44 réponses à ce sujet

[dmtzcain]

 Are you
willing to pay $60 for a game with one third of the content in comparison to DA:O;
In exchange for truly unique story lines with meaningful choices and consequences?

For example: if you
choose not to save a city, that city will be destroyed and you won’t be able to
experience all the quests/companions/items/events from that city; but an equal
amount of content will be presented for a raced city scenario. In the
end, because game content is finite, we will end up not experiencing half or
more of the content in one play through.

A game with
this kind of truly diverse story lines would be huge, but each player will only
experience a fraction of all the content. Are you willing to accept this trade
off?

[whykikyouwhy]

Considering that I botched the whole potential with Lothering in DA:O (finished the Urn quest prior to returning to the village), I would say yes, I would probably pay $60 for such an experience. At the very least, when I look to buy a game, I want a compelling story. Give me that and my wallet is already in hand.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Depends. Don't see why you have to sacrifice both, DAO did it pretty well. There were choices that definitely had meaning, and possible long term consequences. One thing, I think that would help is getting rid of canned, voice protagonists, since they seem to take up alot of game resource and content that I would rather see spent on enriching the story, plot, graphics, and other things.

[TheChris92]

A game, with a great storyline, can come in all shapes and forms. An interesting storyline can keep me pinned all the way. Its length doesn't really matter to me, as short stories can still give me plenty of enjoyment. A one and a half hour film could certainly astound me more then a 3 hour film. =)

[LobselVith8]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Depends. Don't see why you have to sacrifice both, DAO did it pretty well. There were choices that definitely had meaning, and possible long term consequences. One thing, I think that would help is getting rid of canned, voice protagonists, since they seem to take up alot of game resource and content that I would rather see spent on enriching the story, plot, graphics, and other things.

I agree. I'd prefer to see the resources spent on paying a VA to read lines for the protagonist instead put into the actual storyline, so the protagonist can have meaningful choices avaliable throughout the narrative. I also have no interest in hearing an actor say something entirely different than the line of dialogue I chose for my character to say, especially in a game that's supposed to be an RPG.

[jlb524]

I assume by 'meaningful' choices you are talking about the ability to 'change the world'?

I'm personally a very 'Player Character focused' RPG player. I'd prefer to have more freedom in designing my character through different choices (be it in classes/skills/abilities, in personality similar to DA2, or with relationships the PC has with others in the world) than with being able to make some choices that lead to different world changing outcomes. If my choices to build a character are interesting and varied, I'm usually fine with more linear stories (as long as it's decently interesting). This is why I like DA2, of course.

Now, I wouldn't mind if they added in more of these 'meaningful choices' as long as it wouldn't limit choices in constructing a PC. Usually, it does. For example, I won't touch a game like 'The Witcher' regardless of how good its main story or branching decisions are because I'm stuck playing some dude that's not my creation.

[Zjarcal]

jlb524 wrote...

I assume by 'meaningful' choices you are talking about the ability to 'change the world'?

I'm personally a very 'Player Character focused' RPG player. I'd prefer to have more freedom in designing my character through different choices (be it in classes/skills/abilities, in personality similar to DA2, or with relationships the PC has with others in the world) than with being able to make some choices that lead to different world changing outcomes. If my choices to build a character are interesting and varied, I'm usually fine with more linear stories (as long as it's decently interesting). This is why I like DA2, of course.

Now, I wouldn't mind if they added in more of these 'meaningful choices' as long as it wouldn't limit choices in constructing a PC. Usually, it does. For example, I won't touch a game like 'The Witcher' regardless of how good its main story or branching decisions are because I'm stuck playing some dude that's not my creation.

I could add my own two cents, but this conveys them perfectly.

[Jade5233]

@Chris:  I agree

Filament wrote...

The argument could be made that diverging content is a waste of resources if I'm the kind of person who only plays through a game one time. I'd rather they put the effort into really polishing up the one path than offering a bunch of other paths I'll never see anyway.

I would agree with you, except that most of the people that I know that play BioWare games, play them over and over and over.  Most choices and diverging paths means more replay value--that you can play several times and always see something new.

[Dragoonlordz]

No, I would like to pay $60 for a game and the same level (maybe even more) content as DAO with truly unique story lines with meaningful choices and consequences... Common sense I think and the two things don't have to be one or the other, just spend more time making it.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 10 août 2011 - 08:06 .

[phaonica]

I think a shorter game with more branches could work for me. Legacy was short, but there were plenty of in-game hints that if you'd brought a different party that different side stories would play out. I played Legacy over and over because each time I brought different characters, new content was revealed. And because it was short, I could do this and not get bored playing the unchanging content over and over. I think a shorter game with more choice-driven, narrative branches could be cool.

[Cuthlan]

No. If the choice is one or the other, I'll take the longer game with less meaningful choices. History has shown that too many significant choices just causes trouble when sequels come along anyway, and they wind up getting ignored.

[Pygmalin]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Depends. Don't see why you have to sacrifice both, DAO did it pretty well. There were choices that definitely had meaning, and possible long term consequences. One thing, I think that would help is getting rid of canned, voice protagonists, since they seem to take up alot of game resource and content that I would rather see spent on enriching the story, plot, graphics, and other things.

Here Here. I don't see why there needs to the sacrifice when Bioware has already proven that they can do both. 
With that said, a better story and different outcomes to choices, yes. Content wise, with all of the fetch quests this game has they could cut that out about Half if not more and add to the story, and that would not be a sacrifice but an improvement. 

Not trying to be cynical, but the fetch quests were truly a waste of space. 

[rak72]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Depends. Don't see why you have to sacrifice both, DAO did it pretty well. There were choices that definitely had meaning, and possible long term consequences. One thing, I think that would help is getting rid of canned, voice protagonists, since they seem to take up alot of game resource and content that I would rather see spent on enriching the story, plot, graphics, and other things.

I agree. I'd prefer to see the resources spent on paying a VA to read lines for the protagonist instead put into the actual storyline, so the protagonist can have meaningful choices avaliable throughout the narrative. I also have no interest in hearing an actor say something entirely different than the line of dialogue I chose for my character to say, especially in a game that's supposed to be an RPG.

this^

Dragoonlordz wrote...

No, I would like to pay $60 for a
game and the same level (maybe even more) content as DAO with truly
unique story lines with meaningful choices and consequences... Common
sense I think and the two things don't have to be one or the other, just
spend more time making it.

^ this

Pygmalin wrote...


Here Here. I don't see why there needs to the sacrifice when Bioware has already proven that they can do both. 
With
that said, a better story and different outcomes to choices, yes.
Content wise, with all of the fetch quests this game has they could cut
that out about Half if not more and add to the story, and that would not
be a sacrifice but an improvement. 

Not trying to be cynical, but the fetch quests were truly a waste of space. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png[/smilie]

and this^

Modifié par rak72, 10 août 2011 - 09:11 .

[Zjarcal]

Pygmalin wrote...
Not trying to be cynical, but the fetch quests were truly a waste of space.

While I agree that those quests were meaningless, their inclusion in the game does not take away from anything because there is virtually no effort involved by including them. They could've added 10 more in probably an hour or two. Write small journal entry, place item in x location, place NPC in other location and give them generic dialogue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

So removing them would not really give them time to create more meaningful content, because the time spent on them was minimal.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 10 août 2011 - 09:30 .

[Dave of Canada]

I'd rather want personal choices than meaningful ones, so I'm fine with more content and less meaningful choices. DA2 was perfectly fine with me.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 août 2011 - 09:27 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

What I consider meaningful choices with meaningful consequences, have different content according to choice, that change the game. That means that meaningful choices need more content.

If you mean less content per playthrough, but more content in general, then yes I am all for it. Only example I know of is TW2. One playthrough took me 45 hours, but there was a lot of content I did not experience at all based on my choice. To fully experience the game and understand the story, I needed 2 playthroughts, so 90 hours.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 août 2011 - 09:48 .

[Porenferser]

Yes.
Alpha Protocoll and The Witcher 2 show how much fun games with really meaningfull choices are.
And you have to consider the replay value.
A game that has only 15 hours gameplay, but can be played 4 times without getting bore is better then a game with 40 hours of gameplay with no real descisions at all.

[Sepewrath]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

No, I would like to pay $60 for a game and the same level (maybe even more) content as DAO with truly unique story lines with meaningful choices and consequences... Common sense I think and the two things don't have to be one or the other, just spend more time making it.

Well there are really only two ways to handle it, one is the InFamous way, where like say your playing a good Cole, the evil missions disappear, everytime you do a good one. Those choices would technically matter, by most people's estimations, but they really don't. Its you just do X or Y but none of it really matters in the long run. Basically your just playing for the good or bad ending that is either decided halfway through the game or by one ultimate choice that disregards everything else you did.

The second is the way Origins did it, where it generalizes the hell out the story so that it can fit just about anything you do. Origins was so bad with the generalization, that if you took your Warden completely out of the game, you wouldn't miss a beat. You could just plug in Alistair and the game would play out pretty much the same. If you have to sacrifice a PC that matters to the story, for the sake of a plethora of choices, that ultimately don't matter either, I by far prefer the DA2 style.

[AloraKast]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

What I consider meaningful choices with meaningful consequences, have different content according to choice, that change the game. That means that meaningful choices need more content.

If you mean less content per playthrough, but more content in general, then yes I am all for it. Only example I know of is TW2. One playthrough took me 45 hours, but there was a lot of content I did not experience at all based on my choice. To fully experience the game and understand the story, I needed 2 playthroughts, so 90 hours.

Like KoP said...

Also, personally I do prefer quality over quantity and I am definitelly looking for that high impact, meaning experience also on a personal level. While I may be... let's say.. not entirely pleased about my fabulous adventure ending too soon, I much prefer the adventure however long it lasts to be of high quality.

And what you describe, the only experience I have to draw upon is The Witcher 2 and I enjoy that experience very much indeed... because my adventure does not end with my first playthrough, but rather I immediatelly dive right back in and begin another playthrough just to experience those different meaningful paths I did not get to the first time around due to my choices... and I do so with great excitement, so I view it as one continuous adventure, rather than a second or third playthrough... just like KoP describes.

[Vormaerin]

The OP would have to say what they mean by "meaningful choices". If you mean "choices that significantly alter the story prior to the epilogue," then I think I'd rather not. Bioware has never yet made a game like that and I don't really see any percentage in getting them to go that far out of their wheelhouse. I like the games they do make.

If you mean something like BG2, where you can only do 80% of the content on any given playthrough, but the story stays intact pretty much regardless (Witcher series is like this, also), then I wouldn't mind that.

But I much prefer DA2's unique character with a careful, personalized story to DAO's generic plotline with a faceless, irrelevant protagonist.

[Rifneno]

I'd imagine the OP just finished Witcher 2.  Let me explain for the readers who haven't played it (and you should.  now.):  In trying to keep spoilers to a minimum, I'll be as vague as possible.  There's 3 chapters to the game, just like DA2.   At the end of Chapter 1, you're given a choice. Depending on whether you choose A or B, Chapter 2 will be vastly different.  Your overall goal will be the same, Geralt is tasked with breaking an incredibly powerful curse.  But you'll be in different cities, interacting with different people.  Major characters on one side will be virtually unknown to you on the other.  The side quests are different, everything is different.  It isn't like DAO's choice of saving or destroying the anvil of the void & who to crown king of Orzammar, it's more like if the dwarves and elves hated each other to the point that you had to choose between doing Paragon of Her Kind to recruit the dwarves or Nature of the Beast to recruit the elves.  Chapter 3 is also very different, but not quite as much as 2.

But, as a consequence of the two paths being wildly different, a single playthrough of the game is much shorter.  I'd estimate about 35 hours rather than the usual 50ish for an RPG.  Which is fair, they don't owe us twice the content because they gave us branching paths.

[Zanallen]

I would be fine with it, though I prefer personal or companion choices over world reaching choices. It is one thing that I feel that TW2 handled very well.

[esper]

Rifneno wrote...

I'd imagine the OP just finished Witcher 2.  Let me explain for the readers who haven't played it (and you should.  now.):  In trying to keep spoilers to a minimum, I'll be as vague as possible.  There's 3 chapters to the game, just like DA2.   At the end of Chapter 1, you're given a choice. Depending on whether you choose A or B, Chapter 2 will be vastly different.  Your overall goal will be the same, Geralt is tasked with breaking an incredibly powerful curse.  But you'll be in different cities, interacting with different people.  Major characters on one side will be virtually unknown to you on the other.  The side quests are different, everything is different.  It isn't like DAO's choice of saving or destroying the anvil of the void & who to crown king of Orzammar, it's more like if the dwarves and elves hated each other to the point that you had to choose between doing Paragon of Her Kind to recruit the dwarves or Nature of the Beast to recruit the elves.  Chapter 3 is also very different, but not quite as much as 2.

But, as a consequence of the two paths being wildly different, a single playthrough of the game is much shorter.  I'd estimate about 35 hours rather than the usual 50ish for an RPG.  Which is fair, they don't owe us twice the content because they gave us branching paths.

I don't know. I think that may be too much branching. Espacially if you end up in the same place anyway which is how i have heard the withcer 2 is supposed to end.  I think I would prefer it if the NPC's and companions acted different depending on choices, and quests not whole arc branched out differently. Else I might feel that I was getting cheated from content... It is a though choice, though.

[devSin]

No. I would rather the paths be long and entertaining than mutually-exclusive just to make you feel like your immediate decision has impact (or so you can play it one more time making the choice you normally wouldn't).