral, and ruthless dialogue options with some reactivity in the story/world isn't unreasonable. I feel that's preferable to just haphazardly throwing in dialogue options...which is what DAI feels like at times.
|
|
inherit
1265
0
1,669
isaidlunch
794
Aug 26, 2016 22:27:12 GMT
August 2016
isaidlunch
|
Post by isaidlunch on Oct 28, 2018 11:54:58 GMT
I see this more as a problem for those who don't pick ruthless options. They're the ones who never suffer any consequences and have boring, unrealistic Disney playthroughs.
And DAO was far from perfect when it came to this. The Connor choice is the textbook example of what you're talking about - you can leave Redcliffe as long as you won't and the demon won't do anything. Imagine how interesting that choice would be if there were serious consequences for leaving.
|
|
inherit
4964
0
Jun 17, 2017 17:29:55 GMT
3,700
arvaarad
1,465
Mar 18, 2017 16:32:40 GMT
March 2017
arvaarad
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Jade Empire
|
Post by arvaarad on Oct 28, 2018 15:54:42 GMT
Which makes total sense, because sacrificing the dreadnought is the ruthless option. Surely this was my point. Why are all the negative consequences associated with the common sense and pragmatic option of working with the Qun? Why is there no downside to sacrificing the dreadnought? Yes, people who choose the Qun get additional war table options but that has no effect on the world at large. There is nothing in the epilogue to show that people who sacrificed the dreadnought indirectly caused the destruction of the city of Denerim. There was not a sudden rise in the number of incidents involving the Venatori we had to deal with personally in Orlais as a result of not receiving Qunari intelligence reports. It is quite clear that the writers have a bias towards saving the Chargers and do not regard it as the ruthless option but rather the opposite, the ruthless option is to sacrifice the Chargers for a political alliance, the "good" option is to save them and the player who does this is rewarded with Iron Bull's loyalty, the Chargers still able to do missions for them and no negative consequences whatsoever. I’m not convinced the writers believe this. Most players do, but the writers specifically included the codex entry in Trespasser that pointed out there were 100 folks on the dreadnought. If we assume that rewards = the writers supporting the decision, then by definition there can never be a choice that fits the description in this thread. Any choice that might be labelled “ruthless with rewards” will be written off as “oh, it had more rewards, so the writers must feel it was the best option”. Another example might be reuniting Celene with Briala. That’s... ill-advised, at best, but it has the best rewards. I suspect we won’t know the full impact of the dreadnought choice until later games. The point of the choice was to test the Inquisitor’s moral compass when comparing many faceless strangers to a couple friends. That decision would have been diluted if we’d had a chance to meet some of the ship’s crew in the same game — they’d no longer be faceless. Arguably, it’s the core moral choice in all of Inquisition, because it so closely mirrors Solas’ choice.
|
|
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 Oct 28, 2018 19:18:22 GMT
Certainly true but I don't see the issue with providing players with a range of voices to role-play. I do think we need to meet the developers halfway in using our imaginations to fill in the blanks, but having benevolent, neutral, and ruthless dialogue options with some reactivity in the story/world isn't unreasonable. I feel that's preferable to just haphazardly throwing in dialogue options...which is what DAI feels like at times. Every additional option costs resources. They have to decide how to parse them out. You might then say, "I'd sacrifice ___ for more options," (which I've seen numerous times) but it doesn't work like that. You have no idea what would be sacrificed; it could be something else that you like/want. I had been simply showing the previous poster how they could play a fanatical Andrastrian through their choices and the game does allow this. You are right. That is my fault. I missread it as "There were several points where they could have made decisions along these lines." I've seen several posts about that in the past and sort of jumped the gun there.
|
|
melbella
N6
Trouble-shooting Space Diva
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: melbella
Prime Posts: 2186
Prime Likes: 5778
Posts: 7,959 Likes: 24,340
inherit
214
0
May 15, 2024 13:21:06 GMT
24,340
melbella
Trouble-shooting Space Diva
7,959
August 2016
melbella
Bottom
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
melbella
2186
5778
|
Post by melbella on Oct 28, 2018 20:33:09 GMT
Which makes total sense, because sacrificing the dreadnought is the ruthless option. It’s morally equivalent to performing a blood sacrifice of 100 non-hostile, helpful Qunari (plus any civilian casualties caused by the Venatori running amok) in order to save the lives of 7 friends. Even Petrice doesn’t have those numbers. If you define ruthless as "higher body count," I suppose that's true. But if you define it as pragmatic, then it isn't. However, both definitions assume the decision is made in a vacuum, which it obviously is not. You have the Qun possibly/likely testing Iron Bull/Hissrad's loyalty and you also have the faulty Qun intelligence as factors to use in making the decision of what to do.
For myself, the first time I played I was already suspicious given the lack of mages I'd encountered in getting to the signal location. That they all suddenly showed up as a "missed" third outpost made the decision to call the retreat easy.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
May 15, 2024 17:03:22 GMT
30,264
Hanako Ikezawa
22,367
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Oct 28, 2018 21:45:37 GMT
I suspect we won’t know the full impact of the dreadnought choice until later games. The point of the choice was to test the Inquisitor’s moral compass when comparing many faceless strangers to a couple friends. That decision would have been diluted if we’d had a chance to meet some of the ship’s crew in the same game — they’d no longer be faceless. Arguably, it’s the core moral choice in all of Inquisition, because it so closely mirrors Solas’ choice. What friends are you referring to? Those random mercenaries we spent five minutes with? I also agree that the impact of that choice may continue in DA4, especially if we continue as the Inquisition.
|
|
inherit
4964
0
Jun 17, 2017 17:29:55 GMT
3,700
arvaarad
1,465
Mar 18, 2017 16:32:40 GMT
March 2017
arvaarad
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Jade Empire
|
Post by arvaarad on Oct 28, 2018 22:11:59 GMT
Which makes total sense, because sacrificing the dreadnought is the ruthless option. It’s morally equivalent to performing a blood sacrifice of 100 non-hostile, helpful Qunari (plus any civilian casualties caused by the Venatori running amok) in order to save the lives of 7 friends. Even Petrice doesn’t have those numbers. If you define ruthless as "higher body count," I suppose that's true. But if you define it as pragmatic, then it isn't. However, both definitions assume the decision is made in a vacuum, which it obviously is not. You have the Qun possibly/likely testing Iron Bull/Hissrad's loyalty and you also have the faulty Qun intelligence as factors to use in making the decision of what to do.
For myself, the first time I played I was already suspicious given the lack of mages I'd encountered in getting to the signal location. That they all suddenly showed up as a "missed" third outpost made the decision to call the retreat easy.
It sounds like these are a bunch of pragmatic reasons to sacrifice the dreadnought. If the Qunari are up to shady shit, that’s on them. Specifically, it would be on the tamassrans, who are not aboard the ship and would get away scot-free regardless. Failing the mission kills many more soldiers and endangers civilians who are being affected by the Venatori shipments. Choosing to fail the mission means prioritizing a long term possibility (the Qunari might be using this to amass power) over present suffering. That’s a fair call to make, but it’s a call where the ends justify the means. Justified ruthlessness is still ruthless. In fact, “justified ruthlessness” is pretty much what this thread is trying to find.
|
|
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 Oct 28, 2018 23:53:29 GMT
Why are all the negative consequences associated with the common sense and pragmatic option of working with the Qun? Why is this the pragmatic choice? If you believe that the Qun is not to be trusted -- even Iron Bull shows wariness during quest dialogues -- it seems to me that telling the Qun to piss off is also pragmatic. In addition, you could also believe that trying to make inroads with the Imperium, rather than relying an a chaotic, disruptive (to northern stability) force is the better option. The Venatori will have ways of getting red lyrium beyond this one instance, so I find it hard to believe that successfully stopping them this one time will hamper their operations in any significant way. Then again, I don't recruit Iron Bull at all because I want nothing to do with the Qun. It is quite clear that the writers have a bias towards saving the Chargers and do not regard it as the ruthless option but rather the opposite, the ruthless option is to sacrifice the Chargers for a political alliance, the "good" option is to save them and the player who does this is rewarded with Iron Bull's loyalty, the Chargers still able to do missions for them and no negative consequences whatsoever. It's emotionally manipulative, just as the forced Warden/Hawke choice is. I suspect we won’t know the full impact of the dreadnought choice until later games. This seems rather optimistic. I don't think we'll see any result from the choice beyond what we already do with Iron Bull (in the main game and Trespasser). The devs aren't into having such choices impact the status of the world in any serious or meaningful way. If your assumption has to do with spreading lyrium and such, there will simply be another path for players that either didn't do the quest or saved the Chargers.
|
|
inherit
Friend of Red Jenny
90
0
18,890
vertigomez
5,281
August 2016
vertigomez
|
Post by vertigomez on Oct 29, 2018 0:03:57 GMT
It’s morally equivalent to performing a blood sacrifice of 100 non-hostile, helpful Qunari (plus any civilian casualties caused by the Venatori running amok) in order to save the lives of 7 friends. Even Petrice doesn’t have those numbers. That's really only if your Inquisitor doesn't see "helpful" and "Qunari" as oxymorons, though. If you see them as a powerful enemy force that's trying to play you, attempting to winnow your mercenaries and steal back the valuable asset that is Bull, playing the long game for an eventual hostile takeover of southern Thedas, then they're..... just a bunch of enemies and you may as well be blowing up a Venatori stronghold.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
May 15, 2024 17:03:22 GMT
30,264
Hanako Ikezawa
22,367
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Oct 29, 2018 1:16:18 GMT
I suspect we won’t know the full impact of the dreadnought choice until later games. This seems rather optimistic. I don't think we'll see any result from the choice beyond what we already do with Iron Bull (in the main game and Trespasser). The devs aren't into having such choices impact the status of the world in any serious or meaningful way. If your assumption has to do with spreading lyrium and such, there will simply be another path for players that either didn't do the quest or saved the Chargers. Considering what seems to be the two main plots in DA4, that being the Qun-Tevinter War and stopping Solas, I can see that choice playing a role. After all siding with the Qun over the Chargers grants the Inquisitor the title of basalit-an as well as a renewed alliance with the Inquisition/Chantry, which could come in handy when dealing with the Qun.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
May 15, 2024 21:04:30 GMT
31,335
colfoley
16,628
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Oct 29, 2018 4:39:37 GMT
About the Cullen choice I feel it was perhaps a bit atypical from the quests we did in the game. I mean I guess it would have been nice to have a negative reaction where like Cullen's wartable missions would take longer or something but it kind of isn't neccessary.
Its qeird about DAI but wrong or rightly (and I kind of like it) a lot of the choices only matter in theory. They don't really effect the game..always...but their ramifications or severe. Though it is worthy to note out DAI does a really good job at explaning the context for the choices so you can make a properly informed decision.
Anyways on the matter of ruthlessness in general. Again with Andromeda and DA I BioWare did the correct thing where most of the major choices (and a lot of the minor onces) wasn't always an issue of morality or 'doing the evil thing to do the evil playthrough/ for the shiggles' or 'doing the good thing because I like to be a little angels' instead their choices were morally neutral and depended on the kind of character you were trying to play. Exiling the Wardens isn't the 'ruhtless' choice but you could choose to exile the wardens because you were playing a ruthless character.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
May 15, 2024 14:56:51 GMT
26,692
gervaise21
10,812
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Oct 29, 2018 8:11:03 GMT
This seems rather optimistic. I don't think we'll see any result from the choice beyond what we already do with Iron Bull (in the main game and Trespasser). The devs aren't into having such choices impact the status of the world in any serious or meaningful way. I would agree with this assessment. Likely the most it will influence the next game may be in the form of an optional side-quest or two that are only available to those who worked with the Qun. A bit like in DA2 where you get to help Renvil Harrowmount if Bhelen was made king, or encounter the vengeful elf tracking down an ex-werewolf if you reconciled the two factions in DAO. They weren't important in the grand scheme of things but they did make your Warden's choices relevant in that particular world state. Red lyrium is clearly going to have significance going forward so naturally it would not really impact on that whether you stopped that particular red lyrium shipment. Seeing as how Imshael taught them how to farm red lyrium and its ability to grow on even micro-organisms, the idea that it could easily be prevented from spreading simply by working with the Qun was just fatuous. Everyone, including the Inquisition, came by their knowledge too late to alter the course of its spread across Thedas, so I fully expect it to be playing a significant part in the plot going forward no matter what choices I made in DAI. The comics have all but confirmed this.
|
|