201 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Depending on how we do a plot, I don't think there's anything preventing a "forced march" from being achieved in a way that the player feels it's a beckoning world. A great linear story is the one that successfully leads the player into choosing the path that is provided, rather than feeling forced to do so. Deus Ex was fantastic for this (the illusion of narrative choice at certain points was so "evident" that I figured for sure there were large branches within the game. Turns out I just happened to choose the way that they wanted the story to go).

I appear to have a tendency to choose the wrong path.  I was really annoyed in NWN2 when I discovered that the High Road to Neverwinter didn't actually exist in the game, despite being referred to as an option over and over again at the start of the game.

[AndrahilAdrian]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just as an example, BIoWare has never done a "full open party" game (there's always been a defined protagonist)

True, but recall that BG (and BG2, but in BG2 it appears to have been unintended, while in BG it was a documented feature) the team assembled by the protagonist could assign party roles however the player saw fit.  Subsequent BioWare games have insisted that the protagonist always be the team leader, the spokesperson, the face of the party.  BG didn't do that.  BG explicitly allowed you to have Imoen (or Coran, or Dynaheir, or whomever) do all the talking on the party's behalf.

I'd love to see the player have more control over the party in this way.

Unless you expect all the companion voice actors to voice the PC's lines too, I don't see that happening. 

[Shazzie]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Less reliance of just combat as a resolution to obstacles is a good thing.

My heart overfloweth. I lack the words to express the sheer joy I felt at seeing this statement.

Don't get me wrong- I enjoy combat in my RPGs, but I hate it when the game is practically reduced to combat as the ends to all means.

I was just overwhelmed by happy thoughts when I read that, and had to say something.    Carry on!

[Allan Schumacher]

BG didn't do that. BG explicitly allowed you to have Imoen (or Coran, or Dynaheir, or whomever) do all the talking on the party's behalf.

I don't recall that, but I haven't played BG in a dozen years now. I do recall that the Bhaalspawn dying was game over, whereas Imoen dying was not.

[Allan Schumacher]

Shazzie wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Less reliance of just combat as a resolution to obstacles is a good thing.

My heart overfloweth. I lack the words to express the sheer joy I felt at seeing this statement.

Don't get me wrong- I enjoy combat in my RPGs, but I hate it when the game is practically reduced to combat as the ends to all means.

I was just overwhelmed by happy thoughts when I read that, and had to say something.    Carry on!

My level of direct influence is limited, especially since my area of QA doesn't actually cover stuff like this (i.e. I have to go out of my way), so I can't guarantee anything.

I did resolve to try to find more time to provide feedback to the devs about game mechanics that I approve of though, and to make sure I keep "the big picture" in focus.  Ultimately I want games to include the game mechanics that I find enjoyable 

(It's part of why I have decided to post on the BSN too).

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 juin 2012 - 12:56 .

[Dave of Canada]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think DAO did a bit better of a job of this than DA2 did, so hoepfully we can get back to that (or even better). Things like dealing with Connor, where if you didn't go to the Circle of Magi have alternatives that the player may not even be aware of, are the types of things that I think make the game more interesting. 

While I'd like more options opening up based on prior decisions / involvement, I'd suggest the Connor decision with the Circle of Magi--while interesting--unfortunately invalidated everything to do with the actual decision upon being discovered.

I'd love to discuss debates about what was the "right" decision, killing Connor or sacrificing Isolde, though all of that was pretty much invalidated by the Circle of Magi option which allowed you to escape consequence free. I was disappointed when it occured in my game, as I fully expected the Circle of Magi option to take too long and allow the demon to rampage around some more, possibly killing Teagan. Though when I arrived, the demon did nothing while I crossed Lake Calenhad and helped the mages solve their problems.

Third options--while interesting--should never be consequence-free, lest it become default. Look at what occured when most Alistair romancers found out they could get a "happy" ending if they went Female Cousland, it resulted in most people "rerolling" and insulting all other Origin Alistair romancers as non-canon.

[AndrahilAdrian]

 playing theses games in order:  
Civilization IV   
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Rome: Total War   
Baldur’s Gate   
Age of Mythology   
Planescape Torment    
Ico     
Icewind Dale     
Prince of Persia: Warrior Within  
Baldur’s Gate II: Shadows of Amn
Medieval II: Total War 
Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter
God of War
Baldur’s Gate II: Throne of Bhaal
Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones
Icewind Dale II 
Shadow of The Colossus
God of War: Ghost of Sparta
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Batman: Arkham Asylum  
Assassin’s Creed  
Jade Empire
God of War II
Batman: Arkham City
Mass Effect 
Assassin’s Creed II  
Dragon Age: Origins 
Portal
The Witcher
Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood
 Dragon Age: Origins – Awakening
Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood – The Da
Vinci Disappearance  
Mass Effect 2  
Assassin’s Creed: RevelationsMass Effect 2: Overlord
Assassin’s Creed: Revelations  – The Lost Archive 
God of War III
Mass Effect 2: Lair of the Shadow Broker 
Dragon Age II
Mass Effect 2: Arrival
Bioshock
Mass Effect 3
God of War: Chains of Olympus 
The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings
Fable II
Rise of the Argonauts
Assassin’s Creed III
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Fallout 3
Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune
God of War: Ascension
Portal 2 
Bioshock: Infinite 
Fable III
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves  
Red Dead Redemption  
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 
Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception 
Prince of Persia
Dishonored
Tomb Raider
The Last of Us

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 14 juin 2012 - 01:11 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Mostly I'd agree.

I think sometimes you want to reward the player for having made the appropriate decisions in the past, and occasionally offer a "more ideal" solution. Other times (I'd agree MOST times), it's more interesting having to reconcile different choices and their potential outcomes.

Perhaps the Circle's involvement could have been done better, but I used the example more because I did Redcliffe first and had no idea it was even an option. Maybe an appropriate difference would have been "Had the player done the circle first, an ideal solution could be made. If the player has to leave Connor and do the entire Circle quest, then have additional consequences due to time investment required."

[Shazzie]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Shazzie wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Less reliance of just combat as a resolution to obstacles is a good thing.

My heart overfloweth. I lack the words to express the sheer joy I felt at seeing this statement.

Don't get me wrong- I enjoy combat in my RPGs, but I hate it when the game is practically reduced to combat as the ends to all means.

I was just overwhelmed by happy thoughts when I read that, and had to say something.    Carry on!

My level of direct influence is limited, especially since my area of QA doesn't actually cover stuff like this (i.e. I have to go out of my way), so I can't guarantee anything.

I did resolve to try to find more time to provide feedback to the devs about game mechanics that I approve of though, and to make sure I keep "the big picture" in focus.  Ultimately I want games to include the game mechanics that I find enjoyable 

(It's part of why I have decided to post on the BSN too).

"My level of direct influence is limited": Doesn't matter. You have a better chance of passing along response in regards to this than Jane or Joe Q. Public. And it was just a wonderful statement that made me really happy anyway, so I posted! I may be a great disbeliever in 'trickle down economics', but I haven't had my belief in 'trickle up feedback' completely disabused yet!

As to you deciding to post on BSN? Thank you for doing so!

[AndrahilAdrian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I think sometimes you want to reward the player for having made the appropriate decisions in the past

I think the most interesting choices in Bioware games are ambiguous ones which don't have a "most appropriate solution", like  the collector base, Bhele, vs. Harrowmont, and virmire. Sadly, most of these decisions are in the Mass Effect series; Dragon Age often has a "perfect" solution like going to the circle for connor, convincing Zathrian to end the curse, and using the Littany of Andralla. It would be nice to have some tougher choices in DA3, where its not possible to make everyone happy. Its more realistic, and more engaging.

[Allan Schumacher]

In general I agree.

Though it's based on a lot of discussion I had with fans in the ME3 forum that actually has made me more open to allowing for (hopefully not very easy to obtain) a more ideal outcome to be had. Keeping ME3 spoiler free, but Rannoch's resolution I think worked out very well and was mostly quite well received.

Bhelen vs Harrowmont is my favourite from the whole DA series though. I was floored when I saw the epilogues for them and was like "YES YES YES." Hahaha.

if you never have an ideal solution, people will never look for them. If you do occasionally have them, people may look for them. Though I suppose they may get annoyed when they can't find one... Hahaha.

[AndrahilAdrian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In general I agree.

Though it's based on a lot of discussion I had with fans in the ME3 forum that actually has made me more open to allowing for (hopefully not very easy to obtain) a more ideal outcome to be had. Keeping ME3 spoiler free, but Rannoch's resolution I think worked out very well and was mostly quite well received.

I wasn't so keen on it. The geth and the quarians were bitter enemies, with a rivalry stretching back centuries, and yet they decide to bury the hatchet because of a sub-minute monologue from Shepard? It felt rediculous and made Shepard seem very Sueish. It would be like Israel and Palestine deciding to become bosom buddies because someone asked nicely. I was given the option, but I sided with the Geth instead; a serious, dramatic choice culminating in the tragic suicide of a major character felt like more of a win than an artificially perfect sunshine and rainbows resolution which stretched the suspension of disbelief. The main reason I am one of the few defenders of Mass Effect 3's ending is that it rejected the temptation to include a golden ending, instead providing 3 flawed options with multilayerd consequences. Mind you, look where it got them. 

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 14 juin 2012 - 01:34 .

[Dave of Canada]

I don't like ideal solutions, I never did. Most of the time, if you've seen most of the old Mass Effect boards, people were desperately seeking "happiness and rainbows" solutions and wanted their choices to be right. I've recieved death threats for being vocal about having consequences for both renegade and paragon decision, as they wanted paragon to be consequence-free.

I mean, living consequence-free is fun (not for me, maybe for them) but they give little care for the actual choices they do, they're just doing what makes them "feel good". How many people support mages because they see templar as "evil"? Or people who destroyed the Collector Base because Cerberus is "evil"? They're doing lawful good playthroughs and it's the only way they'll ever play, thus tougher decisions where basic D&D morality doesn't work and has consequences become problematic.

How many of them supported Harrowmont and then switched over to supporting Bhelen immediately upon hearing that he gives the happy ending? I don't mean to be offensive but most of them are not thinking of their decisions. Which is why things like Rannoch, Connor, Werewolves and such never really have much discussion--it ultimately leads to "why not do the happy ending?".

I'd say forcing people out of their comfort zone is far more memorable for them (despite their insistence on the others). Many of my friends who've romanced Alistair were heartbroken, they were unable to go in public and refused to do anything when Alistair broke up with them and then sacrificed himself for them at the end of Origins... until they found out about Queen Cousland + Dark Ritual.

They're much happier with the Queen Cousland playthrough, they claim it's the bestest and they can live happily-ever after and write fiction for it. Though, if they're ever reminded of that initial playthrough, some of them still burst into tears and tell me to shut up. I can tell which one had the greater impact on them, which one they'll remember years from now.

Having such an impact on the player is an experience which proves gaming is a powerful interactive medium, which I unfortunately fear may be held back because players demand all escapism to feel good. Which is odd, as they demand no such limitations for literature or film.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 14 juin 2012 - 02:09 .

[Brockololly]

Dave of Canada wrote...
I was disappointed when it occured in my game, as I fully expected the Circle of Magi option to take too long and allow the demon to rampage around some more, possibly killing Teagan. Though when I arrived, the demon did nothing while I crossed Lake Calenhad and helped the mages solve their problems.

I think its ok to have that third option, but have it only be successful if you had previously completed the mage storyline prior to Redcliffe. Otherwise, like you said, if you tried to go back to the mage tower you should come back to Redcliffe thats been even more messed up. Thats what I thought would happen and was honestly surprised when it went fine.

Dave of Canada wrote...
Third options--while interesting--should never be consequence-free, lest it become default. Look at what occured when most Alistair romancers found out they could get a "happy" ending if they went Female Cousland, it resulted in most people "rerolling" and insulting all other Origin Alistair romancers as non-canon.

There is nothing wrong with having a "happy ending" either. If people want to reroll or metagame by reloading a save game to do a different choice, I have no problem with that. I'm sure there are Alistair romancing Wardens that stuck with their non human Warden despite not being able to Queen- look at Aimo and her dwarven noble warden. That whole thing is a good bit of reactivity that makes sense based on the lore, not so much a third choice.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
if you never have an  ideal solution, people will never look for them. If you do occasionally have them, people may look for them. Though I suppose they may get  annoyed when they can't find one... Hahaha.

I'll bring up the Witcher again, because in general, I love how most of the choices/consequences have no clear cut right, wrong or optimal choices/consequences. Things just happen.


Do you side with Roche or Iorveth? No right or wrong choice- just different consequences.

You might encounter a certain character who you think is the villain of the whole story and sure, he's killed some major people and made your life difficult. But as the story progresses, you find out your PC had a past history with this guy where he's also helped you out. So do you kill him or let him go?

Another one- you have a guy who presumably may be important to the stability of a whole geographic region in the face of a coming invasion. He's a solid ruler, but he's a totally despicable human being and can really screw over one of your player character's allies. Do you take the chance to kill this guy out of revenge, which will potentially make you the very thing people are wrongly accusing you of being and will destablize the region or do you let him go, not punishing him for what he's done and keeping him in power?

There are just tons of interesting choices to make in the Witcher games with no clear right or wrong judgment to be placed on them.

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 juin 2012 - 02:35 .

[Dave of Canada]

Brockololly wrote...

I think its ok to have that third option, but have it only be successful if you had previously completed the mage storyline prior to Redcliffe. Otherwise, like you said, if you tried to go back to the mage tower you should come back to Redcliffe thats been even more messed up. Thats what I thought would happen and was honestly surprised when it went fine.

That'd create four variations to one quest rather than the three presented. All that'd occur is that the third "unhappy" choice would be just as ignored as the other two, which is mostly what I don't like when third choices are involved.

There is nothing wrong with having a "happy ending" either. If people want to reroll or metagame by reloading a save game to do a different choice, I have no problem with that. I'm sure there are Alistair romancing Wardens that stuck with their non human Warden despite not being able to Queen- look at Aimo and her dwarven noble warden. That whole thing is a good bit of reactivity that makes sense based on the lore, not so much a third choice.

All I can remember is all the insults you'd recieve if you posted Alistair with anything but FemCous in the Alistair thread. My god, that thread was a shark tank.

[Brockololly]

Dave of Canada wrote...
That'd create four variations to one quest rather than the three presented. All that'd occur is that the third "unhappy" choice would be just as ignored as the other two, which is mostly what I don't like when third choices are involved.

Again, thats from a metagame POV. Can one reasonably expect developers to design a game that prohibits metagaming or allowing people to go back on a second or third playthrough to make choices knowing the outcomes?

With DAO, it would be interesting if they had it more like Alpha Protocol where the order of the hubs locked off or opened up content and choices behind the scenes. 

Dave of Canada wrote...
I'd say forcing people out of their   comfort zone is far more memorable for them (despite their insistence on the others). Many of my friends who've romanced Alistair were   heartbroken, they were unable to go in public and refused to do anything when Alistair broke up with them and then sacrificed himself for them   at the end of Origins... until they found out about Queen Cousland + Dark Ritual

Thats why the DR has potential- it could be something that bites  somebody in the ass. So maybe they get their decade or 2 on the throne  only to have Morrigan and the OGB directly or indirectly rain on their  parade down the line. I think having delayed consequences is how to at  least partially solve this. Let people have their happy endings to some  extent but then throw a wrench in that makes sense later on. Have  choice/consequences where yes, you can marry Alistair and become Queen  but maybe you have to do something super questionable or objectionable  to get that result. Just locking out the possibility of a good ending  seems potentially unnecessarily bleak, especially if you've just spent  dozens of hours invested in this game.

Dave of Canada wrote...
They're much happier with the Queen Cousland  playthrough, they claim it's the  bestest and they can live happily-ever  after and write fiction for it.  Though, if they're ever reminded  of that initial playthrough,  some of them still burst into tears and  tell me to shut up. I can tell  which one had the greater impact on them, which one they'll remember  years from now.

They'll probably remember both. I know  I wasn't thrilled with how the Morrigan romance ended in Origins. They  were seemingly going for a bittersweet ending, but the lack of  sufficient dialogue and the handcuffing of the Warden in the Dark Ritual conversation made the whole thing feel very forced and insincere, IMO.  So I wasn't thinking as much "Oh, what an ending!" , I was ticked off at how out of character and passive my Warden was forced to act in that  Dark Ritual conversation.

Dave of Canada wrote...
Having such an impact on the player is an experience which proves gaming is a  powerful  interactive medium, which I unfortunately fear may be held  back because  players demand all escapism to feel good. Which is odd, as they demand  no such limitations for literature or film.

True... I think thats an issue with RPGs mostly. Somebody like George RR Martin can get away with something like the Red Wedding because its one  narrative and you're not dealing with choices. Would that work in a
choice driven RPG? Maybe...but even with something like the Red Wedding, that pisses off tons of people. It works though because you do get some catharsis and consequences to it later on ("The North remembers."). So maybe something like that could work, but you'd have to position it  in the middle of a game to allow for some level of retribution,  otherwise you just make a game thats so bleak or unenjoyable you'd limit the amount of people that would want to invest dozens of hours into it  just for unavoidable crap outcomes.

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 juin 2012 - 02:43 .

[Withidread]

I'm going back and playing older games mostly. I've got the entire BG series installed right now, Diablo 3, Doom 3, DA (of course) Drakensang and various other games via Origin/Steam.

Also, for some reason I keep listening to this:
It's an excellent reminder of what can happen when someone has too much time on their hands.

Modifié par Withidread, 14 juin 2012 - 02:50 .

[tisoy13]

DAO, DA2, and Skyrim mode while waiting for DA3

[wsandista]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


That's nice, although it is a bit general haha.  Many of us have read the document though, but if there's aspects that you like more than others this is a good time to mention it.  Presenting them in a way for how you'd tie them into Dragon Age will probably score bonus points


Just as an example, BIoWare has never done a "full open party" game (there's always been a defined protagonist), so consider it a challenge to figure out how something like that can work while factoring in that it's a "radical" perspective for BioWare and hence, also BioWare fans.  Your answer could be as simple as "Do it.  They'll love it" but that's just not as much fun now is it!?

For one thing, I like the idea that "The best moments and stories in games come from systems, not through extended exposition or long cut scenes." I would personally see DA shift from cinematic-based to more gameplay-based storytelling. This could be accomplished by having reactions to how the party fights, rather than the results of fights or putting more emphasis on PC  skills(if they will be brought back in DA3, one can always hope right?) in conversations rather than rely on the conversation to set up a certain event(s).

Another thing I would like to see is more conflict between NPCs. The vision document mentions that NPCs will not be shy if they like someone in the party and will act on their dislike. While not a Bioware game (although there are instances in DA, like Fenris and Anders, or anyone and Nataniel.) NWN2 had some serious potential with the conflicts between Bishop and (insert any companion) that were not acted on. Serious conflict that could easily end with one of them dying, and can't be easily resolved peacefully, as well as not being as scripted like the ME2 confrontations or Anders-Sebastian situation, would be amazing.

[Dave of Canada]

I'm imagining the game as having two different paradigms, the ruthless and the idealist. Somewhat similar to Renegade / Paragon but without the bars which define the morality. When you're confronted with a grey decision, both these paradigms come into conflict as you're incapable of telling which one is the "correct" one.

This is why I don't like third choices, however. It turns the choice from conflict of one's self into an idealist's world. I'm not against third choices as a whole, just that they're mostly consequence free. One's happy ending musn't be consequence free, otherwise there was no conflict leading to the finale.

For example, you're pro-mage and wish to see mages free. You've heard that Templar are surrounding your encampment and will attack soon, the Grand Enchanter demands all non-mage supporters be gathered and sacrificed to empower their blood mages to defend the camp.

Two choices are presented:
A) Let the non-mages escape.
Benefits: You've saved the non-mages (you feel good about yourself) and they thank you. Non-mages hear of it and think higher of you, less of the Grand Enchanter which could come into play later.
Consequences: The Templar attack goes bad, many mages are killed and the Grand Enchanter holds resentment towards you. The war effort is hindered.

Let the Grand Enchanter sacrifice the non-mages.
Benefits: The Templar attack is repelled, less casualties and the Grand Enchanter doesn't think less of you. The war effort continues.
Consequences: The populace hear of the atrocities from fleeing Templar, gaining your group much dislike. You probably feel bad because you watch the people get slaughtered.

The player must pick their happy ending and work towards it, rather than just pick whatever one they want. Do they wish to achieve mage victory, no matter the cost and eventually becoming someone like Loghain, surrounded by enemies at all sides? Do they wish to keep their ethics intact even if it means possibly letting victory slip from their grasp? Do they work to try and find something in-between, compromising when they have no other choice?

When presented with the happy third alternative, no such thoughts matter. Just do it and it works. Least with this--depending on their goal--they'd be able to satisfy their criteria for "happy ending", providing they're not trying to hold all their eggs in one basket.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 14 juin 2012 - 03:09 .

[wsandista]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'm imagining the game as having two different paradigms, the ruthless and the idealist. Somewhat similar to Renegade / Paragon but without the bars which define the morality. When you're confronted with a grey decision, both these paradigms come into conflict as you're incapable of telling which one is the "correct" one.

This is why I don't like third choices, however. It turns the choice from conflict of one's self into an idealist's world. I'm not against third choices as a whole, just that they're mostly consequence free. One's happy ending musn't be consequence free, otherwise there was no conflict leading to the finale.

For example, you're pro-mage and wish to see mages free. You've heard that Templar are surrounding your encampment and will attack soon, the Grand Enchanter demands all non-mage supporters be gathered and sacrificed to empower their blood mages to defend the camp.

Two choices are presented:
A) Let the non-mages escape.
Benefits: You've saved the non-mages (you feel good about yourself) and they thank you. Non-mages hear of it and think higher of you, less of the Grand Enchanter which could come into play later.
Consequences: The Templar attack goes bad, many mages are killed and the Grand Enchanter holds resentment towards you. The war effort is hindered.

Let the Grand Enchanter sacrifice the non-mages.
Benefits: The Templar attack is repelled, less casualties and the Grand Enchanter doesn't think less of you. The war effort continues.
Consequences: The populace hear of the atrocities from fleeing Templar, gaining your group much dislike. You probably feel bad because you watch the people get slaughtered.

The player must pick their happy ending and work towards it, rather than just pick whatever one they want. Do they wish to achieve mage victory, no matter the cost and eventually becoming someone like Loghain, surrounded by enemies at all sides? Do they wish to keep their ethics intact even if it means possibly letting victory slip from their grasp? Do they work to try and find something in-between, compromising when they have no other choice?

When presented with the happy third alternative, no such thoughts matter. Just do it and it works. Least with this--depending on their goal--they'd be able to satisfy their criteria for "happy ending", providing they're not trying to hold all their eggs in one basket.

I agree with this post, but would like to add that a third "hybrid option" should exist, but actually have a higher failure ratio than "idealist" or "pragmatic", simply to drive home the point that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[SafetyShattered]

Well I recently watched the Dragon Age anime and thought it was pretty good. I'm also going through the Dragon Age books. I'm desperate for anything Dragon Age at this point. I'd love some information about DA3 as well. So what do you think Allan? Come on we're bros. You can tell me. I'll give you a cookie with a smiley face made out of love if you do.

Modifié par Shadowfang12, 14 juin 2012 - 03:41 .

[Allan Schumacher]

How many of them supported Harrowmont and then switched over to supporting Bhelen immediately upon hearing that he gives the happy ending? I don't mean to be offensive but most of them are not thinking of their decisions. Which is why things like Rannoch, Connor, Werewolves and such never really have much discussion--it ultimately leads to "why not do the happy ending?".

I don't think you'll ever be able to fully get rid of this. What I liked about the Bhelen/Harrowmont issue is that you don't see the results of it until the end game (presumably long after doing Orzammar). If someone wishes to reroll their story to make sure it's rainbows and lollipops, is that necessarily a bad thing?

I picked Harrowmont and stuck with my guns afterward, and it was somewhat refreshing to know that it was the suboptimal choice. Unless you're saying that learning about an ideal choice makes you feel cheated (and I don't think you are), at this point is it necessarily bad? I used Jowan and sacrificed Isolde, and finding out that it was possible to have a better outcome made me go "Hey that's neat!" but I still stuck with my playthrough. It didn't take anything away from my playthrough.


If you've seen my posts about the ME3 endings, you'll know that in many ways I actually agree with your position. But by the same token I think that people did a decent enough job of indicating that part of why they play video games is for some escapist fun, and providing the occasional way of finding a way to resolve things in a happy outcome is enjoyable. If we can do it in a way that isn't overly contrived or ham fisted, I think it's a decent way to allow for some player agency.


I'm actually more open to these ideal solutions if it still requires compromise elsewhere (imagine only being able to do the ideal for one of the Brecillian Forest or Connor), but even then I don't think purely eliminating ideal outcomes is necessarily a good thing either. But I do agree with the notion that achieving the ideal should be fragile and relatively easy to no longer be possible.

If people want to reroll to achieve these, I think that's up to them. It's their game experience and I don't think we should make too many decisions that try to prevent metagaming. Save it for the really big moments where we really want to make you think.

[David Gaider]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
If people want to reroll to achieve these, I think that's up to them. It's their game experience and I don't think we should make too many decisions that try to prevent metagaming. Save it for the really big moments where we really want to make you think.

The only part where I would disagree with you, Allan, is when the "optimal ending" comes without cost... at least in those situations where a cost is appropriate. Sometimes happy endings should just be happy endings. They're grand. But when you have a dramatic situation, offering an easy out cheapens it no matter how much a player might want it.

Of course they want it. If we've done our job right, they care about having that happy ending enough to want it because they want everything to work out for everyone involved. Giving it to them is not always a good idea.

I hold Redcliffe up as my own personal failure on this front. I wimped out and gave the "third option" of a consequence-free solution just by doing something the player was going to do anyhow... when that really should have come with its own cost. Yes, you should have been able to save both Isolde and Connor... at the price of returning and seeing the village of Redcliffe desolated just the same as if you'd abandoned it to the zombie horde.

Which is not to say that all plots should exist to batter the player over the head with their grimdark realness (in my opinon). But neither would I ever agree that just because a player wants their escapist everything-works-out ending that it's my job to give it to them.

Just my two cents.

[Ihatebadgames]

What am I doing?Watching movies I've missed somehow,Bought Dawn of The Seeker which would have been good DLC as opposed to Legacy which I did not care for.Playing Witcher 2,DA:O and Fallout:NV.Looking at the stack of "read me" books,books never read and looking longingly at the bigger stack of reread me faviorites.