14 réponses à ce sujet

[SamilTane]

tl;dr version:  let players apply their own moral compass in making major decisions, and don't make choice merely tied to an in-game success meter like in ME2 (suicide mission) and ME3 (EMS).

Wordy version:

For lack of a DA3 feedback forum, I'll post this here.

I've loved Bioware games for the amount of emphasis placed on choice and the consequences of that choice. Way back in KoTOR we saw he consequences of our actions - depending on our choices in the game, characters lived or died, the galaxy gained a tyrant or a hero, etc - and in DA:O and to some extent DA2, depending on our in-game choices the game universe was reshaped.

The fundamental thing about choice in those games was that the player was presented the choices in an unbiased way. There was no indication of choice A being the best choice because it led to a better outcome, down to choice F being the worst choice because it means you screwed up. The player was allowed to make his own mind up about how to judge choices: some players asked what his character would do, some asked what she would do if she was in her character's shoes.

Take a key decision in DA:O, for example: dark ritual or not. The player is presented the choice without any prompting from the game about which is "better". Some players would have chosen he dark ritual because they felt their characters would have wanted to keep everyone alive; others may have chosen not to do it because they didn't trust morrigan. The choice had nothing to do with whether one was inherently better than the other.

Fast forward to ME2. In that game, many choices led up to the outcome of thefinal mission. * spoiler alert for those who haven't played ME2 or 3 * In that game, many choices affected whether the final mission was successful, and the game would remind you to make the "right" choices. Choosing to make squadmates loyal, for example, increased their survivability in the final mission, as did choosing to upgrade the Normandy. ME3 is similar - making the "right" choices can lead to increasing war assets, which help in the final mission.

As you can see, these choices are fundamentally different from the choices in previous games. In ME2 and 3, choices are measured up against the success of a mission and therefore come with a built-in bias. Sure, some can argue that players can just ignore the success of the final mission, but the fact remains that the game attempts to guide players to certain choices, which is a form of constraint. 

And anyway this argument is borne out by how often you hear people ask in the forums about how to make the right choices to get the "best" ending. The choice of ending should not be scaled based on the devs' idea or success or effort, but should allow players to reflect their own (or their characters') moral code.

So in summary, Bioware please bring true freedom of choice back to your games. Make choice matter, but don't present certain choices as inherently better or more successful than others.

Modifié par SamilTane, 20 mars 2012 - 02:31 .

[TheGunslinger]

I agree with this post!

[frustratemyself]

So you want freedom with choices and for them to impact the game in a meaningful way but don't want them to affect if you get a better or worse ending? Make up your mind son.

[Bebuse]

frustratemyself wrote...

So you want freedom with choices and for them to impact the game in a meaningful way but don't want them to affect if you get a better or worse ending? Make up your mind son.

I think he is right - in DA:O, for example, you choose whether to slaughter or save the mages. Whichever you choose, you get an army at the end of it: either mages or templars. I also hope this decision will carry over, in combination with Hawke's actions, to provide a setting for the mage's plight in DA3. The decision gives you one of two equal but very different outcomes.

In Mass Effect, I think a suitable comparison would be whether to sell or keep Legion. Here, there is absolutely no upside to selling him. You get a few credits, which at that point in the game you should be rolling in anyway. It is not a decision at all. A decision would involve a call from the Illusive Man promising to send you a squad of his best assault troopers as support in the final mission, if you turn Legion over. A decision would involve him returning Legion's platform to you, perhaps with the geth removed and EDI put in. 

It is a right/wrong option, with no motivation to choose one over the other. The same can be said about the loyalty missions: other than laziness and finishing the game faster, not doing them gives you no discernable advantage over doing them. The outcome of the game becomes worse, rather than different. This is true for a good number of Mass Effect's decisions: not all, but many.

In short, I agree with the OP. From Bioware's point of view, this also benefits them. Mass Effect's replay value lay in the gripping gameplay and characters, not the different decisions (especially with ME3's ending now known...). Dragon Age and KOTOR's replay value lies in that you can take one of a huge number of paths, all of which alter the ending substantially, that no two play throughs will be the same. You are playing a totally different game if you choose the Dark Side rather than the Light. You are playing a totally different game if you hate elves, not because the dialogue is different but because the game responds to these decisions and adapts, and most importantly gives you different, rather than better, outcomes.

[SamilTane]

Bebuse wrote...

frustratemyself wrote...
So you want freedom with choices and for them to impact the game in a meaningful way but don't want them to affect if you get a better or worse ending? Make up your mind son.

I think he is right - in DA:O, for example, you choose whether to slaughter or save the mages. Whichever you choose, you get an army at the end of it: either mages or templars. 
...
In Mass Effect, I think a suitable comparison would be whether to sell or keep Legion. Here, there is absolutely no upside to selling him. ... It is a right/wrong option, with no motivation to choose one over the other. 

Precisely. The big decisions need to be real decisions, where players actually face a dilemma. it's when you agonise over a choice that it becomes really memorable and significant.

To use typical examples from ME2/3, It isn't much of a dilemma when the outcome of a decision is between "choose X to improve ending outcome" or "choose Y and don't improve ending outcome", or worse: "choose X and gain a squadmate along with all his related quests and conversations", vs "choose Y and don't get that squadmate at all". In such cases there is almost no dilemma because it can be down to something as simple as how completionist you want the current playthrough to be.

[hoorayforicecream]

Bebuse wrote...

I think he is right - in DA:O, for example, you choose whether to slaughter or save the mages. Whichever you choose, you get an army at the end of it: either mages or templars. I also hope this decision will carry over, in combination with Hawke's actions, to provide a setting for the mage's plight in DA3. The decision gives you one of two equal but very different outcomes.

In Mass Effect, I think a suitable comparison would be whether to sell or keep Legion. Here, there is absolutely no upside to selling him. You get a few credits, which at that point in the game you should be rolling in anyway. It is not a decision at all. A decision would involve a call from the Illusive Man promising to send you a squad of his best assault troopers as support in the final mission, if you turn Legion over. A decision would involve him returning Legion's platform to you, perhaps with the geth removed and EDI put in. 

In DAO you could choose to skip, kill, or drive off practically all of your companions. There were often no tangible benefits to doing so at all, but you could do it anyway. You don't always need tangible benefits to allow a role-playing choice.

[SamilTane]

frustratemyself wrote...

So you want freedom with choices and for them to impact the game in a meaningful way but don't want them to affect if you get a better or worse ending? Make up your mind son.

Of course choices should impact the game in a meaningful way.

My argument is not that choice has no impact in ME2/3. My argument is that in those games the storyline often dictates which choices are "better". 

Take the choice whether to do loyalty missions in ME2, which is one of the main determinants of your ending. The entire game encourages you to do those missions, down to the illusive man telling you straight that you have to gain their trust. If you don't do the missions, you (1) get less gameplay, and (2) increase the chance of squadmates dying. It's not a true dilemma at all - it's down to how completionist you feel.

Contrast with the Landsmeet decisions in DA:O. The game does not "encourage" you to make any particular decision in any way. You are presented as the hero and given the power to affect Thedas forever with your own free will. Applying ME2-style choices to the Landsmeet would be something like the game telling you that you'll only be able to kill the Archdemon if spoilerdude joins your party, or that if you don't make the right choice some of your squadmates will permanently leave your party (without replacement) if you don't make the right choice.

[hoorayforicecream]

SamilTane wrote...

Contrast with the Landsmeet decisions in DA:O. The game does not "encourage" you to make any particular decision in any way. You are presented as the hero and given the power to affect Thedas forever with your own free will. Applying ME2-style choices to the Landsmeet would be something like the game telling you that you'll only be able to kill the Archdemon if spoilerdude joins your party, or that if you don't make the right choice some of your squadmates will permanently leave your party (without replacement) if you don't make the right choice.

Um... you do lose squadmates for not making the right choices. Choosing to defile Andraste's ashes will lead to Leliana turning on you. Siding with Branka will lead to Shale turning on you. You can choose to kill Zevran and/or Wynne when you first meet them, and Zevran can turn on you permanently if you don't raise his approval enough by a certain point in the game.

[SamilTane]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Um... you do lose squadmates for not making the right choices. Choosing to defile Andraste's ashes will lead to Leliana turning on you. Siding with Branka will lead to Shale turning on you. You can choose to kill Zevran and/or Wynne when you first meet them, and Zevran can turn on you permanently if you don't raise his approval enough by a certain point in the game.

Thats true. What I'm saying is that most of the *major* choices in ME2/3 have a success rating attached to them. In ME2 this success rating is how successful the final mission is, and in ME3 it's how high your military strength is.

If you think about the major choices in DA:O, for example, they're not attached to a dev-dictated success meter. Dark ritual, Landsmeet, who slays the Archdemon: in all these decisions your choice would very much impact your outcome, but the game never dictated that performing the dark ritual was less successful, for example.

If anything, it was the players measuring choices against their own (or their character's) moral compass, and not against some measure of success created by the devs.

[Heather Cline]

Choosing Bhelen over Harrowmont another good example. It doesn't matter who you chose to lead the Dwarves you still got your army. It just depended on who you wanted to rule the Dwarves for your game outcome.

I agree that for those people wanting DA3 that the game should have more free choices. DA2 lacked that in many area's. But that's my perspective.

[Dave of Canada]

I'd like to see every decision have positive and negative consequences, no decision that is "right" and "wrong".


For example, Harrowmont being crowned pleased me greatly because for once they had punished idealism (which rarely happens in today's gaming industry) and rewarded the pragmatic Bhelen but it didn't create much of an issue as everybody eventually started metagaming and kept making Bhelen king.

Introducing benefits for both sides creates a very different experience, people argue which decision is the "right" one and no-one is actually wrong. Do you trust giving this ancient relic to empower Tevinter, thereby gaining them as an ally in your struggle for mage freedom but empowering certain questionable mages a lot more? Do you slaughter the entire village which may be housing apostates, potentially saving Templar lives for the war but causing much ire from the common folk?

We'd eventually all end up in the "final" situation, though I'd love to see no right / wrong choices and previous choices impacting the world more  than simply a quick "Oh hey, did you hear? Bhelen is king".

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 20 mars 2012 - 04:40 .

[LobselVith8]

SamilTane wrote...

Precisely. The big decisions need to be real decisions, where players actually face a dilemma. it's when you agonise over a choice that it becomes really memorable and significant.

To use typical examples from ME2/3, It isn't much of a dilemma when the outcome of a decision is between "choose X to improve ending outcome" or "choose Y and don't improve ending outcome", or worse: "choose X and gain a squadmate along with all his related quests and conversations", vs "choose Y and don't get that squadmate at all". In such cases there is almost no dilemma because it can be down to something as simple as how completionist you want the current playthrough to be.

I think that would be beneficial for the Dragon Age franchise. New Vegas provided those type of outcomes: where there was good and bad with each of the endings, rather than having one ending as the "optimal" ending. Supporting the NCR, Mr. House, or an Independent Vegas all had pros and cons, so none of the endings were the "best" ending to achieve for everyone; all of them had some benefits, and some drawbacks, and it depended on what type of ending that specific players wanted to achieve overall. The Courier could change specific societies, so it felt like the protagonist made an irrevocable impact on these cultures, and it felt like choices ultimately mattered.

[wsandista]

LobselVith8 wrote...

SamilTane wrote...

Precisely. The big decisions need to be real decisions, where players actually face a dilemma. it's when you agonise over a choice that it becomes really memorable and significant.

To use typical examples from ME2/3, It isn't much of a dilemma when the outcome of a decision is between "choose X to improve ending outcome" or "choose Y and don't improve ending outcome", or worse: "choose X and gain a squadmate along with all his related quests and conversations", vs "choose Y and don't get that squadmate at all". In such cases there is almost no dilemma because it can be down to something as simple as how completionist you want the current playthrough to be.

I think that would be beneficial for the Dragon Age franchise. New Vegas provided those type of outcomes: where there was good and bad with each of the endings, rather than having one ending as the "optimal" ending. Supporting the NCR, Mr. House, or an Independent Vegas all had pros and cons, so none of the endings were the "best" ending to achieve for everyone; all of them had some benefits, and some drawbacks, and it depended on what type of ending that specific players wanted to achieve overall. The Courier could change specific societies, so it felt like the protagonist made an irrevocable impact on these cultures, and it felt like choices ultimately mattered.

Exactly, DA needs more hard choices that encourage players to weigh their options. Also choices need to impact the outcomes heavily, not like DA2 where no matter who you sided with at the end you had to kill both Orsino and Meredith.

[SamilTane]

wsandista wrote...

Exactly, DA needs more hard choices that encourage players to weigh their options. Also choices need to impact the outcomes heavily, not like DA2 where no matter who you sided with at the end you had to kill both Orsino and Meredith.

Yeah. I actually really loved DA2's story (including the ending), and the only complaint I had was how little the player's choices mattered in some aspects of the ending.

Still, the story made up for that, for me. Maybe I'm just a sucker for mysterious cliffhanger endings.