302 réponses à ce sujet

[Hulk Hsieh]

LaurenIsSoMosh wrote...
You know exactly what we're talking about.

After the test run, players are given two options: continue preparing with unwanted consequences, or go in unprepared with other unwanted consequences. Whichever option chosen results in unwanted consequences.

Players are not physically forced through the relay, but giving players a choice that black and white is a lose/lose. It might as well be forcing, because either option chosen is probable to end in frustration.

Actually, we don't know the consquence of delaying the mission unless we cheat, so we aren't aware if it is a lose/lose situation when doing the choice. So no, we are not forced.

We can do what we like, and we'll have to take the result. Isn't that what RPG is all about?

[elearon1]

>>some games put disclaimers up when the plot is forced to move ahead. maybe they need that for mass effect?<<



You cannot be serious. You want the game to hold your hand and tell you when it is okay to do a mission - why don't we just have it warn you when a fight might be tougher than you expect, or a decision in a dialog tree might not lead to an outcome you like. Hell, let's put a button in the game that cues up the next part of the story at our convenience. I could not be more disappointed in the people complaining about this - maybe, just maybe this will give you a reason for a second playthrough? I ... just .. wow.

[wizardryforever]

I really don't see the problem here.  The only two missions that you can't delay (without metagaming) are Horizon and the Collector Ship.  Every other story mission, including recruitment missions, loyalty missions, the IFF mission, and the Suicide mission can all be done whenever you're ready.  And recruitment and loyalty missions can largely be done in whatever order you choose.  This by you is too linear?

Really, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on when you complain that the IFF mission (which is very clearly part of the plot) moves the plot forward.  If you are given the choice as to when to complete a plot mission, that's a clear indication to take your time and do everything else you want to do first.  I had no trouble comprehending this on my first playthrough (without spoiling myself too).  It seems to me that sandbox type game like the Elder Scrolls games are meant for people that like to adventure, but don't really care why.  They want to do their own thing, without some pesky story getting all up in their face.  There's nothing wrong with that, but anyone who wants a story driven RPG is going to have to deal with the story on its terms.

[SojournerN7]

I prefer what Boware has done here for ME2. Instead of the main plot being put on hold while you explore the galaxy, you get to see the consequences of inaction which in my opinion delivers a more immersive experience in a "race against time" sort of way.

[AlanC9]

 Shouldn't the thread title have been "Don't  Redcliffe me, Bro"?

[LaurenIsSoMosh]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...
Actually, we don't know the consquence of delaying the mission unless we cheat, so we aren't aware if it is a lose/lose situation when doing the choice. So no, we are not forced.

Player awareness has nothing to do with it. Just because players might not know about it does not justify it or make it any less of a lose/lose situation.

We can do what we like, and we'll have to take the result. Isn't that what RPG is all about?

RPGs are about giving players the freedom to make their own choices and then deal with the consequences. The IFF test run is about the player having no control and watching Joker make a choice, and the player dealing with the consequences.

Defend it if you care to, but that whole situation is the result of something the player has no control over. Is that your ideal RPG?

[AlanC9]

LaurenIsSoMosh wrote...

After the test run, players are given two options: continue preparing with unwanted consequences, or go in unprepared with other unwanted consequences. Whichever option chosen results in unwanted consequences.

Players are not physically forced through the relay, but giving players a choice that black and white is a lose/lose. It might as well be forcing, because either option chosen is probable to end in frustration.

Are you really saying that players should never be faced with consequences that they don't want? I can't be reading this right.

Or is is that players should always have complete control over every aspect of their situation?

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 juin 2010 - 04:46 .

[LaurenIsSoMosh]

AlanC9 wrote...
Are you really saying that players should never be faced with consequences that they don't want? I can't be reading this right.

If those consequences conflict with the game design, absolutely yes.

Or is it that players should always have complete control over every aspect of their situation?

That is the most basic and simultaneously paramount element of video games. Control. Are you really saying that should be taken away?

[AlanC9]

slimgrin wrote...
Thats an awfully black and white interpretation of his post.  

But judging from the reply it seems to nevertheless be a correct interpretation.

[Hulk Hsieh]

LaurenIsSoMosh wrote...
Player awareness has nothing to do with it. Just because players might not know about it does not justify it or make it any less of a lose/lose situation.

RPGs are about giving players the freedom to make their own choices and then deal with the consequences. The IFF test run is about the player having no control and watching Joker make a choice, and the player dealing with the consequences.

Defend it if you care to, but that whole situation is the result of something the player has no control over. Is that your ideal RPG?

The lose/lose thing is debatable. The players that want to be perfectly prepared can get what they want. The players that want to go into the relay at once can get what they want. And without cheating, players have total freedom to choose among the two.

IFF is "poisoned" by the collectors, and this is a plot point.
If you want to have freedom in this, you'll have to have the options of "if the Collectors poisoned the IFF".
That means we need to be game writers so we can control the actions of enemies so we can have the freedom you want.

[AlanC9]

LaurenIsSoMosh wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Are you really saying that players should never be faced with consequences that they don't want? I can't be reading this right.

If those consequences conflict with the game design, absolutely yes.

I'm not quite clear what you mean here by "conflict with the game design."

Or is it that players should always have complete control over every aspect of their situation?

That is the most basic and simultaneously paramount element of video games. Control. Are you really saying that should be taken away?

Exactly so. The player should have whatever control his character would have, and no more. Games should not be restricted to stories about protagonists with total freedom

[LaurenIsSoMosh]

AlanC9 wrote...
But judging from the reply it seems to nevertheless be a correct interpretation.

It's more or less incorrect, actually. Sim pointed out your entirely too plain interpretation of a highly complex and context-sensitive issue.

Consequence is not a bad thing for everything, ever, the end. In this particular scenario, it is. But in other scenarios, so long as it does not conflict with game design principles, it's a green light.

I'm not quite clear what you mean here by "conflict with the game design."

BioWare: "We have to stop the Collectors. Take your time and get ready."
BioWare: "lol no time to get ready we does Horizon LIEK RITE NAO!"
BioWare: "Okay, just pulling your leg. Keep recruiting dudes and getting ready. This mission is too important to go in unprepared."
BioWare: "Prepared? No? POP QUIZ: PEW PEW PEW EDITION!"
BioWare: "Okay, we were just joking again, but we got the lol out and now we're Why So Serious again. In good faith, we'll even give you the option to take the third mission whenever you want."
BioWare: "lol 4got to mention now that this is finished your shoehorned into Omega 4. Pfft fft fft."

From a purely story perspective, BioWare was constantly conflicting with itself, jumping back and forth between "this is too important to rush" and "RUSH RUSH RUSH."

From a game design perspective, BioWare forced the player into situations they might not have been prepared for just for the sake of the story. The story conflicts with the game design. I'm not sure how you're unclear with it.

Modifié par LaurenIsSoMosh, 27 juin 2010 - 05:38 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

What forced mission are we talking about in regards to Redcliffe.



Also seriously the forced missions in ME 2 (both of them) are such a non-issue.

[Throw_this_away]

Lets look at this with a historical perspective (to see modern ME2 relevance, swap US for Shep, England/Allies for TIM/Galaxy, and Japan/Axis/Germany for Reapers/Collectors)

England: Wow the Axis forces are really destroying us here...
US: Sucks for you.
England: We sure could use some help stopping the German invasion...
US: Really? Too bad you are running out of men.
England: You seen to have a lot of men... and building capacity...
US: But you have no oil.
England: But what about the lives that would be saved by defeating the Axis forces?
US: Not our problem.
Japan: US. We just sunk your Battleships.
US: You will regret this Axis forces!!!
England: About damn time...

Modifié par Throw_this_away, 27 juin 2010 - 05:46 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Also preparation for Horizon and the CV?



LOL



Maybe if you know, ME was actually hard.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Lets see when I went to Redcliffe it gave me the option of staying and helping out or leaving and not helping.



Where's the beef OP?

[Christmas Ape]

BioWare: "We have to stop the Collectors. Take your time and get ready."

BioWare: "lol no time to get ready we does Horizon LIEK RITE NAO!"

You are given a chunk of the main story - the first six recruitments - and at the end, something happens. Did you actually not see that coming?

BioWare: "Okay, just pulling your leg. Keep recruiting dudes and getting ready. This mission is too important to go in unprepared."

BioWare: "Prepared? No? POP QUIZ: PEW PEW PEW EDITION!"

Fortunately, that "mission that is too important to go in unprepared" is not the next 'scripted' mission. This is just griping to gripe about the scripted missions.

BioWare: "Okay, we were just joking again, but we got the lol out and now we're Why So Serious again. In good faith, we'll even give you the option to take the third mission whenever you want."

BioWare: "lol 4got to mention now that this is finished your shoehorned into Omega 4. Pfft fft fft."

You don't really know what "shoehorned" means, do you? I'll give you a hint. It does not mean "presented with a choice that has consequences".

[AlanC9]

LaurenIsSoMosh wrote...
From a game design perspective, BioWare forced the player into situations they might not have been prepared for just for the sake of the story. The story conflicts with the game design. I'm not sure how you're unclear with it.

Getting forced into situations you're not prepared for is the sort of thing that happens to heroes. A lot. I don't see why this is a problem in a game.

[Christmas Ape]

Was there a disturbance in the Force? Could you feel someone say something positive about ME2's story elements and had to balance the Great Wheel?

[Onyx Jaguar]

Awakening did a good job in making a decision actually affect things. ME 1, 2 and DA felt mostly cosmetic to me. Sure you could choose different factions to ally with in DA but the end result was the same. In Awakening however you had a pretty big consequence or your actions.

[Twisted-Indoctrine]

LaurenIsSoMosh wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
But judging from the reply it seems to nevertheless be a correct interpretation.

It's more or less incorrect, actually. Sim pointed out your entirely too plain interpretation of a highly complex and context-sensitive issue.

Consequence is not a bad thing for everything, ever, the end. In this particular scenario, it is. But in other scenarios, so long as it does not conflict with game design principles, it's a green light.

I'm not quite clear what you mean here by "conflict with the game design."

Useless conversations bit omitted.

From a purely story perspective, BioWare was constantly conflicting with itself, jumping back and forth between "this is too important to rush" and "RUSH RUSH RUSH."

From a game design perspective, BioWare forced the player into situations they might not have been prepared for just for the sake of the story. The story conflicts with the game design. I'm not sure how you're unclear with it.

All of that is rendered meaningless if you consider the possiblity that it was intentional for that to occur.

Sometimes real life, espeically in the military, is just like that. While it may seem like "Sloppy game design" from a purely analytical breakdown of game play, if you consider it from a purely narrative plot mechanic it works very well. While it's not explicitly explained to you "If you don't do this now everyone will die!!!!" it is made abundently clear that delaying will hav consequences. You are not rushed, you are warned and as a commander - who you are role-playing - you have to make the decision toeither forego a more solid footing for the assault or to take your time and forego the lives of others if you wait.

It makes a lot of sense, and it's very good game design from the perspective of the role your character is playing - a captain of a starship whose decisions effect the lives of his crew for better or worse, and who must for better or worse, bear the weight of those decisions.

I'm sorry some players don't like it and cosider it "Lazy game design" but I think it was actually really good in so far as immersion went - which with a roleplaying game I'd argue is more important at times than the gameplay itself if it furthers the initial design objective (role-playing).

[LaurenIsSoMosh]

Christmas Ape wrote...
You are given a chunk of the main story - the first six recruitments - and at the end, something happens. Did you actually not see that coming?

If you follow the natural progression of the story with no prior knowledge of what will happen, you can assume you're building your team. The Illusive Man stresses the need for Mordin to complete a counter-measure, but there's no sufficient hint that, upon gathering a small squad, you're going to be teleported to a colony invasion. It's unpredictable.

Fortunately, that "mission that is too important to go in unprepared" is not the next 'scripted' mission. This is just griping to gripe about the scripted missions.

First and foremost, the conflict of themes is still there. The Illusive Man tells you to continue building your squad, which is quickly contradicted by a surprise visit from him and a mandatory field trip.

Secondly, the player is still forced into it, and, unlike Horizon, this mission doesn't trigger after you run out of stuff to do, making it all the more unpredictable than previous scripted missions.

You don't really know what "shoehorned" means, do you? I'll give you a hint. It does not mean "presented with a choice that has consequences".

Shoehorned - to be forced to be included or admitted.

Like I've said, you are not physically forced through the relay, but is being slammed with penalties really any more acceptable?

I don't get where you've come to this conclusion that we're presented with a choice that has consequences. There is no choice. There are only the consequences, both of which are undesirable.

Modifié par LaurenIsSoMosh, 27 juin 2010 - 06:25 .