129 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

Whatever you say, cupcake.

[Il Divo]

Yrkoon wrote...

Then you haven't done many quests.  Or you're just lying.

There's like 4 different ways to deal with the Civil war *alone*.  

1) Imperials.

2) Stormcloaks.

What ways am I missing?

[DiebytheSword]

I would purchase an expansion to DAII.

[Il Divo]

DiebytheSword wrote...

I would purchase an expansion to DAII.

As would I. Not my favorite Bioware game, but I had fun while the experience lasted. I would want a more satisfying closing than Hawke disappearing from Thedas.

[Il Divo]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

That was the only quest I remember having a real choice component to it anyway.

Likewise. Even there, I found the actual faction quest-lines to be disappointing, especially given how much Skyrim builds up the Stormcloak/Empire conflict. Bethesda did this great job building up this atmosphere, but then forgot to make the actual civil war interesting.

[Yrkoon]

Il Divo wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Then you haven't done many quests.  Or you're just lying.

There's like 4 different ways to deal with the Civil war *alone*.  

1) Imperials.

2) Stormcloaks.

What ways am I missing?

3.  Truce
4.  Not getting involved at all.

Cthulhu42 wrote...

That was the only quest I remember having a real choice component to it anyway.

There's also Blades vs. Greybeards/Paarthunax

And The Dark Brotherhood has a Myriad of choices to affect the final outcome.

Edit:  And the Companions quest line has a major protagonist-defining Choice at the end of it too.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 11 janvier 2012 - 03:39 .

[DiebytheSword]

Il Divo wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

I would purchase an expansion to DAII.

As would I. Not my favorite Bioware game, but I had fun while the experience lasted. I would want a more satisfying closing than Hawke disappearing from Thedas.

Indeed, and I'm annoyed that they did that to the Warden as well.  In a perfect world, I would have both return in DA3 as quite a bit more than a cameo.

It was a flawed game, but enjoyable for me despite them.  I had fun playing through multiple times.

[Il Divo]

Yrkoon wrote...

3.  Truce
4.  Not getting involved at all.

3) Assuming the player decides to forego the main quest, which as I recall is meant to represent a temporary state of affairs. That's not exactly the conclusive sort of choice one would hope for. Now if we actually could convince both Tullius and Ulfric to completely abandon the war, I would agree.

4) Then we're not exactly dealing with the Civil War.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 janvier 2012 - 03:41 .

[DiebytheSword]

Il Divo wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

3.  Truce
4.  Not getting involved at all.

3) Assuming the player decides to forego the main quest, which as I recall is meant to represent a temporary state of affairs. That's not exactly the conclusive sort of choice one would hope for. Now if we actually could convince both Tullius and Ulfric to completely abandon the war, I would agree.

4) Then we're not exactly dealing with the Civil War.

And it totally skips the 5th and 6th ways to deal with it. 

5) Turning off your console and selling the game to a used game retailer.

6) Becoming both a game writer and a time traveller and . . .

I'm sorry, but the last two options are one at the very best, and as Il Divo suggests, that is not a choice so much as not making a choice.

[Yrkoon]

Il Divo wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

3.  Truce
4.  Not getting involved at all.

3) Assuming the player decides to forego the main quest,

No.  The opposite.  You get the Truce choice by  just doing the main quest.  You get to the point where Parthunaax tells you to trap a dragon  in Whiterun.  So you go to the Jarl in whiterun, and he tells you that  he won't allow it until the two sides stop fighting.  At that point, you have the option to bring both sides to the Greybeards to hammer out a truce.
 

which as I recall is meant to represent a temporary state of affairs. That's not exactly the conclusive sort of choice one would hope for. Now if we actually could convince both Tullius and Ulfric to completely abandon the war, I would agree.

That's irrelevant.  The claim of linearity and NO CHOICE was made.  Which is false.

4) Then we're not exactly dealing with the Civil War.

Choosing to not get involved in the civil war is still a choice.  And choosing to carry out your  character's plans  in the face of a continuous civil war is Still dealing with it.

[Il Divo]

Yrkoon wrote...

No.  The opposite.  You get the Truce choice by  just doing the main quest.  You get to the point where Parthunaax tells you to trap a dragon  in Whiterun.  So you go to the Jarl in whiterun, and he tells you that  he won't allow it until the two sides stop fighting.  At that point, you have the option to bring both sides to the Greybeards to hammer out a truce.

Replay that scene. The truce is only "official" in so far as the Dragonborn sets out to stop Alduin. Once Alduin is done, all bets are off. It's an incredibly weak method of "dealing" with the conflict; the player merely postpones it.  

Choosing to not get involved in the civil war is still a choice.  And choosing to carry out your  character's plans  in the face of a continuous civil war is Still dealing with it.

Yeah, a bad one. The kind of choice that has no narrative significance and involves the developers not doing anything, and which can be said to exist in any game ever made, to the point where it's not worth mentioning.
 
"So, this is an RPG, right? What kind of options do I have in dealing with the civil war?"
"Well, you can complete the quest....or not complete it. "

This is not the kind of choices and consequences which we should be encouraging if we actually want developers to create halfway decent content. Any quest in any RPG can be said to have the option of "not doing it".

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 janvier 2012 - 04:16 .

[SkittlesKat96]

Yrkoon wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
Then you haven't played Skyrim.

Just admit it.

I'm not going to admit to something that isn't true. I'v played the game and that's what every quest i've done has been like.

Then you haven't done many quests.  Or you're just lying.

There's like 4 different ways to deal with the Civil war *alone*.  

I like Skyrim but the story in Skyrim was mediocre (worse than DA 2 actually) and the combat is a bit of a non-unique boring hack and slash with bad difficulty pacing and there are hardly any consequences for the things you do, there is one thing you can do specifically in Skyrim that is really, really, really, really big yet it hardly effects the game at all (don't want to spoil it, its apart of a sub-factions quest. Speaking of which the sub-factions were terrible.)

Fallout: New Vegas on the other hand was great and did a lot of the things Skyrim did wrong right (though Skyrim was a move forward too in a lot of areas.)

Modifié par SkittlesKat96, 11 janvier 2012 - 05:56 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Hrm, I sense a disturbance in the force in this thread, and it begins somewhere near the point that someone managed to start an argument by saying Skyrim was 1-2 hours long and linear.

Il Divo wrote...

Yeah, a bad one. The kind of choice that has no narrative significance and involves the developers not doing anything, and which can be said to exist in any game ever made, to the point where it's not worth mentioning.

OK, what?

You do understand that you being able to not do the main quest and play on doing other stuff anyway is something the developers and designers have had to do some work to achieve, right?

As for this existing in every game, no it doesn't, obviously, and unless just exiting to desktop or even doing  side-quests in a non-explorable worl d is functionally equivalent to this, it exists in only a few games.

"So, this is an RPG, right? What kind of options do I have in dealing with the civil war?"
"Well, you can complete the quest....or not complete it. "

This is not the kind of choices and consequences which we should be encouraging if we actually want developers to create halfway decent content. Any quest in any RPG can be said to have the option of "not doing it".

No, there is taking a side, there is seeing a truce, there is keeping a low profile and doing your menial job whilst hoping it will all pan out OK, there's running away and hiding, throwing yourself off a cliff in despair if you want to etc. There don't seem to be very many things a character might do in response to a civil war that aren't allowed.

I obviously don't have to explain to you that the main quest can't complete itself in your absence because timed main quests wreck the non-linear mechanic TES games use, right?

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 11 janvier 2012 - 09:21 .

[Yrkoon]

Il Divo wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

No.  The opposite.  You get the Truce choice by  just doing the main quest.  You get to the point where Parthunaax tells you to trap a dragon  in Whiterun.  So you go to the Jarl in whiterun, and he tells you that  he won't allow it until the two sides stop fighting.  At that point, you have the option to bring both sides to the Greybeards to hammer out a truce.

Replay that scene. The truce is only "official" in so far as the Dragonborn sets out to stop Alduin. Once Alduin is done, all bets are off. It's an incredibly weak method of "dealing" with the conflict; the player merely postpones it. 

Do I have to get out the dictionary and paste the definition of Choice for you?  Whether it's a "good" choice or a "weak" choice is Irrelevant.  It's a Choice.  Period.  And one that ends up having permanent repercussions in the game  (do the truce route as mentioned and  Maven Black-Briar becomes the new  Jarl of Riften.  permanently.  And Markarth becomes a Stormcloack city.  permanently.  Without any blood-letting

Choosing to not get involved in the civil war is still a choice. [/b] And choosing to carry out your  character's plans  in the face of a continuous civil war is Still dealing with it.

Yeah, a bad one.

Because that's what we were discussing: whether or not the game has only  massive good choices.  Right?

Enough with the goal-post moving.    The  claim  was made that  ALL the quests in Skyrim are linear and contain NO choice.  This is ludicrously false.    Your character is Flooded with Choices at every turn in Skyrim.    The Choices begin in the tutorial and don't stop  for the duration of the game,  regardless of the paths you take.

And we haven't even discussed the 3 or 4 choices you get during the truce  talks,   Or the choices you get  if you side with the Blades.  Because  such a discussion would take days.  Because that's how deep  and huge Skyrim is.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 11 janvier 2012 - 12:17 .

[Wulfram]

Oh, good, we needed another Skyrim thread.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Gunderic wrote...

Do people still want to listen to atrocious writing like "I like big boats. I cannot lie" or "Life is a catch. I suggest you catch it while you can" (wtf)?

Yes. And a lot more Varric too. 

[sangy]

Where did all this Skyrim stuff come from? Nooooooooo.....

Wait...what's this?

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

I'd like a DA2 expansion pack that is a preview of the changes coming in DA3. I think the most important improvement would real jiggly boobies for character like Isabela. Other things I'd like to see are the unique appearance, variable gear we've heard rumors of.

But mostly the boobies.

LOL.  Ok, nevermind.  This is clearly the important part of a DA2 expansion.  Cheers! 

[Il Divo]

Yrkoon wrote...

Do I have to get out the dictionary and paste the definition of Choice for you?  Whether it's a "good" choice or a "weak" choice is Irrelevant.  It's a Choice.  Period.  And one that ends up having permanent repercussions in the game  (do the truce route as mentioned and  Maven Black-Briar becomes the new  Jarl of Riften.  permanently.  And Markarth becomes a Stormcloack city.  permanently.  Without any blood-letting

Hold onto that dictionary. You'll need it. There are no permanent repercussions, aside from the Civil War factions. Here's a hint: once the main quest is done, officially-speaking, war is back on. That's not dealing with the conflict.

Because that's what we were discussing: whether or not the game has only  massive good choices.  Right?

Enough with the goal-post moving.    The  claim  was made that  ALL the quests in Skyrim are linear and contain NO choice.  This is ludicrously false.    Your character is Flooded with Choices at every turn in Skyrim.    The Choices begin in the tutorial and don't stop  for the duration of the game,  regardless of the paths you take.

And we haven't even discussed the 3 or 4 choices you get during the truce  talks,  

Cut the crap. With that kind of thinking, I might have thought that you had a hand in Dragon Age 2's advertising. That's right up there with "awesome button" and "Rise to Power", in terms of nonsensical. You want to advocate for Skyrim's choices? By all means. But pretending that not doing something is a choice is a notoriously bad effort. Go try applying that logic to any videogame. You always have the choice of "not doing something", in any game. If there's no repercussions, then it's meaningless. I could stand outside the Gallows and pretend that Hawke is protesting against the Templars. It doesn't mean anything will come of it. And it's not what complaints refer to when they ask for choices of value in gaming. Reading comprehension goes a long way.

 

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 janvier 2012 - 02:34 .

[Yrkoon]

Il Divo wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Do I have to get out the dictionary and paste the definition of Choice for you?  Whether it's a "good" choice or a "weak" choice is Irrelevant.  It's a Choice.  Period.  And one that ends up having permanent repercussions in the game  (do the truce route as mentioned and  Maven Black-Briar becomes the new  Jarl of Riften.  permanently.  And Markarth becomes a Stormcloack city.  permanently.  Without any blood-letting

Hold onto that dictionary. You'll need it. There are no permanent repercussions, aside from the Civil War factions. Here's a hint: once the main quest is done, officially-speaking, war is back on. That's not dealing with the conflict.

 If you are implying that Maven Black-Briar is removed from her Riften Jarl position after the main quest is completed, you're....Wrong.   Once the truce talks get her there,  She stays.  permanently.   If you are implying that the Truce option allows you to  complete the main quest without putting an end to the civil war outright, well, by golly, you're right.  (and congrats! Even though no one here ever claimed otherwise)  Which means it's  a...choice... One who's outcome differs from  choosing to side with Stormcloacks or Imperials. 

That and,  try as you might, you still won't ever  overcome the fact that opting for a Truce is a choice.  A main questline choice in fact, which, as you point out,  actually results in a completely different   route   you can take in the story.

Cut the crap. With that kind of thinking, I might have thought that you had a hand in Dragon Age 2's advertising. That's right up there with "awesome button" and "Rise to Power", in terms of nonsensical. You want to advocate for Skyrim's choices? By all means. But pretending that not doing something is a choice is a notoriously bad effort. Go try applying that logic to any videogame. You always have the choice of "not doing something", in any game. If there's no repercussions, then it's meaningless. I could stand outside the Gallows and pretend that Hawke is protesting against the Templars. It doesn't mean anything will come of it. And it's not what complaints refer to when they ask for choices of value in gaming. Reading comprehension goes a long way.

 

You have no  argument, and you know it.   There are hundreds upon hundreds of decisions you can make in skyrim's quests which all  lead to different outcomes depending on your choices.    We've yet to  even scratch the surface here.   The Azura's Star quest  (for example) has two utterly different outcomes based on who you choose to return it to.  Calvicus Vile's Quest has 2 different outcomes depending on what you do to Barbas.  You  can choose to wipe out the Dark Brotherhood (as a Quest), or you can join  them and do about a dozen quests in their line.  And even within the DB there are choices that matter  (will you kill Cicero as Astrid Orders? or do you spare him and get to use him as a companion later?)  Vaermina's quest can end in two utterly different ways as well, depending on your final choice  (spare the quest giver, or side with Vaermina?)  Ditto with  Hermaeus Mora's  quest.  Ditto with the Alik'r Quest.   etc.

In every single one of these examples, the  Objectives change, the outcomes change, the rewards change.  Is more required in order to fit your bizzare definition of Choice??

We'll  delve further into the  various  mutations  avaliable in the main quest  (Blades vs. Paarthenax,   the Truce talks, etc.) Later

Modifié par Yrkoon, 11 janvier 2012 - 04:23 .

[G00N3R7883]

Expansion > DLC.

Make it so.

[Il Divo]

Yrkoon wrote...

If you are implying that Maven Black-Briar is removed from her Riften Jarl position after the main quest is completed, you're....Wrong.   Once the truce talks get her there,  She stays.  permanently.   If you are implying that the Truce option allows you to  complete the main quest without putting an end to the civil war outright, well, by golly, you're right.  (and congrats! Even though no one here ever claimed otherwise)  Which means it's  a...choice... One who's outcome differs from  choosing to side with Stormcloacks or Imperials. 

That and,  try as you might, you still won't ever  overcome the fact that opting for a Truce is a choice.  A main questline choice in fact, which, as you point out,  actually results in a completely different  outcome than choosing  one of the two sides.  

I'm outright indicating that the Dragonborn hasn't concluded anything, which makes it weak as a demonstration of "choice". Kill Ulfric, destabilizing the Stormcloaks? I've dealt with the Civil War. Kill Tullius, likewise. An option to diplomatically negotiate peace for the people of Skyrim? If it existed, that would also be an option. Another option to kill both leaders and plunge Skyrim into complete anarchy? Then we're getting into methods of actually "dealing with" the conflict, by offering some sort of a conclusion to. The truce is essentially the player hitting the pause button until the main quest is completed, after which the player hasn't done anything important.   

You have no  argument, and you know it.   There are hundreds upon hundreds of decisions you can make in skyrim's quests which all  lead to different outcomes depending on your choices.    We've yet to  even scratch the surface here.   The Azura's Star quest  (for example) has two utterly different outcomes based on who you choose to return it to.  Calvicus Vile's Quest has 2 different outcomes depending on what you do to Barbas.  You  can choose to wipe out the Dark Brotherhood (as a Quest), or you can join  them and do about a dozen quests in their line.  And even within the DB there are choices that matter  (will you kill Cicero as Astrid Orders? or do you spare him and get to use him as a companion later?)  Vaermina's quest can end in two utterly different ways as well, depending on your final choice  (spare the quest giver, or side with Vaermina?)  Ditto with  Hermaeus Mora's  quest.  Ditto with the Alik'r Quest.   etc.

In every single one of these examples, the  Objectives change, the outcomes change, the rewards change.  Is more required in order to fit your bizzare definition of Choice??

We'll  delve further into the  various  mutations  avaliable in the main quest  (Blades vs. Paarthenax,   the Truce talks, etc.) Later

That's great, but not particularly relevant. Where did I say or imply that Skyrim offered no choices? You attempted to give your position more credit than it deserves, by asserting that the Civil War had 4 different options, while (snidely) implying that the poster had never played Skyrim, part of which was because he was unaware that he had the option to (wait for it).... not do a quest.

Again, reading comrephension goes a long way. If someone says to you "I want chicken parmesan", they're not actually asking for a raw chicken with a bit of grated cheese thrown on top. If someone says they don't like playing corridor shooters where the only option is to go forward, they're aware that they can technically go backward. If someone claims that there's only one way to deal with a conflict (what they called linear), they're fully aware that they can just "not do it", which is an option which every video game since the dawn of time has offered, but does not address the criticism they are levying. Hobson's Choice is not what people are asking for.

You would have been better off listing everything you just did, if your point was that Skyrim offers a myriad of ways to engage in choices & consequences.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 janvier 2012 - 04:33 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Yrkoon wrote...

The world of expansion packs.    Most people don't purchase expansion packs.   And  the   avaliable market is a lot smaller already  due to the   fact that they require the Original.  So basically take the gaming world.  Subtract Everyone who Didn't Buy the Original title.      That narrows things down to about 5 million  (or whatever DA:O's sales were.)    After you do that,   You have to narrow the pool further:   Only  those who bought and   *liked* the parent game  will ever buy  an  expansion pack for it.

After that, you've got  what remains:  a  small fraction of the Original's sales.  That's the pool you have to work with.  And of that pool, only a modest percentage will shell out 30-40 bucks for a non-full title.

I believe 5% is the standard.  And Awakening beat that.

"Only those who bought and liked the parent game will ever buy a expansion."  That statement, without further clarification, eludes to only 355,000 liking Origins.  I know, that's a rather asinine assumption, but there are some who will erronesouly use that in their comparisons.

For those who would use Awakenings sales numbers in stating Origins was a failure (it's crazy, but I've seen people do that):

After you limit the potentenial customers to the 4.8M who bought Origins, you have to take away people who  did not like Origins.  The base is further thinned because some people have no interest in expansions in general.  From that you have the people who liked Origins but did not like what little Awakenings brought to the table.  That's when you have people who liked Origins, enjoy expansions, and liked Awakenings.

It is, of course, impossible to quantify those numbers.  From the lack of customer complaints and the number of threads that praise the game, I think we can safely assume Origins had a hugely satsified audience, but even with that, the potential customers is extremely limited, as Yrkoon said.

Modifié par google_calasade, 11 janvier 2012 - 05:01 .

[Yrkoon]

Il Divo wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

If you are implying that Maven Black-Briar is removed from her Riften Jarl position after the main quest is completed, you're....Wrong.   Once the truce talks get her there,  She stays.  permanently.   If you are implying that the Truce option allows you to  complete the main quest without putting an end to the civil war outright, well, by golly, you're right.  (and congrats! Even though no one here ever claimed otherwise)  Which means it's  a...choice... One who's outcome differs from  choosing to side with Stormcloacks or Imperials. 

That and,  try as you might, you still won't ever  overcome the fact that opting for a Truce is a choice.  A main questline choice in fact, which, as you point out,  actually results in a completely different  outcome than choosing  one of the two sides.  

I'm outright indicating that the Dragonborn hasn't concluded anything

 Again, Congrats.  I'm sure there's an imaginary forum  poster  out there who  was arguing otherwise, and  Damn, you sure showed  them.  But here in reality, your "point" is  flat out irrelevant.  Choices are still Choices, even when they're bad ones that don't  'save the day!, or  "bring complete closure"   (more on that below.)

 

which makes it weak as a demonstration of "choice".

Bull Sh***.     It's a powerful demonstration of a very clever  freedom *and* choice if you're role playing, say, a High Elf who wants both sides to continue fighting their primitive little war until they  kill each other off, but does realize the very real *world* threat that Alduin poses.    Taking the truce route allows you to deal with Alduin while maintaining the war. Or, if you're  simply roleplaying a Dovakiin,  who cares about Dova-things.  and therefore doesn't give a crap about the petty political squabbles  of non-dova, and never did.    To that end, taking a truce route is the obvious choice.  It's the pragmatic means to an end.

You have no  argument, and you know it.   There are hundreds upon hundreds of decisions you can make in skyrim's quests which all  lead to different outcomes depending on your choices.    We've yet to  even scratch the surface here.   The Azura's Star quest  (for example) has two utterly different outcomes based on who you choose to return it to.  Calvicus Vile's Quest has 2 different outcomes depending on what you do to Barbas.  You  can choose to wipe out the Dark Brotherhood (as a Quest), or you can join  them and do about a dozen quests in their line.  And even within the DB there are choices that matter  (will you kill Cicero as Astrid Orders? or do you spare him and get to use him as a companion later?)  Vaermina's quest can end in two utterly different ways as well, depending on your final choice  (spare the quest giver, or side with Vaermina?)  Ditto with  Hermaeus Mora's  quest.  Ditto with the Alik'r Quest.   etc.

In every single one of these examples, the  Objectives change, the outcomes change, the rewards change.  Is more required in order to fit your bizzare definition of Choice??

We'll  delve further into the  various  mutations  avaliable in the main quest  (Blades vs. Paarthenax,   the Truce talks, etc.) Later

That's great, but not particularly relevant.

Indeed, posting examples of  actual  in-game quest Choice  in Skyrim  in a discussion where someone is claiming that there's   none    is....  not particularly  relevant.  LOL

Where did I say or imply that Skyrim offered no choices?

If you agree that Skyrim's quests are absolutely littered with Choice, then   you're right.  And we shouldn't be wasting our time with this discussion.  

But....

 You attempted to give your position more credit than it deserves, by asserting that the Civil War had 4 different options, while (snidely) implying that the poster had never played Skyrim, part of which was because he was unaware that he had the option to (wait for it).... not do a quest.

When there's  a bunch of choices  in a main quest line and one of those choices is  inaction/non-conclusion,  then YES, it's a choice.  If you can Kill  a game's Primary Boss while side-stepping a huge and multi-layered part of the main questline, it's not only a choice, it's a big Choice.  A choice that the Devs  specifically allowed the player to  have.  It's also a rare and refreshing Choice  that   we very seldom see in RPGs.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 11 janvier 2012 - 05:28 .