Dragon Age: Spoiler free

[Slargos]

It's a problem with nearly all Computer games that make moral choices.  One of the problems is that there rarely is a reason to do an evil act in a computer RPG.  When doing good thing rewards you with power and money what's the point of doing evil?

True.  Moral choices are not about good and evil.  They are about being selfish versus acting as you would want others to act towards you; individualism versus communalism.

Individualism should have an immediate positive, gratifying outcome, and a long-term negative impact on how others see you, and communalism should have the opposite.  Which choice would produce the net best outcome should be random with each playing of the game.

You can have fun without this, of course.  I went through maybe my third playing of Fallout 3 saying, at each decision-point, "What Would Dirty Harry Do?"  It was fun, because it made me do things I didn't necessarily want to do (like mock the Megaton Sheriff) but wasn't "evil just to be evil."

I was in a foul mood the other day while playing Fallout, and when this abrasive fucking scientist started ragging on me about how unfair things were, at the water purifier, I pulled out my trusted shotgun and gave him one in the face. I imagine the look on his face would've been quite surprised had he retained a face with which to display a look.

Very gratifying.

But yeah, that is essentially the problem with Dragon Age "morality" choices I feel. It's not a real attempt at giving the player realistic options.

[sbr]

I haven't played Dragon Age yet but I have had the same  feeling in many other RPGs.  I was playing Jade Empire and trying to be evil, but it seem to me most of the "evil" choices so far are just being a jack-ass, not really evil.

[Valmy]

I haven't played Dragon Age yet but I have had the same  feeling in many other RPGs.  I was playing Jade Empire and trying to be evil, but it seem to me most of the "evil" choices so far are just being a jack-ass, not really evil.

Well in Dragon Age is more like Mass Effect.  You are either ruthless or compassionate in trying to achieve your goals...but you are still trying to achieve the same goal which is a good one.  You cannot really become an evil overlord like in KOTOR.

In this game you just sorta have to accept you are the hero but are you an altruistic hero or an anti-hero?

[crazy canuck]

In this game you just sorta have to accept you are the hero but are you an altruistic hero or an anti-hero?

I think that is the main thing that made me bored with the game.  When I realized that there is no separate paths dependant on actions but that everyone does pretty much the same thing it became just one repetitive battle after another.

[Valmy]

I think that is the main thing that made me bored with the game.  When I realized that there is no separate paths dependant on actions but that everyone does pretty much the same thing it became just one repetitive battle after another.

I think that is ridiculously unfair and absurd hyperbole to point of being a blatant lie...but this is the spoiler free board...

[Razgovory]

It's a problem with nearly all Computer games that make moral choices.  One of the problems is that there rarely is a reason to do an evil act in a computer RPG.  When doing good thing rewards you with power and money what's the point of doing evil?

True.  Moral choices are not about good and evil.  They are about being selfish versus acting as you would want others to act towards you; individualism versus communalism.

Individualism should have an immediate positive, gratifying outcome, and a long-term negative impact on how others see you, and communalism should have the opposite.  Which choice would produce the net best outcome should be random with each playing of the game.

You can have fun without this, of course.  I went through maybe my third playing of Fallout 3 saying, at each decision-point, "What Would Dirty Harry Do?"  It was fun, because it made me do things I didn't necessarily want to do (like mock the Megaton Sheriff) but wasn't "evil just to be evil."

I think we are same page here, though our ethical outlooks probably differ.  I see it as good and evil.  The problem is with all role playing games though.  John the Paladin, Paul the neutral thief, and Ringo the evil wizard each go up levels at the same time.  Though John makes personal sacrifices and lives by a moral code, Paul does what seems best to him at any given time and Ringo sells with his soul and cavorts with demons and the undead at the end of the day they are all 5th level and theoretically equally powerful.  Good should be hard and have few rewards.  Evil should be easy with lots of rewards.  The problem is of course that would be unbalancing.

[Pedrito]

I think we are same page here, though our ethical outlooks probably differ.  I see it as good and evil.  The problem is with all role playing games though.  John the Paladin, Paul the neutral thief, and Ringo the evil wizard each go up levels at the same time.  Though John makes personal sacrifices and lives by a moral code, Paul does what seems best to him at any given time and Ringo sells with his soul and cavorts with demons and the undead at the end of the day they are all 5th level and theoretically equally powerful.  Good should be hard and have few rewards.  Evil should be easy with lots of rewards.  The problem is of course that would be unbalancing.

...no love for George? 

L.

[Slargos]

In a world with magic and one supposes active deities, it's not necessarily thus that being good would have few rewards.

[grumbler]

In a world with magic and one supposes active deities, it's not necessarily thus that being good would have few rewards.

Raz was noting that this is the way it should be - so that players are rewarded for playing a style that is against their own inclinations.  I think he is right; nothing is more fun in an RPG than the feeling that your character is not you, but just someone you control (or, even better, that you sometimes just observe in horror as the character does things you dislike).

[grumbler]

I think that is the main thing that made me bored with the game.  When I realized that there is no separate paths dependant on actions but that everyone does pretty much the same thing it became just one repetitive battle after another.

I think that is ridiculously unfair and absurd hyperbole to point of being a blatant lie...but this is the spoiler free board...

I presume that this is an attempt at humor via hyperbole...

[Razgovory]

In a world with magic and one supposes active deities, it's not necessarily thus that being good would have few rewards.

This is an observation about RPGs in general not just one in particular.  It applies to any setting.

[LaCroix]

i thought i remember reading somewhere once that in bioware games (haven't played dragon age, so i don't know about in this game), the good option offers more experience while being evil gives better rewards

[Razgovory]

That is often the case.  Still offering to walk an old lady across the street in return for either superpowers or wealth isn't really much of a choice between good and evil.

[crazy canuck]

I think that is the main thing that made me bored with the game.  When I realized that there is no separate paths dependant on actions but that everyone does pretty much the same thing it became just one repetitive battle after another.

I think that is ridiculously unfair and absurd hyperbole to point of being a blatant lie...but this is the spoiler free board...

[MadImmortalMan]

Individualism should have an immediate positive, gratifying outcome, and a long-term negative impact on how others see you, and communalism should have the opposite.  Which choice would produce the net best outcome should be random with each playing of the game.

Wouldn't that which is better for you in the long-run by definition be the individualist option? That which is better for the person making the choice, I mean. The immediate, gratifying one is more like the short-sighted option. The difference is not in what is good for you, but in what you perceive is good for you.