inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,070
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 Mar 13, 2019 2:41:06 GMT
All moral choices are grey. I would prefer the game not pretend otherwise. If all moral choices are gray, then how does BioWare's presentation of them even remotely matter?
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,070
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 Mar 13, 2019 2:45:16 GMT
By "a choice I don't want" you mean "a choice I wouldn't want if I had perfect information," right? Happens all the time; why can't it happen in games? What’s the point of advisors, if they are incapable of providing any guidance on choices available & direction? They give you their opinions. What more are you after, exactly?
|
|
wright1978
N4
![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png)
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: 1,678 Likes: 2,549
inherit
1492
0
Jun 26, 2024 18:24:30 GMT
2,549
wright1978
1,678
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 Mar 13, 2019 6:45:56 GMT
What’s the point of advisors, if they are incapable of providing any guidance on choices available & direction? They give you their opinions. What more are you after, exactly? They don’t tell me that Celene has to be supported barring her having an accident. That would be useful info come the assassanation attempt. Blindness of limited hallas and clues isn’t good either.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,070
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 Mar 13, 2019 7:21:41 GMT
They give you their opinions. What more are you after, exactly? They don’t tell me that Celene has to be supported barring her having an accident. That would be useful info come the assassanation attempt. Blindness of limited hallas and clues isn’t good either. Well I definitely agree that the halla statues are fucking stupid as shit, for many reasons. You should absolutely be able to remove and re-use the statues as many times as you like, and furthermore, that entire mechanic is completely immersion-breaking, because nobody would be able to live in a place that worked that way. I mean, come the fuck on. "Has anyone seen my five halla statues? I left a guy tied to the bed and I should really let him out before he starves to death." "Oh, sorry, I took one to get into the storeroom. Dunno where the rest are."
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png)
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 2,001 Likes: 3,522
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,522
Noxluxe
2,001
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Mar 13, 2019 11:20:04 GMT
All moral choices are grey. I would prefer the game not pretend otherwise. If all moral choices are gray, then how does BioWare's presentation of them even remotely matter? Because the whole point of role playing games is for our characters to be able to express themselves through choices, and the more detailed and relatable those choices are the more meaningful that expression is? Choosing between obviously good and obviously evil isn't relatable or meaningful, anyone can do that and it barely ever becomes relevant in real life. What makes it interesting is thinking about the actual consequences of more complicated choices and deciding which are less harmful in your estimation, and then dealing with the unintended byproducts. Then your personal judgement and personal values and particular experience with how the world works come into play, making for a much more intimate and powerful story. Much more satisfying. But that requires nuanced setup, and for the devs to restrain themselves from imposing their own values too much on the player through said setup or the setting in general, which is one of the areas where the film has been breaking for Bioware for the past few years.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,070
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 Mar 13, 2019 11:53:33 GMT
If all moral choices are gray, then how does BioWare's presentation of them even remotely matter? Because the whole point of role playing games is for our characters to be able to express themselves through choices, and the more detailed and relatable those choices are the more meaningful that expression is? Choosing between obviously good and obviously evil isn't relatable or meaningful, anyone can do that and it barely ever becomes relevant in real life. What makes it interesting is thinking about the actual consequences of more complicated choices and deciding which are less harmful in your estimation, and then dealing with the unintended byproducts. Then your personal judgement and personal values and particular experience with how the world works come into play, making for a much more intimate and powerful story. Much more satisfying. But that requires nuanced setup, and for the devs to restrain themselves from imposing their own values too much on the player through said setup or the setting in general, which is one of the areas where the film has been breaking for Bioware for the past few years. You think so? Because from where I stand, BioWare has been bending over backwards to try and make issues like homophobic child abuse and genocide seem a lot more complicated than they actually are. If you mean you want a story where the nominal villain is presented as being possibly right, or whatever the fuck passes for MACHUUR NARTIV these days... when has BioWare ever done that? The Archdemon, Corypheus and the Reapers aren't what I would call complex.
|
|
inherit
11087
0
Sept 24, 2020 2:40:17 GMT
23
Cleric
8
Mar 12, 2019 13:57:29 GMT
March 2019
cleric
|
Post by Cleric on Mar 13, 2019 12:06:40 GMT
Choosing between obviously good and obviously evil isn't relatable or meaningful, anyone can do that and it barely ever becomes relevant in real life. What makes it interesting is thinking about the actual consequences of more complicated choices and deciding which are less harmful in your estimation, and then dealing with the unintended byproducts. Then your personal judgement and personal values and particular experience with how the world works come into play, making for a much more intimate and powerful story. Much more satisfying. But that requires nuanced setup, and for the devs to restrain themselves from imposing their own values too much on the player through said setup or the setting in general, which is one of the areas where the film has been breaking for Bioware for the past few years. You know, for me this is exactly something I love about Inquisition and dislike about Origins. Origins main quests with few exceptions have a single morally perfect outcome: Redcliffe: Get the Circle to help. Might trick a first time player into making the wrong choice because leaving the demon alone is fucking stupid - but nope, once you know you straight up just save everybody. Circle: Save the mages. The mages are clearly heroic, literally protecting children in the frontline, and are led by Wynne. The templars are both incompetent and disgustingly indifferent to the wellbeing of the mages who they have condemned to die. Werewolves: Compromise. The Spirit is an angelic figure. Haven: Don't defile the ashes. Obviously. This is just RPing with regard to the cultural norms of every origin. You also have a Clearly Good NPC there to helpfully guide you to making the correct choice. Genetivi, Wynne and the Spirit all share that function. There's only two moral dialemmas that are framed like the Inquisition main questlines: Bhelen vs Harrowmont and the Landsmeet. More than one logical outcome a rational, intelligent, non-maniacal Warden could come to here, no one inarguably ideal choice, focus is on character development and values. Still doesn't compare to the degree of choice and in-character dialogue oppotunities made for conscript mages, ally with mages / disband templars, ally with templars. Four distinct outcomes that are all treated like they're rational. I couldn't have been more pleasantly surprised. Reasonable positions on all sides are put forth for the first time! Reasonable solutions continue to be put forth for the branching problems that arise! The PC talks and acts like an intelligent person who comprehends the nuance of the situation - not just for the single 'good' or 'compromise' choice, as per classic Bioware, but for all dialogue choices! Amazing. Well, I was amazed by it. (Seriously, if you're RPing a not actively evil/insane character who would agree to slaughtering innocent people, there's no time the PC is given a choice through all DA:O/DA2 where they'd want to side with the Templars. Made the mage vs templar arc a fairly onesided affair in terms of audience sympathy, no? It was meant to be morally grey. It was very bad at it.)
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png)
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 2,001 Likes: 3,522
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,522
Noxluxe
2,001
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Mar 13, 2019 13:25:52 GMT
You think so? Because from where I stand, BioWare has been bending over backwards to try and make issues like homophobic child abuse and genocide seem a lot more complicated than they actually are. If you mean you want a story where the nominal villain is presented as being possibly right, or whatever the fuck passes for MACHUUR NARTIV these days... when has BioWare ever done that? The Archdemon, Corypheus and the Reapers aren't what I would call complex. Wow. All that genocide and homophobic child abuse you must have experienced, to gain such insight. It's a good thing we have you to guide how the rest of us should think. And as I'm about to point out below, the main villain and quest obviously isn't all there is to a roleplaying game. You know, for me this is exactly something I love about Inquisition and dislike about Origins. Origins main quests with few exceptions have a single morally perfect outcome: Redcliffe: Get the Circle to help. Might trick a first time player into making the wrong choice because leaving the demon alone is fucking stupid - but nope, once you know you straight up just save everybody. Circle: Save the mages. The mages are clearly heroic, literally protecting children in the frontline, and are led by Wynne. The templars are both incompetent and disgustingly indifferent to the wellbeing of the mages who they have condemned to die. Werewolves: Compromise. The Spirit is an angelic figure. Haven: Don't defile the ashes. Obviously. This is just RPing with regard to the cultural norms of every origin. You also have a Clearly Good NPC there to helpfully guide you to making the correct choice. Genetivi, Wynne and the Spirit all share that function. There's only two moral dialemmas that are framed like the Inquisition main questlines: Bhelen vs Harrowmont and the Landsmeet. More than one logical outcome a rational, intelligent, non-maniacal Warden could come to here, no one inarguably ideal choice, focus is on character development and values. Still doesn't compare to the degree of choice and in-character dialogue oppotunities made for conscript mages, ally with mages / disband templars, ally with templars. Four distinct outcomes that are all treated like they're rational. I couldn't have been more pleasantly surprised. Reasonable positions on all sides are put forth for the first time! Reasonable solutions continue to be put forth for the branching problems that arise! The PC talks and acts like an intelligent person who comprehends the nuance of the situation - not just for the single 'good' or 'compromise' choice, as per classic Bioware, but for all dialogue choices! Amazing. Well, I was amazed by it. (Seriously, if you're RPing a not actively evil/insane character who would agree to slaughtering innocent people, there's no time the PC is given a choice through all DA:O/DA2 where they'd want to side with the Templars. Made the mage vs templar arc a fairly onesided affair in terms of audience sympathy, no? It was meant to be morally grey. It was very bad at it.) I couldn't agree more, those are the exact parts of the respective games I enjoy and despise myself. I haven't gotten the mages to help with Connor since I was a teenager because the option just cheapens the entire dilemma. That said, if you look beyond the main quests, Origins is full of nuanced little decisions and dialogue options that force you to think about the world in realistic terms. How/whether to help or advise Zerlinda and her baby in Dust Town, or that kid in Lothering. Who to conscript and how exactly to prepare Redcliffe's warriors for the undead assault. Whether and how to help that clueless Dalish couple or let them figure it out on their own. Whether to give Avernus free reins, restrict his research or cut him down on the spot for his crimes against humanity. What to prioritize as Arl of Ameranthine. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Almost every interaction in the game aside from those big dramatic moments presents you with a dilemma of some kind, and it's never be down to just one of two vague dialogue options, and rarely is it a no-brainer. And even the ones that have that silly "save everyone" option give you a rational reason not to go that route, and get a less idealized story out of it instead. The choice to go to the mages for help in Redcliffe Castle isn't just stupid, it's explicitly pointed out as such in the game, as you say. Zathrien and Swiftrunner both point out that the other is acting out of petty vengeance, and the spirit is still a spirit, no matter how angelic. Who knows what it's really after? Your meta knowledge of the third option in those decisions is annoying, no question there, but you can ignore it. Scroll forward to Inquisition. Yes, there are those lovely few main quest moments of the characters acting like actual people, and the sense of every personal victory being marginal in the larger struggle for stability, and no solution satisfying everyone. But the world? It's full of boring two-dimensional people with one-dimensional problems, and the last line of every other person's dialogue is some variation of "The Inquisition is our only hope." Barf. And the result is that none of those choices in the main quest really feel rooted, because you have little real sense of what's realistically going on at the ground level. Obviously it'd be ideal to have those small world-building dilemmas AND the characters negotiating realistically in the main story. But given the choice, I personally I prefer Origin's approach. The atmosphere of the setting does more to establish the game's tone than those key moments of the main quest do.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,070
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 Mar 13, 2019 13:50:04 GMT
You think so? Because from where I stand, BioWare has been bending over backwards to try and make issues like homophobic child abuse and genocide seem a lot more complicated than they actually are. If you mean you want a story where the nominal villain is presented as being possibly right, or whatever the fuck passes for MACHUUR NARTIV these days... when has BioWare ever done that? The Archdemon, Corypheus and the Reapers aren't what I would call complex. Wow. All that genocide and homophobic child abuse you must have experienced, to gain such insight. It's a good thing we have you to guide how the rest of us should think. And as I'm about to point out below, the main villain and quest obviously isn't all there is to a roleplaying game. Yeah, I don't really care what anyone on here thinks. I knew when I joined BSN 2.0 what kind of people I was likely to encounter. I never enter into these discussions with the intention of changing anybody's minds. I do it because I enjoy debate. And not that it's particularly relevant, but yes, I have copped my share of homophobic abuse. And yes, I'm aware that the BioWare games have content outside the core narrative, but I would've thought the presentation of the major antagonist was at least slightly relevant to the discussion. My mistake. If you saw nuance in the decisions of past BioWare games and don't see it now, and you think that lack of nuance makes for a bad game, then far be it from me to correct you. I never saw any gray to begin with, and almost never struggle to make in-game choices that I consider morally good, so I can't relate.
|
|
inherit
3354
0
Jun 26, 2024 18:17:13 GMT
2,853
Little Bengel
Partying like it's 1999
1,015
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 Mar 13, 2019 20:01:53 GMT
Because the whole point of role playing games is for our characters to be able to express themselves through choices, and the more detailed and relatable those choices are the more meaningful that expression is? Choosing between obviously good and obviously evil isn't relatable or meaningful, anyone can do that and it barely ever becomes relevant in real life. What makes it interesting is thinking about the actual consequences of more complicated choices and deciding which are less harmful in your estimation, and then dealing with the unintended byproducts. Then your personal judgement and personal values and particular experience with how the world works come into play, making for a much more intimate and powerful story. Much more satisfying. But that requires nuanced setup, and for the devs to restrain themselves from imposing their own values too much on the player through said setup or the setting in general, which is one of the areas where the film has been breaking for Bioware for the past few years. You think so? Because from where I stand, BioWare has been bending over backwards to try and make issues like homophobic child abuse and genocide seem a lot more complicated than they actually are. If you mean you want a story where the nominal villain is presented as being possibly right, or whatever the fuck passes for MACHUUR NARTIV these days... when has BioWare ever done that? The Archdemon, Corypheus and the Reapers aren't what I would call complex. I'm curious, what do you mean by the genocide part? I guess the homophobic child abuse is probably Dorian.
|
|
Sylvius the Mad
N3
![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png)
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 686 Likes: 740
inherit
1078
0
Jul 17, 2019 20:15:37 GMT
740
Sylvius the Mad
686
August 2016
sylvius
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Sylvius the Mad on Mar 13, 2019 20:12:07 GMT
All moral choices are grey. I would prefer the game not pretend otherwise. If all moral choices are gray, then how does BioWare's presentation of them even remotely matter? I would prefer they not relentlessly reward the naïvely idealistic option. I'd even be willing to entertain randomised outcomes, as that more closely mimics how people actually behave.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,317
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,869
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Mar 13, 2019 20:34:11 GMT
They give you their opinions. What more are you after, exactly? They don’t tell me that Celene has to be supported barring her having an accident. That would be useful info come the assassanation attempt. Blindness of limited hallas and clues isn’t good either. Hmm... meaning that you might find yourself keeping Celene alive even though you want to put Gaspard on the throne? I've never actually tried that -- in playthroughs where I want Celene gone letting Cory do it just seems efficient. I'm not sure how this is a problem with the advisers, though, as opposed to the way the final options are structured. Exactly what are you wanting the advisers to have told you? FWIW, Leliana flatly advises letting Celene die in order to put Gaspard on the throne, which is how the choice actually works. I'm not sure why being able to miss clues is a bad thing, either.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,317
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,869
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Mar 13, 2019 20:51:30 GMT
That said, if you look beyond the main quests, Origins is full of nuanced little decisions and dialogue options that force you to think about the world in realistic terms. How/whether to help or advise Zerlinda and her baby in Dust Town, or that kid in Lothering. Who to conscript and how exactly to prepare Redcliffe's warriors for the undead assault. Whether and how to help that clueless Dalish couple or let them figure it out on their own. Whether to give Avernus free reins, restrict his research or cut him down on the spot for his crimes against humanity. What to prioritize as Arl of Ameranthine. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Almost every interaction in the game aside from those big dramatic moments presents you with a dilemma of some kind, and it's never be down to just one of two vague dialogue options, and rarely is it a no-brainer. The Redcliffe preparation has clearly better answers, doesn't it? I'm also not clear how the Dalish couple is any different from any number of missions in Inquisition which you can simply blow off, except that you can actively fuck with the couple for the lulz.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png)
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 2,001 Likes: 3,522
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,522
Noxluxe
2,001
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Mar 13, 2019 21:26:01 GMT
The Redcliffe preparation has clearly better answers, doesn't it? I'm also not clear how the Dalish couple is any different from any number of missions in Inquisition which you can simply blow off, except that you can actively fuck with the couple for the lulz. Then you're not putting enough thought into it. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/elVHKRxPverbDpfdrrFs.png) Is it better for the warriors to have received a bit of liquid courage before a showdown with an army of horrors, or is that an absolutely terrible idea? Is it best to get as many bodies into the field as at all possible, or just the ones with actual discipline who are there of their own will and can rely on each other? Would they fight more effectively convinced that they had some divine protection, or would that just encourage unnecessary risks and pointless heroics? Do you give the young elf guy a wolf skin so he can get past this silly cultural obstacle to their relationship in a hurry, or do you tell him to wait until he has a chance to actually prove himself as a man to himself and his peers, like everybody else, and for her to be able to judge him on his actual merits before choosing whether to enter into a relationship? Do you get down on him for being a pansy and not risking his life to achieve his goals? Or do you just keep your nose out of it because it's none of your business and what do you know about Dalish romance anyway? These are all open and fairly complex judgement calls with no obvious right answer except the one provided by your personal experience with people, and alcohol, in real life. I don't know about you, but that's certainly the thing I love most about RPGs. And there was very little of it, and what was was very ill-defined, in Inquisition.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Jun 26, 2024 18:49:17 GMT
32,647
colfoley
17,295
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Mar 13, 2019 21:55:46 GMT
Because the whole point of role playing games is for our characters to be able to express themselves through choices, and the more detailed and relatable those choices are the more meaningful that expression is? Choosing between obviously good and obviously evil isn't relatable or meaningful, anyone can do that and it barely ever becomes relevant in real life. What makes it interesting is thinking about the actual consequences of more complicated choices and deciding which are less harmful in your estimation, and then dealing with the unintended byproducts. Then your personal judgement and personal values and particular experience with how the world works come into play, making for a much more intimate and powerful story. Much more satisfying. But that requires nuanced setup, and for the devs to restrain themselves from imposing their own values too much on the player through said setup or the setting in general, which is one of the areas where the film has been breaking for Bioware for the past few years. You think so? Because from where I stand, BioWare has been bending over backwards to try and make issues like homophobic child abuse and genocide seem a lot more complicated than they actually are. If you mean you want a story where the nominal villain is presented as being possibly right, or whatever the fuck passes for MACHUUR NARTIV these days... when has BioWare ever done that? The Archdemon, Corypheus and the Reapers aren't what I would call complex. you're kind of defeating your own argument. If BioWares villainous characters arent that complex then they aren't bending over backwards to make such issues complex. Besides what's wrong with, in a fictional context especially, adding nuance and complexity to people who do monstrous things as a vehicle to explore issues that are really touchy IRL? Its funny that i was thinking about this earlier but "the Last Resort of Good Men" might be one of my favorite quest titles in the series because it so perfectly encspsulates what is going on in the quest. You have Dorian, who I certainly think of as a good man, and you have his father. His father did something monstrous to Dorian, attempted to...but why? Because he cared for his son and was concerned he'd ruin his future. A choice he clearly came to regret later. Hence adding complexity to the situation. By all accounts he is a good man, but he did something bad... Which is kind of the theme of DA...well at least post Origins. Good men time and again doing horrible things because they feel they have no choice, are forced into it, and made a mistake.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,317
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,869
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Mar 13, 2019 22:22:17 GMT
Is it better for the warriors to have received a bit of liquid courage before a showdown with an army of horrors, or is that an absolutely terrible idea? Is it best to get as many bodies into the field as at all possible, or just the ones with actual discipline who are there of their own will and can rely on each other? Would they fight more effectively convinced that they had some divine protection, or would that just encourage unnecessary risks and pointless heroics? Remember, those choices give real effect in-game. It's not a matter of opinion. The knights simply do fight better with the amulets. The militia simply does fight better with the ale. (I suppose the amulets might have a tradeoff if your Warden has a thing about honesty, though.) The more bodies thing might have been interesting, but since the additional recruits are more competent than the base volunteers, you're always better off recruiting everyone you can; you have mischaracterized the decision. I'll give you the Dalish couple -- I didn't remember that one right since as a matter of RP I can't make a case for my Wardens to get involved with it in the first place.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Jun 26, 2024 18:49:17 GMT
32,647
colfoley
17,295
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Mar 13, 2019 22:25:07 GMT
Is it better for the warriors to have received a bit of liquid courage before a showdown with an army of horrors, or is that an absolutely terrible idea? Is it best to get as many bodies into the field as at all possible, or just the ones with actual discipline who are there of their own will and can rely on each other? Would they fight more effectively convinced that they had some divine protection, or would that just encourage unnecessary risks and pointless heroics? Remember, those choices give real effect in-game. It's not a matter of opinion. The knights simply do fight better with the amulets. The militia simply does fight better with the ale. they do? It actually has an in game effect?
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,317
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,869
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Mar 13, 2019 22:27:48 GMT
Well, it increments a variable. I'm not 100% certain that the implementation of that variable works properly.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,070
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 Mar 14, 2019 1:07:08 GMT
You think so? Because from where I stand, BioWare has been bending over backwards to try and make issues like homophobic child abuse and genocide seem a lot more complicated than they actually are. If you mean you want a story where the nominal villain is presented as being possibly right, or whatever the fuck passes for MACHUUR NARTIV these days... when has BioWare ever done that? The Archdemon, Corypheus and the Reapers aren't what I would call complex. I'm curious, what do you mean by the genocide part? I guess the homophobic child abuse is probably Dorian. In DAO and DA2, you are given oppotunities to slaughter abused minority groups (Dalish elves in both games, and also a Circle of mages in DA2). That's already bad enough, to my mind, but on top of that, the game bends over backwards to try and make players feel like the choice to commit mass murder was somehow justified. Siding with the Templars in DA2 is particularly egregious. Meredith's argument is that 'the people will demand blood', but apparently NOT the blood of the mage who did THE BAD THING, if Hawke chooses to let him live. Just random, unrelated mage blood. Additionally, in the lore, they are constantly trying to make the relationship between elves and humans more 'complicated'. "The halamshiral elves didn't help out during Blight 2: Electric Boogaloo, those meanies!", "Actually the elves already fucked themselves up before humans ever came along, because we couldn't possibly risk angering our incredibly racist playerbase by implying that colonisation and the people who do it might be bad".
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,070
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 Mar 14, 2019 1:17:59 GMT
You think so? Because from where I stand, BioWare has been bending over backwards to try and make issues like homophobic child abuse and genocide seem a lot more complicated than they actually are. If you mean you want a story where the nominal villain is presented as being possibly right, or whatever the fuck passes for MACHUUR NARTIV these days... when has BioWare ever done that? The Archdemon, Corypheus and the Reapers aren't what I would call complex. you're kind of defeating your own argument. If BioWares villainous characters arent that complex then they aren't bending over backwards to make such issues complex. Besides what's wrong with, in a fictional context especially, adding nuance and complexity to people who do monstrous things as a vehicle to explore issues that are really touchy IRL? Its funny that i was thinking about this earlier but "the Last Resort of Good Men" might be one of my favorite quest titles in the series because it so perfectly encspsulates what is going on in the quest. You have Dorian, who I certainly think of as a good man, and you have his father. His father did something monstrous to Dorian, attempted to...but why? Because he cared for his son and was concerned he'd ruin his future. A choice he clearly came to regret later. Hence adding complexity to the situation. By all accounts he is a good man, but he did something bad... Which is kind of the theme of DA...well at least post Origins. Good men time and again doing horrible things because they feel they have no choice, are forced into it, and made a mistake. They try to make bigotry complex when the PLAYER is doing it. Simplistic villains are an unrelated issue. I've played Dorian's quest, thanks, and of course YOU find the issue 'complex'. But a lot of gay people (you know, the ones who have deal with abusive parents and reparative therapy IRL), particularly on this forum, find that whole quest abhorrent. The only gay person I've ever seen who thought it was a good idea was the one who wrote it.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Jun 26, 2024 18:49:17 GMT
32,647
colfoley
17,295
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Mar 14, 2019 1:27:44 GMT
you're kind of defeating your own argument. If BioWares villainous characters arent that complex then they aren't bending over backwards to make such issues complex. Besides what's wrong with, in a fictional context especially, adding nuance and complexity to people who do monstrous things as a vehicle to explore issues that are really touchy IRL? Its funny that i was thinking about this earlier but "the Last Resort of Good Men" might be one of my favorite quest titles in the series because it so perfectly encspsulates what is going on in the quest. You have Dorian, who I certainly think of as a good man, and you have his father. His father did something monstrous to Dorian, attempted to...but why? Because he cared for his son and was concerned he'd ruin his future. A choice he clearly came to regret later. Hence adding complexity to the situation. By all accounts he is a good man, but he did something bad... Which is kind of the theme of DA...well at least post Origins. Good men time and again doing horrible things because they feel they have no choice, are forced into it, and made a mistake. They try to make bigotry complex when the PLAYER is doing it. Simplistic villains are an unrelated issue. I've played Dorian's quest, thanks, and of course YOU find the issue 'complex'. But a lot of gay people (you know, the ones who have deal with abusive parents and reparative therapy IRL), particularly on this forum, find that whole quest abhorrent. The only gay person I've ever seen who thought it was a good idea was the one who wrote it. This is an RPG which means whatever choices players actually chooses to do is up to the player. As well as the complexity or lack of complexity of those choices. Like in said quest you don't have to side with Howard Pavus, you don't have to condone his actions, you don't have to get Dorian and him to reconcile. All this is up to your choice as the player. As is the motivations. A lot of players probably just chose to go 'bah so homophobic' and promptly kicked him to the curb and left. My Trevelyan had her own issues with her own family which made it difficult for her to encourage Dorian to reconcile with his father's, so she didn't. Motivations, character's biases lead to characters making choices. Which also just as well works with Meredith. Meredith is clearly 'a racist' and a very bigoted woman but the choice is their to give players the choice. You can side with her because you agree with her or you can believe they are stilla threat regardless. Whaever you want to do is up to you, the player. (Though personally I do agree that choice is not the best example of a 'good choice in an RPG)
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png)
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 2,001 Likes: 3,522
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,522
Noxluxe
2,001
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Mar 14, 2019 6:22:58 GMT
Is it better for the warriors to have received a bit of liquid courage before a showdown with an army of horrors, or is that an absolutely terrible idea? Is it best to get as many bodies into the field as at all possible, or just the ones with actual discipline who are there of their own will and can rely on each other? Would they fight more effectively convinced that they had some divine protection, or would that just encourage unnecessary risks and pointless heroics? Remember, those choices give real effect in-game. It's not a matter of opinion. The knights simply do fight better with the amulets. The militia simply does fight better with the ale. (I suppose the amulets might have a tradeoff if your Warden has a thing about honesty, though.) The more bodies thing might have been interesting, but since the additional recruits are more competent than the base volunteers, you're always better off recruiting everyone you can; you have mischaracterized the decision. I'll give you the Dalish couple -- I didn't remember that one right since as a matter of RP I can't make a case for my Wardens to get involved with it in the first place. That's funny, I've played that questline through maybe six or seven times over ten years, and I've never noticed any of those things making any particular difference to the outcome of the fight. If the mechanical benefits of one choice over another are so marginal as to be unnoticeable, I'm gonna go ahead and consider it a judgement call, and a role-playing opportunity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10921
0
Jun 26, 2024 18:50:22 GMT
Deleted
0
Jun 26, 2024 18:50:22 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 19:43:45 GMT
Oh, I did enjoy DAI, and I actually did lower my expectations about Bioware's games since the MET. However, since there *are* games that facilitate roleplaying better, and I've played them, IMO the comparable lack can legitimately be mentioned as a flaw. If I only enjoyed games I wouldn't criticize I'd better not play a single one more. ![:lol:](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/qUctXNjCPgwPaLsZeKry.png) Sorry about the delay in response, been busy. As a clarification, when I said adjusting expectations, I meant it exactly as so, without a connotation of demoting expectations. All the same, I have to say that nowadays I too have lowered my expectations about BioWare to a point, which I don't really have expectations on them anymore (not as a reaction to MET though). As for my standards, yes, my primary standard for judging CRPGs is how they facilitate roleplaying (since they're called rp games, I see justification for that), along with the quality of the story they tell and the worldbuilding. That's not to say I can't appreciate other qualities, but those are why I play the games in the first place. I can't pretend they aren't the most important. As for legitimacy of different standards, my emphasis was and still is that your standards should be anything you desire them to be, when the question is what you as an individual value in CRPGs. They can be extrapolated to other people, tied to some theoretical or artistic framework, or whatever, but it's not necessary in order them to be legitimate in that context. I see no valid reason to believe otherwise, unless there are absolute standards, which also happen to be knowable to us (maybe and no, although the question is not exactly in the realm of provable or verifiable). However, in any other context than strictly personal, I have to disagree that roleplaying* is justified as a defining or even necessary condition for determinating whether a game is a roleplaying game. Or as an universal meter which RPGs' value should be judged on (partly or entirely), nor that enabling this roleplaying is an essential purpose of all roleplaying games (RPGs and CRPGs alike). It's not without meaning or value, but it's not a founding principle or fundamental objective of the activity either. Having said that, I am well aware that no video game can be as good as a well-made tabletop campaign in this regard - and since I've been playing and mastering those for several decades, I know the moments of perfect roleplaying are rare even there. Here lies why I am increasingly more becoming indifferent to the whole roleplaying aspect in CRPGs. Simply put, strengths of medium lie elsewhere, and the novelty is wearing off. Broadly there's like what two or three methods games try to emulate roleplaying, and all are more or less ways trying to hide the fact, that they cannot truly do it. Illusions are all well and good for awhile, but at least I am becoming ever more conscious of them and their limitations. Hypothetically there could be ways to expand the genre for that direction, but I see little or no enthusiasm for pushing boundaries in that front anywhere. I suspect a lot of people don't really care, as I see it CRPGs have always been more about cargo culting RPGs, and people in general have always been satisfied with that (including myself). I think in the end one problem is that games often don't know what they want to be, or communicate that to me. It's all obfuscated by marketing-speak, telling everyone the newest game is the best thing since sliced bread. It's clear to me what a game like Pillars of Eternity wants to be, and I can judge it by its own standards (by which it comes out as very good, better than its successor in fact). I know what a game like Anthem wants to be, and know in advance it's not one I'd like to play, whether it succeeds by its own standard or not. I know what games like Dishonored, Deus Ex:Human Revolution or XCOM:EU want to be, and they succeeded well for me as well. Meanwhile, with Bioware's games after DAO, I'm not sure what they want to be. Bioware says they're Action-RPGs, but they don't appear to succeed very well in either compared to the paragons of either genre. Often I get the impression that Bioware wants to make an interactive B-movie with a few rpg fig leaves thrown in. I can agree that newer BioWare tittles do suffer from this type of misaligned identity, however I cannot really detect it from Mass Effect 2–3, or DA2. DAI and Andromeda for sure, perhaps even Anthem, but I don't know enough about it to form a definite judgement (it probably does, but I doubt I'll ever perform an autopsy on that one, and I am totally fine without knowing the ghastly details). As for marketing, is this BW specific problem? I am totally cynical about marketing, and as a whole try to ignore it entirely, so I wouldn't really know if BW's case is worse or better than average. Although, I don't see a relevance of marketing for a discussion like this. Marketing adds very little actual information about a product (or rather, it adds a lot of information, but there's no reliable way to separate what information turns out to be even remotely true. A really bad signal to noise ratio). Also, personally I've found out that it's predictive power is awful for trying find out whether I like a game or not (years ago, I roughly calculated correlation between games I had both played and exposed to their marketing, and overall result was like 0.3 or something similar). It's not like marketing is the only source of information about games, so I am perfectly content with ignoring it entirely. So, I am quite uninterested what BW has to say about its own games (or any dev for that matter). Is your problem with that they are interactive movies, or what kind of an interactive movie they are? I don't agree with characterization B-movie, but an interactive movie is not otherwise a bad descriptor of something like ME2 and ME3. (I presume you describe them as B-movies, because you find them to be silly, lighthearted and possibly campy?) Even though I don't really see how something like Deus Ex: Human Revolution wouldn't also be an interactive movie with a few rpg fig leaves thrown in. *As roughly something I defined in my previous post, an immersion to a particular character and then (self)expressing that character.
|
|
Sylvius the Mad
N3
![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/6576594/images/Cxe61tFipqUzASLV595U.png)
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 686 Likes: 740
inherit
1078
0
Jul 17, 2019 20:15:37 GMT
740
Sylvius the Mad
686
August 2016
sylvius
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Sylvius the Mad on Mar 14, 2019 19:49:56 GMT
Siding with the Templars in DA2 is particularly egregious. Meredith's argument is that 'the people will demand blood', but apparently NOT the blood of the mage who did THE BAD THING, if Hawke chooses to let him live. Just random, unrelated mage blood. That's what people are like, though. "Someone has to pay!" they'll shout, not caring particularly who that is as long as it's not them.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,317
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,869
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Mar 14, 2019 20:49:41 GMT
you're kind of defeating your own argument. If BioWares villainous characters arent that complex then they aren't bending over backwards to make such issues complex. Besides what's wrong with, in a fictional context especially, adding nuance and complexity to people who do monstrous things as a vehicle to explore issues that are really touchy IRL? Its funny that i was thinking about this earlier but "the Last Resort of Good Men" might be one of my favorite quest titles in the series because it so perfectly encspsulates what is going on in the quest. You have Dorian, who I certainly think of as a good man, and you have his father. His father did something monstrous to Dorian, attempted to...but why? Because he cared for his son and was concerned he'd ruin his future. A choice he clearly came to regret later. Hence adding complexity to the situation. By all accounts he is a good man, but he did something bad... Which is kind of the theme of DA...well at least post Origins. Good men time and again doing horrible things because they feel they have no choice, are forced into it, and made a mistake. They try to make bigotry complex when the PLAYER is doing it. Simplistic villains are an unrelated issue. I've played Dorian's quest, thanks, and of course YOU find the issue 'complex'. But a lot of gay people (you know, the ones who have deal with abusive parents and reparative therapy IRL), particularly on this forum, find that whole quest abhorrent. The only gay person I've ever seen who thought it was a good idea was the one who wrote it. Wasn't the situation supposed to be abhorrent?
|
|