244 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Liana Nighthawk wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I would have liked to have the option to keep the anvil but solicit a promise that it will only be used on VOLUNTEERS, maybe with Caradin staying alive (even though he doesn't want to) to make sure this is carried out.

Seriously? I get the feeling Optimus Caradin would have never gone along with that, it would have simply been history repeating itself.

Hence why this would be amazingly difficult to pull off.  But the circumstances would be slightly different.  Caridin is pretty tough to coerce, and he could simply not allow control rods for the new golems to be created, essentially creating a new "race" of free, self-willed golems.

Yeah, it'd be risky.  But there's no such thing as a zero-risk solution to ANYTHING.  Heck, even if you destroy the anvil you get the epilogue where people try to resurrect Caridin's research, so how is this significantly different?  In payoff, that's how.  You get golems (potentially, if there are volunteers) without the downside.

[CT-Fighter]

Third options should not be available always. There should be moments when you have no choice but to get your hands dirty. But of course they are great to have sometimes and it feels good to have done something the hard way, like saving both Connor and Isolde. But when there's always a way to do things perfectly, it starts to feel a bit lame...

[PsychoBlonde]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Third options are great, but they should have their own downside. For example, if you have to buy something expensive for the third option.

In most games the money issue isn't handled well, so "expensive" winds up becoming either something you can spare easily or something phenomenally annoying, either of which bothers somebody.

Ultimately, you can't please everybody.  You just can't.  So you have to decide what kind of game you want to make and then MAKE THAT GAME even though some people REALLY REALLY HATE IT with a WHITE HOT HATE.

If I were designing a game, I'd have a lot of emphasis on third option (and fourth, fifth, and sixth option stuff) because that's the way I like it.  (uh huh uh huh)  I'd also try some trope subversion, etc.  And I'd like to see some of that in DA2, sure, but I'm getting it either way because I'll like it even if it's not The Game I Would Have Made.

This thread reminded me of an interesting bit from Gothic, though, that I haven't really seen anywhere else.  You had to fight in an arena in order to join one of the camps, and there were basically 3 options of who you could challenge: the wimp, the competent dude, and the undefeated champion.  The wimp was basically a throwaway fight so you could practice fighting people (which was much different in Gothic from fighting monsters).  You didn't get much from fighting him.  The competent dude was, well, competent, and very difficult for a middling player to take down.  However, if you challenged the undefeated champion, he pretty much unilaterally kicked your ass.  No way to avoid it.  Yet this would win you enough respect to join the camp because you at least TRIED.

A lot of games have very binary choices not just in what you can do, but in how success is measured.  You're often trying to do something very binary where it's either a pass/fail.  Did you kill the boss?  Did you survive?  Did X person get killed?  I'd like to see some situations where success is not always measured by victory alone, too.

[Anakin1000]

Third option is good for Epic fantasy like D&D when there is good-vs-evil and white-black moral choices
Ultimate good option in Dark fantasy it's one big Mistake. Blood and (pseudo)violence doesn't make game dark fantasy. 

[PsychoBlonde]

CT-Fighter wrote...

Third options should not be available always. There should be moments when you have no choice but to get your hands dirty. But of course they are great to have sometimes and it feels good to have done something the hard way, like saving both Connor and Isolde. But when there's always a way to do things perfectly, it starts to feel a bit lame...

Actually, this ties in nicely with what I was talking about, below.  Maybe combine the third options with having to do something that the player might feel is a bit humiliating, like having to surrender or sleep with the bad guy--anything that will make the PLAYER squirm is enough of a bad feel to make even a third option seem like a non-obvious desirable choice, yah?

[Alodar]

I want to play a hero. I want my happy ending third options.

You can make it cost me personally as much as you want -- see the Ultimate S****** ending of DAO-- but I want the leave no-one behind, save 'em all options.

I like putting the heroic into dark heroic fantasy.


Alodar 

Modifié par Alodar, 11 novembre 2010 - 09:21 .

[Anakin1000]

Dark heroic fantasy doesn't exist ;]

RPG Purist Power! - just come back from Warhammer paperRPG session

[Tsuga C]

I'd be all for eliminating most Third Option choices that don't involve a serious consequence later in the game.  If you take the time to dot every "i" and cross every "t" when time is allegedly of the essence, something should rise up and bite you in the *ss down the road.  For all the much ballyhooed nastiness and "bad things happenning to good people", the excrement never really hit the fan in DA:O because there was generally a way to avoid making a truly tough call.

Time-dependent opportunities and quests should be denied to the player (Sorry, you arrived too late.) or the resolutions of the those quests need to be geometrically harder and less profittable.  Maybe a companion needs to die to drive home the point that the Player can't always afford the luxury of bending over backwards to please all parties.  This is supposed to be Dark Heroic Fantasy, right?  Well, what's so "dark 'n' gritty" about waving away all the tough choices?

Please minimize the number of Third Options and/or their in-game desirability for our protagonist.

[Nighteye2]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Third options are great, but they should have their own downside. For example, if you have to buy something expensive for the third option.

In most games the money issue isn't handled well, so "expensive" winds up becoming either something you can spare easily or something phenomenally annoying, either of which bothers somebody.

True, it should be supported by the game's money system, to be manageable yet also noticeable. It would've worked in DA:O, for example. If you make it so that you had to use the Lyrium you bought from the smuggler in Orzammar, picking the 3rd option would mean missing out on about 60 sovereigns. Enough to be noticeable in that you can't buy one of those expensive items until quite a bit later in the game - if at all.

PsychoBlonde wrote...
Ultimately, you can't please everybody.  You just can't.  So you have to decide what kind of game you want to make and then MAKE THAT GAME even though some people REALLY REALLY HATE IT with a WHITE HOT HATE.

If I were designing a game, I'd have a lot of emphasis on third option (and fourth, fifth, and sixth option stuff) because that's the way I like it.  (uh huh uh huh)  I'd also try some trope subversion, etc.  And I'd like to see some of that in DA2, sure, but I'm getting it either way because I'll like it even if it's not The Game I Would Have Made.

This thread reminded me of an interesting bit from Gothic, though, that I haven't really seen anywhere else.  You had to fight in an arena in order to join one of the camps, and there were basically 3 options of who you could challenge: the wimp, the competent dude, and the undefeated champion.  The wimp was basically a throwaway fight so you could practice fighting people (which was much different in Gothic from fighting monsters).  You didn't get much from fighting him.  The competent dude was, well, competent, and very difficult for a middling player to take down.  However, if you challenged the undefeated champion, he pretty much unilaterally kicked your ass.  No way to avoid it.  Yet this would win you enough respect to join the camp because you at least TRIED.

A lot of games have very binary choices not just in what you can do, but in how success is measured.  You're often trying to do something very binary where it's either a pass/fail.  Did you kill the boss?  Did you survive?  Did X person get killed?  I'd like to see some situations where success is not always measured by victory alone, too.

I would like to see such choices, too - also where failure in one quest opens op new quests, possibly alternate paths to an overarching quest arc.

[LexXxich]

Earn your happy ending!

[nightcobra]

LexXxich wrote...

Earn your happy ending!

but don't restrict it;)

[Crimson Invictus]

I can't help but notice that most people want the "third-option" to simply be an easy way to gain all the potential rewards from any given scenario rather than anything else.

[upsettingshorts]

Liana Nighthawk wrote...

I can't help but notice that most people want the "third-option" to simply be an easy way to gain all the potential rewards from any given scenario rather than anything else.

It's not so much a question of want, it's just the most common example cited happens to be Connor, and that's what the third-option was.

[PsychoBlonde]

Nighteye2 wrote...

I would like to see such choices, too - also where failure in one quest opens op new quests, possibly alternate paths to an overarching quest arc.

I tell you I would have LOVED it in Origins if, when you get the quest to go rescue Anora, you could actually follow up on that "It's a trap" line and just refuse to go do it.  Then, maybe you wind up with a scene where Ser Cauthrien shows up at Arl Eamon's estate to arrest you because you refusing to push the issue with Anora got Loghain thinking you were weak and he could risk moving against you directly--something along those lines.

It would have been more interesting, to me, than the tiresome "Yeah it looks like a trap let me go stick my head in it and . . . hey it's Ser Cauthrien come to arrest me what a shock."

[Pzykozis]

I'm fairly simple when it comes to this.. no I don't want it, then again I'm a fan of dark fantasy, 'grim dark' settings, hard sci-fi and cyberpunk. Don't get me wrong I like a bit of low / high fantasy but their worlds are generally silly, the great evil that wants to destroy the world just 'cause it can despite killing itself if it wins etc.

I find it silly to choose any other option from a roleplaying point of view though;

Oh hey mister! You can kill me or my mum or you can save us both whilst also fulfilling one of your other quests!

Well, son I'm sorry I have a penchant for killing kids and you're the only one around... *murder knife*

Modifié par Pzykozis, 11 novembre 2010 - 10:33 .

[Xallah]

I'm totally for the third option and i'm always choosing it. I love playing a good character and making everyone happy, finding the ideal solutions. I just need it. It brings rest to my saul and just nice feelings.



I've got enough tough decisions in life, even life/death ones and I wish i could always find these third options in life. Sadly I fail here sometimes.



But i'm awfully glad that at least in games i've a chance to make a perfect jorney and make everyone happy. If someone want to play different they have the choice, so everyone can have experience they want from the game. And i'm not sure i'm realy to lose some nerver over a decision in the game like kill this or kill this.



So i'm for it. I'm sure i'm not the only one who plays games for positive emotions, so regrdless of how many people choose other options. I opt for the third option to be always present. At least for people like me. Please...

[Crimson Invictus]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
It's not so much a question of want, it's just the most common example cited happens to be Connor, and that's what the third-option was.

I must admit I disagree, I'm relatively certain I'm capable of differentiating between examples citing what happened in DA:O and what people are saying they would like the third option to allow them to achieve.

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 12 novembre 2010 - 01:26 .

[Malanek]

Xallah wrote...

I'm totally for the third option and i'm always choosing it. I love playing a good character and making everyone happy, finding the ideal solutions. I just need it. It brings rest to my saul and just nice feelings.

I've got enough tough decisions in life, even life/death ones and I wish i could always find these third options in life. Sadly I fail here sometimes.

But i'm awfully glad that at least in games i've a chance to make a perfect jorney and make everyone happy. If someone want to play different they have the choice, so everyone can have experience they want from the game. And i'm not sure i'm realy to lose some nerver over a decision in the game like kill this or kill this.

So i'm for it. I'm sure i'm not the only one who plays games for positive emotions, so regrdless of how many people choose other options. I opt for the third option to be always present. At least for people like me. Please...

I'm not advocating making the game incredibly bleak. The hero is a hero. They should ultimately be able to come out on top most of the time, I have no problem with that. But when the writers want to put in a tough choice, having the third option means it isn't a choice at all and it certainly isn't tough. And this might sound cheesy but it is all about contrast. If you suffer some failure along they way success, can be even more satisfying.

[Eveangaline]

I think I'd like a third option where it's feasable. But not where it isn't. I liked Orzamar because you had to make tough decisions, and you could elect an evil person that would make everything better, or you could elect a good person who would make things worse. You could preserve the anvil to fight the blight, maybe even only make willing gollums like shale, or destroy it, there was no middle ground there.



However, I loved the nature of the beast quest, because you got a chance to end the cycle of violence, you got to be merciful. It made sense there.



Yeah for the conner situation that was a bit of a cop out, there should have been some consequences to going to the mages tower, even if it was conner doing another attack on the village.



Basically I want third options...sometimes.

[soteria]

I know if I had to pay for the lyrium the circle tower needed to send a mage to the Fade, that option wouldn't look nearly so palatable. At least, assuming it was expensive, like 40g or something. To me the key to a good "third option" is that someone has to pay for a solution that solves everything. It doesn't necessarily have to be the player that "pays" (it wasn't, in the elf/werewolf choice) but it shouldn't come cheap.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I was playing a player-made mod for DA:O earlier tonight where my party fought a darkspawn incursion past Ostagar. There were way too many darkspawn, I even started lagging a bit with forty on the screen at once! After saving a NPC, I was gifted with one response in dialogue, something to the jist of "I am not afraid of death, I will meet it head on" which of course would likely be the last thing my character would of said at that point. I'm spoiled when I get the second option...but a third...now I love seeing that! In fact the top of my head blows off, steam shoots out and merry-go-round music starts playing just at the concept.



Ahem...There are a few places in DA:O where it would of been nice to have the third option. Sometimes it is not possible, sometimes it is needed. Regardless, I support this thread.

[TJPags]

Third options are nice - when they make sense. But when they're nothing but happy happy joy joy, everyone lives happily ever after, nobody gets hurt options, particularly when they suspend reason, their silly.



As others have said, going to the mage tower should have consequences. The demon should have done something, and someone should have died - make it random, maybe isolde, maybe teagan, maybe one of the knights, etc. Maybe connor himself dies - maybe the demon escapes in his body, ot posseses someone else and escapes. The fact that nothing happens while you go to the Tower, and perhaps (if you haven't done it yet) clear the Tower of it's problems, suspends reason.



So that's kind of a dumb third choice.



As for the werewolves, that one I like. The option makes sense to me, game wise, and there IS a bit of a consequence - Zathrien dies. However, that doesn't really affect the player . . . .so it's borderline.



Basically, I like 'best solutions' but they should be hard to come by, and should mean something.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I would of settled for the third option being a cut scene of Jowan being drawn and quartered while he whined out another excuse....okay that sounded heartless. I just really don't like Jowan! Good writing and voice acting are to blame I guess.