36 réponses à ce sujet

[Meris]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Meris wrote...

Ostagar2011 wrote...

If you plan for everyone to experience all content (or all content plus minus one meaningless line of dialog) then you have to do illusory choice.

While its true that developers seem to hate the idea of not letting everything laid out for the player, it does seem like that writer from Mass Effect was attempting some sort of populist excuse not to do branching storylines.

I can sort of see why this is an element of their design philosophy from a purely abstract perspective - after all, they have extensive data that show that most people who finish their games play through their games once. On the other hand, I don't feel that is a case for a lack of branching content any more than I feel that the tendency of people not to re-read books is a reason for authors to avoid writing books that reward multiple readings.

Part of me believes that BioWare is unwilling to pool resources in branching narratives because they are already, as they themselves have said, very strained by their 'cinematic focus'.

One might say that as far as a Narrative focus on roleplaying goes, branching narratives are the maximum level of consequence you can tie to choices. If you jump to the conclusion that someone will only appreciate that sort of choice/consequence if they replay the game, then you may think that's not a good investment.

[Ostagar2011]

Cinematics and VA - two deadly enemies of RPG choice.

We'll see how they handle consequence in ME3 (extended cut), but the easy answer is to have everyone go down the same corridor, and then do a ton of epilogue slides at the end. However Cinematics and the idea that this would be too "text heavy" for the Call of Duty audience would make this medicine too bitter for BioWare to swallow. However they did promise real choices in DA3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ostagar2011 wrote...

The issue is as Weekes described it at PAX - if you want to do choices you have to exclude people from bits of content. If you plan for everyone to experience all content (or all content plus minus one meaningless line of dialog) then you have to do illusory choice.

I completely disagree.

That there's only one path through the game, and it sees all the same stuff as every other path, does not require that the choices available be illusory.  It only requires that the choices be meaningless.

I would rather be allowed to choose between 3 options where all 3 options lead to the same outcome than not being offered those options at all.

[Meris]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Allthough total control is impossible because the end of the game (maybe some minor things that differ depending on your choices) is set.

Yes, total control is impossible. But no, nothing that is set is the only alternative. Dragon Age: Origin's ending was only partially set in the sense that you end the Blight, the dwarven succession crisis, save Zathrian's clan, ends the abomination infestation and the fereldan civil war. That much is set. How and the reasoning behind it, however, is not.

Modifié par Meris, 10 avril 2012 - 10:45 .

[HiroVoid]

Korusus wrote...

Meris wrote...

But of course, the more often BioWare refuses to make branching storylines and overrules import decisions then, yes, the choice will feel like a illusion.

I think the problem here is importing...I think it was an awesome new idea in the beginning and BioWare really pimped the idea a lot...but now that I've seen the actual implementation my opinion is:

#1) BioWare is completely insincere about implementing the choices/consequences properly (see Mass Effect 3 concerning a certain bug-like species)

#2) It's overrated.  So in DA2 you meet one dwarf instead of another...yay?  Why waste development resources if you aren't going to do it properly?  It makes no sense.

#3) It forces BioWare into these bizarre railroading decisions today so that games they develop in the future won't have as many important permutations.  That's insane, we're getting fewer choices and consequences in a game we have now on behalf of a game we won't have for several years down the road that may or may not choose to completely ignore those decisions anyway.

Say what you will about SW:TOR, but at least you get to see the consequences of your choices more or less immediately which is a nice change.

This is why I've said they should just scrap the import mechanic.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Meris wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Allthough total control is impossible because the end of the game (maybe some minor things that differ depending on your choices) is set.

Yes, total control is impossible. But no, nothing that is set is the only alternative. Dragon Age: Origin's ending was only partially set in the sense that you end the Blight, the dwarven succession crisis, save Zathrian's clan, ends the abomination infestation and the fereldan civil war. That much is set. How and the reasoning behind it, however, is not.

I guess that's what BW meant by saying it's illusional; because of the fact that the reasoning behind it is left open; the player can use his own imagination to find it.

That's the beauty of roleplaying . If a game can give you that feeling then it has accomplished its goal I think.

Does a game need to be a RPG to accomplish that, though? Can't you do the same thing with inferring your character's motivation in, say, Minecraft or Super Metroid?

Authentic player choice (i.e., a choice that impacts game content and/or storyline vs. a choice that impacts headcanon) brings something to the table that other games don't have.

[Dessalines]

Meris wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Allthough total control is impossible because the end of the game (maybe some minor things that differ depending on your choices) is set.

Yes, total control is impossible. But no, nothing that is set is the only alternative. Dragon Age: Origin's ending was only partially set in the sense that you end the Blight, the dwarven succession crisis, save Zathrian's clan, ends the abomination infestation and the fereldan civil war. That much is set. How and the reasoning behind it, however, is not.

The goal was to defeat the Archdemon by gathering armies for the final battle. You could not have gone to fight the Archdemon without recruiting the armies, rescuing Eamon, etc.

[TheShadowWolf911]

thats quite a.........interesting way to look at it.

Modifié par TheShadowWolf911, 11 avril 2012 - 04:42 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dessalines wrote...

The goal was to defeat the Archdemon by gathering armies for the final battle. You could not have gone to fight the Archdemon without recruiting the armies, rescuing Eamon, etc.

But at least the player is the one who gets to tell the Warden to do those things, rather than having the Warden go recruit armies without any player input at all.

And why the PC does those things is left entirely to the player.  Again, unlike DA2 where Hawke will, without prompting, declare his intent behind or justification for whatever he just did.

[Reznore57]

I don't mind the illusion of choices .
If it serves a great story.
Because of course , there won't be a game when you can say ,"look i don't wanna be the hero , i don't wanna fight or play along".
But you got to give the player some choices that makes him/her feel like he's important and part of the story.Giving keys to build up a personality to your avatar .
The thing is even is the story is already written , it had to have enough nuance for the player to fit it.