289 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As in "You can kill the guy and get his loot" or "You can help the guy, and he ends up giving you equivalent loot as a reward."

There's no rationale why you SHOULD get a greater reward for choosing the "evil" path except the devs making a design choice to present the game world that way.  It makes as much sense for you to choose the "evil" path, get caught, go to prison, and wind up sharing a cell with a lonely guy named "Butch".  Depending on how you look at it, setting up the alternatives of good/evil in this way is in some respects the game developers offering you a bribe for being an ****.

But, here's the thing: it's generally been my experience that the people who like to do an "evil playthrough", being the **** is it's own reward, just as being the hero is its own reward for people who like to do a "good playthrough".  And you have other people who don't do either, but go into each situation without considering what the "path" is supposed to be.  There's no reason whatsoever to be married to this "evil = moar loot,
good = happy fun sunshine time" model.  Granted, there is a fundamental philosophical belief that's utterly rampant in the culture that "evil = good for ME" and "good = good for someone else", which is probably where this arises.

I grant you that Dragon Age isn't married to this model, she's more of a mistress he keeps on the side.  He has a number of wives, mistresses, and one-night stands.  No wonder he's so conflicted. 

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

You're choosing options. Ergo, it's impossible for you not be impacting the character. You make the choices that you make because you feel that those are the choices that best suit the design of the character you created.

This reminds me of discussions where people try to convince me that "there's no such thing as free will".  If that were true, it'd be impossible to convince anyone of anything.

Ergo my response:  "How about you go masturbate without me here."

[Dean_the_Young]

PsychoBlonde wrote...



There's no rationale why you SHOULD get a greater reward for choosing the "evil" path except the devs making a design choice to present the game world that way.  It makes as much sense for you to choose the "evil" path, get caught, go to prison, and wind up sharing a cell with a lonely guy named "Butch".  Depending on how you look at it, setting up the alternatives of good/evil in this way is in some respects the game developers offering you a bribe for being an ****.

Step back from framing it in terms of 'good and evil' and think in terms of 'selfish versus selfless,' and you get more than sufficient reason for a self-interested person's actions to lead to more profit than a selfless person. Wealth and power are things that are actively acquired, rarely given to good samaritans.

But, here's the thing: it's generally been my experience that the people who like to do an "evil playthrough", being the **** is it's own reward, just as being the hero is its own reward for people who like to do a "good playthrough".  And you have other people who don't do either, but go into each situation without considering what the "path" is supposed to be.  There's no reason whatsoever to be married to this "evil = moar loot,

We can reverse this just as easily: being a nice guy is its own reward. Praise and positive validation are often enough for many well-dogooders, or simply avoiding being negatively challenged and accused. Positive validation can be reward enough: why give them equivalent material goods?

[Dave of Canada]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Though I can't promise anything. A ton of people in ME threads say they miss the boss fight. Can't please everyone! I just need to mind trick the leads!!

And a lot of people didn't like the boss fights in DA2.

[Dave of Canada]

The issues of "bad" and "good" stem mostly from the equality of rewards, either ingame or story-wise. Why would anyone choose the "bad" choices if the "good" choice can achieve everything equally without any sacrifice? When you're given the choice of A or B, the "good" choice often turns A into C.

Why kill someone when you can get the "feel good" feeling of being a super hero and still getting rewarded? For example, imagine the reactions people would've had if the renegade decision at the end of ME3's genophage plot would've yielded better rewards.

The player feels ridiculously guilty or feels disgust for themselves, the people mourning are an extra insult to what you've done but you can reason it all with pragmatism, what you did is for a better world tommorow. However, having it mostly equal to the paragon option or having way-outs ruin the scene drastically. Why burden yourself with such a sacrifice if you can take door B or (possibly) metagame and choose door C?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 juin 2012 - 12:43 .

[AkiKishi]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The issues of "bad" and "good" stem mostly from the equality of rewards, either ingame or story-wise. Why would anyone choose the "bad" choices if the "good" choice can achieve everything equally without any sacrifice? When you're given the choice of A or B, the "good" choice often turns A into C.

Why kill someone when you can get the "feel good" feeling of being a super hero and still getting rewarded? For example, imagine the reactions people would've had if the renegade decision at the end of ME3's genophage plot would've yielded better rewards.

The player feels ridiculously guilty or feels disgust for themselves, the people mourning are an extra insult to what you've done but you can reason it all with pragmatism, what you did is for a better world tommorow. However, having it mostly equal to the paragon option or having way-outs ruin the scene drastically. Why burden yourself with such a sacrifice if you can take door B or (possibly) metagame and choose door C?

1. It's faster.
2. It's in character

Evil options are generally to the point, where as the good option means running around doing something else to get to the same point.

[Wulfram]

I think both "good" and "evil" choices could both do with having more down sides. But sensible, reasonably predictable, proportional ones, not having every minor thug you spare end up killing your family.

In Origins a really purely heroic guy would miss out on quite a lot of gold, what with turning down rewards and giving random people ridiculous amounts of money. Which didn't matter all that much, but then loot rarely does really - story based consequences are far more significant.

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
If you aren't the one making the decisions based upon your preferences, then you wouldn't be upset at things like the dialogue wheel or anything else that you feel artificially restricts your character.  The only reason it's a restriction is because you don't feel the choices are satisfying enough for you, the game player. 

The problem with the paraphrasing is not that it is artificially restricting the character. It is that it never gives enough information on what the character will say, thus making it much easier for the dialogue guess to be the opposite of what the player intended his character to do.
Paraphrases don't restrict the character: They deny information to the player, making choice meaningless. For all the information the paraphrases give, the three options could lead exactly to the same result, and we'd be none the wiser. It is one thing to limit the options the character has available, it is a different thing altogether to hide the most inmediate consequence of this options (that is, the lines the character will say) from the player, and expect the character resulting of that gameplay to be coherent.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The only way the character can make appropriate decisions for the character's design, is if YOU deem it to be an appropriate choice for the character. They are by your preferences. The fact that the character may make choices that you yourself may not make if you found yourself actually in that position is irrelevant. The character can only make the choices you choose for it. There's a reason why you pick the choices that you do when playing those characters.

But I'm using his mind to make those decisions.  His mind doesn't possess my knowledge.

I'm the one pressing the buttons, but he's the one in charge.

If it was irrelevant, it'd be impossible for you to make any choices on behalf of the character.

If I'm doing it right, it is.  Ideally, I would formalise the decision-making process so that only the character's preferences influenced the outcome.  I could map out the reasoning formally and desmonstrate this his preferences alone were what mattered.

You make the choices that you do because you have a preference based on the type of character design you have come up with.

This suggests that I'm making the decisions that I want him to make, and that's not true.  I had a DAO Warden I really liked who made some bad decisions and died.  I would rather he hadn't.  He would have been very interesting at the Landsmeet, but he never got there.

This is actually fundamental about roleplay from a psychological perspective. It is a fact that a person can never truly remove themselves when making any decisions.

If I'm making the decision, yes.  But I'm not.  I'm referring to a set of rules and simply implementing the decision they present.

This would be like if I randomised my selection by rolling dice.  If I always do what the dice tell me, you can't honestly claim that I am choosing option number 2.  The dice chose number 2; I'm just executing their will.

When playing an RPG, you're making decisions on behalf of your character. Ergo, it's impossible for you to completely divorce yourself from your character. You actually concede this when you say this: "I choose options by consulting not my preferences, but that character design."

You're choosing options. Ergo, it's impossible for you not be impacting the character. You make the choices that you make because you feel that those are the choices that best suit the design of the character you created.

Your attention to detail has now forced a more precise word choice upon me.  Thank you for that.

Rest assured, though, that my feelings rarely impact my decisions.

My input would only matter when making judgment calls on issues I hadn't incorporated into the design.  If some decision even arose where it wasn't entirely clear what my character's preference would be, then I'd need to invent something to fill that gap.  Then, yes, I'm choosing.

But that's pretty rare.  I played an elf Warden who had very clear ideas on human-elf relations, and a host of economic and social opinions that stemmed from that, but he had never met a dwarf and had no preconceived notions abotu dwarves at all.  She was wholly and completely indifferent to dwarves.  So when asked to choose between two alternatives for dwarven king, she literally did not care, and chose one at random.

I would only need to make decisions where it was clear that the character would hold a relevant opinion, but I couldn't tell for sure what that opinion was.  If I knew the relevant opinions, then finding the right decision is a matter of simple arithmetic.

And it all comes falling down if YOU feel that the choices that this AI makes don't make sense with the design you've created. Even if the logic behind the choices makes sense. Even if some other person feels it's a perfectly valid decision.

Logic isn't subjective.

My forum signature here used to be a quote from David Gaider saying "Sylvius would happily sacrifice everything in the name of logic."  David's a pretty smart guy.

If you aren't the one making the decisions based upon your preferences, then you wouldn't be upset at things like the dialogue wheel or anything else that you feel artificially restricts your character.  The only reason it's a restriction is because you don't feel the choices are satisfying enough for you, the game player.

It's a restriction because I can see how character-breaking the resulting behaviour is.  If my character design requires that Hawke complete a quest for a specific reason, and then he espuses a different reason, that's a problem.

I often design characters based on characteristics that aren't obviously relevant to an adventuring career.  My first Warden believed strongly in property rights, for example.  I could see how this could prove to be the deciding factor in a wide variety of issues, so I thought it would be fun.  Imagine my elation upon finding the greedy merchant in Lothering, a situation where a defense of property rights points of a clear resolutin of the conflict.  My Warden sided with the merchant's right to charge whatever prices he liked, and that was that.

But if that same event had taken place in DA2, what then?  Would Hawke have aided the merchant with a calm and direct defense of private property, or would he have been greedy and anti-social?

This is something DA2 did very badly.  There would be a choice among quest resolutions, which I would choose based on my character design, and then Hawke would explain why he was doing it and claim some other motivation.  He'd say he was delivering the fugitive unharmed because he believed no one was beyond redepmtion, while I had chose that outcome simply because that was what Hawke had been hired to do, and I designed Hawke as a man who kept his word.

Hawke was required to hold a wide variety of opinions without the player having any say at all.  Hawke was prevented from holding nuanced or complex opinions regarding his companions.  Try supporting Fenris's vendetta against Danarius while at the same time opposing his anti-mage prejudice.  It doesn't appear to be possible

If you were truly divorced from the character, such things wouldn't bother you because you've no investment in the character.

I created that character.  Watching him interact with the world is the whole reason I'm playing the game at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

Paraphrases don't restrict the character: They deny information to the player, making choice meaningless.

Exactly.  This is what I've been saying for years now.

The player's freedom is restricted by the voice, but not by the paraphrase.

The player's choice is restricted (or denied him) by the paraphrase.  Because of the paraphrase, the player cannot tell which dialogue option suits his character.  He can do nothing more than guess.

It is one thing to limit the options the character has available, it is a different thing altogether to hide the most inmediate consequence of this options (that is, the lines the character will say) from the player, and expect the character resulting of that gameplay to be coherent.

I couldn't have said it better.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius, agree to disagree.  We have different definitions of what we expect when it comes to roleplaying.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 juin 2012 - 07:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sylvius, agree to disagree.  We have different definitions of what we expect when it comes to roleplaying.

It was an enjoyable discussion.  It reminded me of a university course I took on Rational Decision Theory.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 08 juin 2012 - 07:50 .

[Provi-dance]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Preparation would include positioning.  But while buffs and whatnot are one means of preparing, other things I prefer to do are things like threat assessment.  Do any look like mages?  Can I get to them and burn them down.  Are there ways that I can manage the fight to isolate the bigger threats?  Stuff like that.

You mentioned that DA2 (and maybe DAO?) the preparation was "charge in and fight."  Wouldn't you rather that the idea was to actually have a plan of attack (whether paused) that you felt was necessary in order to maximize your chances of success during the encounter?

The way I played.. I wouldn't say I needed "preparation". I'd send the one with the highest defense/HP in, leave the squishy one behind and start pounding on the one that, from my previous knowledge, is the highest threat or easiest to kill. If I had no previous knowledge of a specific creature type, I'd try to guess or I'd simply start with the closest one.
 
Threat assessment and issuing orders usually took a few seconds. It was a routine, really. And I played mostly with a single companion, to bump up the challenge. 

[Allan Schumacher]

The way I played.. I wouldn't say I needed "preparation". I'd send the one with the highest defense/HP in, leave the squishy one behind and start pounding on the one that, from my previous knowledge, is the highest threat or easiest to kill. If I had no previous knowledge of a specific creature type, I'd try to guess or I'd simply start with the closest one.

Did you play on Nightmare too? Haha (I didn't....)

Sounds to me, though, like maybe it was a problem with DAO's combat? Hehe


You could very well be correct though. I don't know the context of Mike's preparation comment. Could be buffs and other active abilities. I hope it'd be more of what I listed earlier though

[Provi-dance]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Did you play on Nightmare too? Haha (I didn't....)

Sounds to me, though, like maybe it was a problem with DAO's combat? Hehe


You could very well be correct though. I don't know the context of Mike's preparation comment. Could be buffs and other active abilities. I hope it'd be more of what I listed earlier though

I didn't play on nightmare because I don't enjoy a twisted ruleset (i.e. monsters always deal 2x damage and you deal only half). I want to play against enemies that are how they're "meant to be". That's usually the "hard" difficulty setting.

I'll say though that DAO combat is much more enjoyable than DA2 combat, even though there are serious balance issues with it.
So resting is out of the question?

[Allan Schumacher]

So resting is out of the question?

At this point nothing is out of the question hahaha.

[wsandista]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So resting is out of the question?

At this point nothing is out of the question hahaha.

Is natural health regeneration guaraunted in DA3?

[Allan Schumacher]

At this point I wouldn't say anything is guaranteed either.

What do you mean by "natural health regeneration" though?

[nightcobra]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

At this point I wouldn't say anything is guaranteed either.

What do you mean by "natural health regeneration" though?

i'm guessing, regenerating health out of combat.

[Allan Schumacher]

i'm guessing, regenerating health out of combat.

The word natural is what throws me off.  DA2's health regeneration likely wasn't "natural."

Although in reality health regen in general is something we're evaluating, so I suppose that level of detail is a bit irrelevant lol.

[stysiaq]

I think that may have been mentioned earlier, but one of the things that I didn't like in DA2 and liked more in DAO, was the 'over-the-top'-ness of some skills.

The classes were more-or-less balanced, whereas in DA:O it was mage>>>>>>>the other two, but the Mighty Blow causing weaker enemies to explode (often in groups) was ridiculous.


DA:O was gory enough, and DA2 felt like watching Braindead at times. I love that movie, but that amounts of blood break a dark fantasy setting for me, at least partly.
I'm all for balance and equality, but that doesn't have to mean "graphical" equality as well - some powerful, lets say, Blood Magic spells definitely should be able to turn a foe into a gory explosion. But when you can achieve it by slamming your XXL sword into the ground, it doesn't feel right.

Modifié par stysiaq, 09 juin 2012 - 07:05 .

[Nanuzsh]

Allan can you answer me this, is there ANY possibility for DA3 combat system to be more like Dragon's Dogma.

Since it has a lot of awesome real time action combat. But at the same time the NPC allies system is relatively descent.

Is there any possibility for Bioware to adopt Dragon's Dogma style combat gameplay. With bioware's own story telling ability.

[Allan Schumacher]

I haven't played Dragon's Dogma (I am primarily a PC gamer). Could you get me more information about it, mostly just because I'm curious?

Videos or links would be fine.

[nightcobra]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I haven't played Dragon's Dogma (I am primarily a PC gamer). Could you get me more information about it, mostly just because I'm curious?

Videos or links would be fine.

 

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I haven't played Dragon's Dogma (I am primarily a PC gamer). Could you get me more information about it, mostly just because I'm curious?

Videos or links would be fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPuOcOFIJJ4

Griffin,Golem and Hydra.

The key feature is a grab mechanic similiar to Shadows of Collosus. Add in White Knights open landscapes and selectable characters with different skill sets and that about covers the basics.