12 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Reading some of the complaining about the ME3 ending, it occurred to me that in an effort to create difficult choices, many of the decisions points in these games are becoming *ridiculous* instead, because I think the methodology for creating an actually difficult choice is really lacking.

So, let me start out by defining my terms.  A difficult choice is one where the player has some emotional uneasiness about the choices presented.  A ridiculous choice is one where that emotional uneasiness is engendered by them asking the question: "WHY are these my only options?"  

Now, I'll grant you that different choices are going to appear differently to different people.  The better the design on the lead-up to the choice option, though, the fewer people will find it completely ridiculous.  So it's really more of a continuum than a switch.

In Origins, *most* of the choices weren't difficult OR ridiculous.  Generally there was a goodish choice (that didn't result in you murdering/oppressing tons of dudes), and a badish choice (that did).  The Nice Choice and the Jerk Choice.  Now, this is a perfectly fine setup that has worked in many games, but it's becoming obvious that this is Not What Bioware Wants.  They want more ambiguity.  But instead of creating ambiguity, they're creating absurdity.  It's funny, because The Gaider sets up some reasonably decent conflicts in his *books* (the latest one anyway), but it didn't really get translated to DA2.

Let's use the whole Isabela/Arishok thing for an example.  Now, I found the very last part of the confrontation with the Arishok to be flat-out ridiculous largely because of one thing: if Izzy comes in with the book, she hands it right to the Arishok.  This is stupid beyond belief and sets up the really absurd decision that follows: Turn Izzy over, or kill the Arishok.  Whut?  Oh, Izzy handed over our ONE BIT OF LEVERAGE.  Nice going.

Now, there are a *lot* of things that could have gone to make this conflict non-ridiculous without even changing the setup.  Telegraph a little better that the Arishok was just plain spoiling for a fight, so he made a ridiculous demand ON PURPOSE.  Or you could very slightly change the setup: have Izzy hand the book to Hawke.  Now, if the Arishok demands Izzy, Hawke can say, "or, I can turn this book to ash right here."  Or go back a little bit further--let Hawke talk to the elven refugees, expose them for murderous cowards.  Or let Hawke lambaste Aveline for not following up on the rumors before accosting the Arishok.  Or, if you don't want to do any of those things, telegraph a little bit better why Hawke was *unable* or *unwilling* to do them.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to tell a story that involves people being crazy, irrational, and putting the protagonist in an untenable position where no choice is correct.  But it becomes absurd when it's the protagonist putting THEMSELVES in that position because they have no proper judgment or influence.

Now, you can do this in a novel, because you can create a protagonist with poor judgment and lack of influence.  You can even do it in a standard video game story.  But in an RPG, it's really necessary to allow the protagonist to exercise good judgment and use their influence.  You can have that judgment go awry, you can have their influence not work out as expected.  But let them have the power, even if it means you get a goofy sweetness and light resolution which you're trying to avoid.

Now, if you're a REAL master, you can even avoid THAT.  Here's an example:  What to do about Connor in Origins.  Now, some people didn't like this scenario because there was an obvious "good way out" where you didn't have to kill anybody.  Well, maybe not super-obvious (there were ways to make it not work out, or accidentally bypass it), but reasonably obvious so most people wouldn't bother with the killing-somebody method.

So how do you tart it up to make it a conflict as well as a decision?  Here's some options:

1.  Telegraph that Connor's Mom (who's name I'm totally blanking on, oh well), is a horrible mother who is twisting her son into an entitled ****.  She volunteers to die . . . and she's sure that her sacrifice will cement her place in Connor's heart and make sure he turns into the kind of monster she was working for.  Now the player possibly has a quandry if he decides to kill her.  If you leave her alive, it may be worse than killing her.  But if you kill her, that might be bad TOO.  (Aside from just the kiling part.)

2.  Telegraph that Connor actively sought the demon out to make the deal, and that he wasn't just a naive kid who got hoodwinked, he's fascinated by demons and will probably continue his involvement with them even if you get him out from under the thumb of this particular demon.  Quandry.

3.  If you go to the Circle Tower, you can save Connor and whatsername--but Redcliffe Village gets wiped out while you're away.  BIG BIG QUANDRY.

4.  If you're absolutely determined to have an overall everbody-gets-saved option (my preference), make it so that if the player completed the Circle storyline FIRST, they can make it back in enough time to save Redcliffe, Connor, AND whatshername.  And now you have total freedom to screw with the player in the epilogue/sequels, because there's no way of knowing what Connor/whatshername might turn into regardless.  Everybody wins.  Player has agency to make the decision.  All decisions are fraught with quandry or problems, and you don't get as badly wedged into Canon Difficulty.  Heck, there's *no reason* to have Canon Difficulty at all--you can even bring the dead characters back as demon-possessed Zombie versions.

Of course, this is all hindsight and thus 20/20.  Still, I figure it might be fun if you take your most-hated Ridiculous Choice, explain WHY it was ridiculous, and offer some options for how to make it Difficult instead of Ridiculous.  Keep in mind that the R and D values of a given choice depend a lot on your personal context/interest, so no going around harshing people about what they consider D or R unless they actually have the facts wrong.

Also keep in mind that there are literally infinite ways to slightly alter a situation to change the Conflict Value, and yes, some will be more compelling than others to different people. 

[DarkAmaranth1966]

I agree, too often in DA2 we are left with Bad, Wrong, Dumb and just plain disastrous for choices. Where is the good, responsible or smart choice?

Even the ending - Okay Anders blows up the chantry, you kill Anders, why is that not enough for Meredith, surely a public announcement of the fact that the culprit had been executed would be enough to sate the nobles. That, to me was simply a way to end the game in a hurry.

Had Anders death been enough, then you would have the task of changing Meredith's opinions or ousting her through less violent means, discovering she had the lyrium idol ****** sword and, getting it from her, or killing her without involving every mage and templar in Kirkwall.

[GavrielKay]

They could have had one nicely difficult choice if Anders had been honest about what he was doing in Act 3. You could have Hawke choose to help bomb the Chantry and work towards freeing the mages, or kill Anders right then and prevent the whole thing.

Or rework it so that it's meant to be a distraction for the Templars after the RoA is called, to give your party a chance to sneak in to the Gallows to fight for the mages. Something you can do if you're willing to sacrifice whoever happens to be in the Chantry. Say, if you do it, you can save many mages, if you don't do it, you fight your way through the Gallows just in time to challenge Meredith. And if you're pro-Templar you could bomb the Gallows instead if you're willing to sacrifice some Templars in the process?

Or, have Cullen actually do something if you tell him about Anders' plan, knowing that Anders will be tortured and probably Tranquiled because of it.

Or, you can talk Anders into trying to assassinate Meredith instead, with the risk of getting caught?

Lots of possibilities that don't involve being duped by a party member and left looking shocked when the building goes boom.

[Plaintiff]

DA:O actually undermined most of the "difficult" choices by providing a third option that benefited everyone. And the ROA wasn't a difficult choice at all.

I think the choices in DA2, for the most part, make perfect sense. I notice that the people posting so far have said things like "We could've done X if Y was Z".

But Y isn't Z. Y is Y. Anders is going to lie to you, and Meredith is going to be a psycho ****. The characters are the way they are, the situation is what it is. However nonsensical the story might be (and I do not think it is), it makes even less sense to give players the power to change the parameters.

[Lord Gremlin]

Hm, the problem is - difficult choice is subjective. Completely subjective. For me, Connor situation was obviously the way to consort with a demon and make a deal with it.
As for DA2 ending mentioned above that was a disaster all around, that screamed "budget was small so we made one crap ending for every choice you make". I've already had a problem with my blood mage character forced to do idiotic stuff during story, but in the end the whole story simply became stupid. Extremely so. And contradicted with gameplay. For example, why Orsino is turning harvester if mages are winning? It's just plain stupid. Well, I don't have a problem with an idiot character if he's been established as such, but that's not the case.

[Pasquale1234]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Hm, the problem is - difficult choice is subjective. Completely subjective.

Indeed.

For me, the Mage/Templar choice presented at the end of DA2 was not a difficult choice, but a ridiculous non-choice.

It was middle grey versus middle grey, both sides are wrong versus both sides are right, either side winning is not a viable long-term solution.  It did not even address the greater question of the treatment of mages in general, but was reduced to RoA (innocents slaughtered) versus blood mages running rampant (innocents slaughtered).  On top of that, the end result was primarily the same regardless of which side you chose.

[OMTING52601]

I felt like most of the choices in the game were grey vs. grey. When I got to the point in the game where Mother gets offed by the serial killer, that's when it really hit me that this game wasn't what it had been marketed as - There was no way to stop her death, no way to get Aveline to help out earlier, no way for Hawke to do anything but come in at the end, reactively, and deal with the fallout. I wasn't playing an RPG at that point. I was engaged in a play a predefined character in a predefined story, you know a medieval times version of Tomb Raider, sort of, with less puzzles to solve.

Anyway, I agree with the OP that there were several points in the game where a slight change of code would have allowed some player control without completely derailing the overarcing plot and without expanding possible endings that would have needed to be planned exponentially. I mean, the end of DA: O is predetermined, the Warden has to take out the Archdemon regardless.

But that can be done four different ways and I, the player, determine how it goes down through the proactive choices I've made in game.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

Exactly, pick any quest you like, aside form companion quests and, no matter whay youy chose, the result is the same.

1. Feynriel dreams of the templar hall, even if you send him to the Dalish (He never saw the hall so why dream of it?)

2. Grace and Alian are sent to the Gallows, even if you help them escape by either killing the templars or lying to them.

3. Even though your sibling is a grey wardedn and there is no warden base near Kirkwall, Grace, Thrask and Alain are able top kidnap them from Orlais, Ferelden or wherever they went.

4. You Kill Ander and Meredith goes ballistic against the circle which Ander was not a part of.

5. You support Orsino all the way through yet, a) your sibling or lover is kidnapped by mage supporters and, Orsino turns harvester and attacks you even though you have never turned on him and the mages are winning with your help.

So exactly where does my choice affect the game? Oh that's right I might accidentally get a few rivalry points with my lover if I do it wrong. Oh but not to worry, you can romance them even if they hate you. Um.... okay so that really doesn't matter either.

Let's hope choices actually matter in DA3.

[cJohnOne]

@DarkAmaranth196: Some of your examples don't make sense to me.

It did bother me that Grace always turns on you but it would cut content if she didn't.

Overall, I agree the choices aren't there in DA2 that should be there.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 15 mars 2012 - 03:23 .

[dragonflight288]

Red pill.....blue pill.

Take your pick.

[Dave of Canada]

Mini slightly on-topic rant:

The Connor choice was perfectly fine as it was, it needed nothing more. It introduced fantastical elements in a very "human" plot and pulled it off, I'd say it would be the second most well-done plot in Origins if it wasn't for the third option to save everybody and have no consequences at all for that decision.

Everybody in that plot was "real", the humanity of the situation didn't surround the demon and the possession, it was all about Isolde who thought she was protecting her son and now she's caused more harm and good and put themselves in a bad situation.

Imagine you throw away that third choice to save everybody, the choice suddenly becomes a lot more difficult. My first reaction upon receiving the plot wasn't "oh, let's go to the circle tower!", it was "OH GOD IF I GO TO THE CIRCLE TOWER, WILL THE DEMON RE-EMERGE AND KILL EVERYBODY WHILE I'M GONE? OH F-".

Connor died in that playthrough, my choice being rubbed in with the screams of Isolde (and forcing me to punch her out) and the scene which my character draws out the murder knife. Felt horrible throughout that mess, though that's because I felt it was necessary and there was nothing else to do.

That was the difficult choice, there was no happy ending and the Warden couldn't simply step out of the conflict because stepping out would've cause far more harm than good.

That's the biggest problem with the Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 endings, you almost feel like you just want to raise your hands up and say "Screw this, I'm going home" and leave. The ME3 ending decisions boil down to "So, what I'm doing is potentially more harmful than what's already happening. So why am I here?" and the Dragon Age 2 ones boil down to this scene.

Unfortunately, there's problems with these difficult choices. You have things like the Dark Ritual which I'd say is atrocious as a choice (no offence to any writer who might read this), you're offered the choice out of the blue and it presents you with a minor dilemma.

The problem with it, you're not capable of thinking the consequences of such a decision. It's implied nefarious purposes at the end of Origins and then you meet Morrigan in Witch Hunt and she begins talking about how she isn't that evil. And then you've got Sandal's prophecy.

The choice was presented with too little information, no hints at the implications and then you've got the conflicting information throughout. Imagine the Dark Ritual, should it have been done, causes the entire world to blow up into fluffy pink stuffing. That'd be as valid as other situations with the child.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 17 mars 2012 - 06:29 .

[BubbleDncr]

I think a big problem is that developers have this fear of doing things the player won't see - the DA2 ending is a perfect example:

If I sided with the mages, it made sense for me to fight Meredith. It made no sense for Orsino to go crazy when we were winning, and thus make me kill him.

They did a better job of giving you a reason to fight Meredith if you sided with the templars, but once again it was based on her going crazy - it only worked better with her cos the build up made more sense.

So why not give people who sided with Meredith an Orsino final boss, and people who sided with Orisno a Meredith final boss? I'm already brainstorming ways that this decision could have little effect anything planned in DA3, and I've only been thinking about it for 5 minutes - it seems like some codex entries or only a cameo appearance by whoever lived could solve the issue entirely. So the only real reason to make the player fight both is because you don't want to make content that everyone won't see.

But we will see it! A lot of people will reload to see what happens if they made the other choice. The hardcore fans will do another complete playthrough to see the other choice. And people who bought the game for the heck of it or recieve it as a gift will be satisfied by one final boss fight, and then hear on the internet that there's another one and go "cool, I'm gonna check that out!"

[TiaraBlade]

OMTING52601 wrote...

I felt like most of the choices in the game were grey vs. grey. When I got to the point in the game where Mother gets offed by the serial killer, that's when it really hit me that this game wasn't what it had been marketed as - There was no way to stop her death, no way to get Aveline to help out earlier, no way for Hawke to do anything but come in at the end, reactively, and deal with the fallout. I wasn't playing an RPG at that point. I was engaged in a play a predefined character in a predefined story, you know a medieval times version of Tomb Raider, sort of, with less puzzles to solve.

Anyway, I agree with the OP that there were several points in the game where a slight change of code would have allowed some player control without completely derailing the overarcing plot and without expanding possible endings that would have needed to be planned exponentially. I mean, the end of DA: O is predetermined, the Warden has to take out the Archdemon regardless.

But that can be done four different ways and I, the player, determine how it goes down through the proactive choices I've made in game.

This. No matter what you do, you get rail roaded into plot points and outcomes. No matter what, for example, the Templars and Mages WILL throw down and both of its leaders will die at your hands for example. No third option for peace.

Same thing with Hawke's mother being murdered, never a chance to stop it. Interesting if you had a choice: save your LI or your mother. More heart wrenching.