14 réponses à ce sujet

[Lennard Testarossa]

Pretty much everyone agrees we should have plenty of choice. And these choices we make should have consequences both in the game itself and in the epilogue. Which kind of consequence is generally not specified.
I'd like to know your opinion on two specific notions.

Most choices in games have very immediate consequences. You make a choice knowing what will come of it. And even if you do not know, the immediacy makes it easy to reload and take a different pick if the outcome does not suit you. And in the rare event that choices have consequences much farther down the road, these consequences are never truly dire. I find this to be quite boring.

So the first notion is:
There should be choices to make which have large and unforeseen (or at least very hard to foresee) consequences much later in the game.

An example: You meet a magically talented kid. It is particularly vulnerable to demonic possession. You get the choice to either kill it or help it escape the templars. If you let it escape, it becomes an abomination later in the game and kills one of your companions, who happens to be a possible LI.

I am in favor of these kind of consequences. But it is also certain that many of those who lose their LI and do not have the possibility of changing that without replaying half the game will whine about it.

This example brings me to my next point: 
In ME being deciding to be a pure Paragon has no negative consequences whatsoever. Being the white knight in shining armor all the time has no repercussions. The same holds true for Dragon Age. Doing what is obviously the "good" thing to do may at times cause some minor damage in the epilogue, but apart form that, there's rarely ever a hard choice to make, where taking the "good " choice really messes things up.

Thus the second notion:
Playing the white knight should occasionally come back to bite you in the ass. Hard.

[Maria Caliban]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Pretty much everyone agrees we should have plenty of choice. And these choices we make should have consequences both in the game itself and in the epilogue. Which kind of consequence is generally not specified.

Not sure I agree, but go on...

I'd like to know your opinion on two specific notions.

There should be choices to make which have large and unforeseen (or at least very hard to foresee) consequences much later in the game.

There should be logical, or rational, consequences for your actions.

The thing is that if you don't know you're making a choice, it's not much of a choice while you're RPing.

An example: You meet a magically talented kid. It is particularly vulnerable to demonic possession. You get the choice to either kill it or help it escape the templars. If you let it escape, it becomes an abomination later in the game and kills one of your companions, who happens to be a possible LI.

This will naturally happen in a cutscene after you've managed to kill dozens of abominations in the actual game, and your character will suddenly not have access to health potions or restorative magic.

I am in favor of these kind of consequences.

You want a game-world that is arbitrary and cruel because... I'm going to guess 'darkness' or 'mature.'

But it is also certain that many of those who lose their LI and do not have the possibility of changing that without replaying half the game will whine about it.

They want a game world that isn't arbitrary or cruel.

In ME being deciding to be a pure Paragon has no negative consequences whatsoever. Being the white knight in shining armor all the time has no repercussions. The same holds true for Dragon Age. Doing what is obviously the "good" thing to do may at times cause some minor damage in the epilogue, but apart form that, there's rarely ever a hard choice to make, where taking the "good " choice really messes things up.

Thus the second notion:
Playing the white knight should occasionally come back to bite you in the ass. Hard.

Of course, being a Renegade also had no negative consequences, yet you don't suggest that being a greedy, violent, occasionally xenophobic *** come and bite you 'hard.'

I'd ask why, but I'd guess it has something to do with 'darkness' and 'mature.'

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:14 .

[marshalleck]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Of course, being a Renegade also had no negative consequences, yet you don't suggest that being a greedy, violent, occasionally xenophobic *** come and bite you 'hard.'

I'd ask why, but I'd guess it has something to do with 'darkness' and 'mature.'

No, it often had nothing at all. As if the situation where you made the renegade decision never happened. A black hole of choice and consequence where nothing escapes and anything swallowed up is never seen or heard from again.

I'd welcome negative consequences for renegade (and paragon) actions. Negative consequence is better than the black hole of nothing.

Modifié par marshalleck, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:31 .

[Gileadan]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

An example: You meet a magically talented kid. It is particularly vulnerable to demonic possession. You get the choice to either kill it or help it escape the templars. If you let it escape, it becomes an abomination later in the game and kills one of your companions, who happens to be a possible LI.

Thus the second notion:
Playing the white knight should occasionally come back to bite you in the ass. Hard.

Well, I would rather prefer that in your example, said kid returns as an abomination and might *try* to kill my party member, but that I can try and kill it first.  Consequences are welcome to come back and try to bite my ass, as hard as they please, but I should be able to prevent it from happening. It's fine if that is hard to do, but the option should be there.

I already had a game where bad things just happened while my protagonist just stood there, thank you very much. 

Modifié par Gileadan, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:27 .

[Lennard Testarossa]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Of course, being a Renegade also had no negative consequences, yet you don't suggest that being a greedy, violent, occasionally xenophobic *** come and bite you 'hard.'

Nah. Of course it should have similiar consequences at times. The reason I focused on the White Knight is that being an **** often has some repercussions already, like Lelianna attacking you after you destroy the Ashes.
Or Wrex discovering you sabotaged the cure. It's not enough certainly not enough, though.

Maria Caliban wrote...
There should be logical, or rational, consequences for your actions.

The thing is that if you don't know you're making a choice, it's not much of a choice while you're RPing.

Rational? Logical? It is impossible to truly predict sufficiently complex systems.  Unpredictability is in no way irrational. And you do know you're making a choice, you just don't know  the exact consequences of your actions. What's the point of hard choices if making them is never necessary?

Maria Calbin wrote...
This will naturally happen in a cutscene after you've managed to kill dozens of abominations in the actual game, and your character will suddenly not have access to health potions or restorative magic.

Or you're simply not with that character at the time.

Maria Caliban wrote...
You want a game-world that is arbitrary and cruel because... I'm going to guess 'darkness' or 'mature.'

[...]

They want a game world that isn't arbitrary or cruel.

Unpredictable =/= arbitrary. Besides, you do know the kid's potentially dangerous. And why I want it?
Because I find it to be far more interesting. And because it makes making solid decisions that much more important.

Modifié par Lennard Testarossa, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:37 .

[Todd23]

 

[Izana]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...
Playing the white knight should occasionally come back to bite you in the ass. Hard.

I like that idea. To be said white knight does not always help after all.

[LobselVith8]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Pretty much everyone agrees we should have plenty of choice. And these choices we make should have consequences both in the game itself and in the epilogue. Which kind of consequence is generally not specified.
I'd like to know your opinion on two specific notions.

Most choices in games have very immediate consequences. You make a choice knowing what will come of it. And even if you do not know, the immediacy makes it easy to reload and take a different pick if the outcome does not suit you. And in the rare event that choices have consequences much farther down the road, these consequences are never truly dire. I find this to be quite boring.

I think choices should have consequences. Siding against Magistrate Vanard by killing Kelder should have had some ramifications among the elves in the Alienage, considering that humans typically look down on them (and women were abducted out of the Denerim Alienage in broad daylight without anyone giving a damn). We could have seen consequences to Hawke's actions for protecting elves over siding with a politically powerful human, from how the Alienage elves treat Hawke to repercussions from Vanard for killing his son.

Even the Champion being in a romance with an elven companion is only addressed in the codex, rather than actually seeing the consequences of dating a non-human among the members of Kirkwall society (such as the scandal of Hawke and Merrill living together in the Amell mansion being a "scandal" that is only read about, rather than actually witnessed in the narrative).

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

So the first notion is:
There should be choices to make which have large and unforeseen (or at least very hard to foresee) consequences much later in the game.

An example: You meet a magically talented kid. It is particularly vulnerable to demonic possession. You get the choice to either kill it or help it escape the templars. If you let it escape, it becomes an abomination later in the game and kills one of your companions, who happens to be a possible LI.

I don't think any choices should force us to side with the templars or the mages, if the protagonist wants to be allied with one or the other. Choices should have consequences, and being allied with either side shouldn't be idyllic, but I don't think we should be faced with choices that force us to side with either the templars or the mages if we have no desire to side with them simply to gain a favorable outcome.

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

I am in favor of these kind of consequences. But it is also certain that many of those who lose their LI and do not have the possibility of changing that without replaying half the game will whine about it.

This example brings me to my next point: 
In ME being deciding to be a pure Paragon has no negative consequences whatsoever. Being the white knight in shining armor all the time has no repercussions. The same holds true for Dragon Age. Doing what is obviously the "good" thing to do may at times cause some minor damage in the epilogue, but apart form that, there's rarely ever a hard choice to make, where taking the "good " choice really messes things up.

Thus the second notion:
Playing the white knight should occasionally come back to bite you in the ass. Hard.

No choice should be ideal (such as the outcomes in New Vegas for siding with a particular faction, where none of the choices lead to a utopia and all have their flaws), but I don't think favoring a particular style of protagonist should be condemned.

[Wulfram]

I generally prefer to have a fairly good idea of what the choices are in an RPG, rather than having consequences be truly unpredictable. For me, I prefer the emphasis to be on what the PC really wants and values, rather than on trying to assess what arbitrarily assigned risks the writers might have added. Particularly when the writers seem to have ideas about politics and warfare that conflict quite a bit with my own.

Unpredictable outcomes also screw around with replays, because you're now making a decision tainted by metagame knowledge.

I also think it can be annoying if things come back to bite the player personally in a contrived way. You shouldn't have everyone the player spares end up targetting their loved ones.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LobselVith8 wrote...

No choice should be ideal (such as the outcomes in New Vegas for siding with a particular faction, where none of the choices lead to a utopia and all have their flaws), but I don't think favoring a particular style of protagonist should be condemned.

No choice should be predictably ideal.  I quite like the availabilty of ideal outcomes if those outcomes require big gambles to achieve them (Redcliffe, I think, does this well).

And I agree with Maria - if an abomination is going to come to kill your companion, you need to have a chance to defend your companion in regular gameplay, rather than having a cutscene do what the game mechanics cannot.

[Quicksilver26]

Gileadan wrote...

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

An example: You meet a magically talented kid. It is particularly vulnerable to demonic possession. You get the choice to either kill it or help it escape the templars. If you let it escape, it becomes an abomination later in the game and kills one of your companions, who happens to be a possible LI.

Thus the second notion:
Playing the white knight should occasionally come back to bite you in the ass. Hard.

Well, I would rather prefer that in your example, said kid returns as an abomination and might *try* to kill my party member, but that I can try and kill it first.  Consequences are welcome to come back and try to bite my ass, as hard as they please, but I should be able to prevent it from happening. It's fine if that is hard to do, but the option should be there.

I already had a game where bad things just happened while my protagonist just stood there, thank you very much. 

i'm with this guy on this +10:wizard:they are more than welcome to try but i need a chance to stop them from dying cause instana death is so not cool 

[LobselVith8]

Nizaris1 wrote...

There is an illusion of choices actually, for example, Hawke a mage, Bethany a mage, they go to Kirkwall, a city full of Templar, why not they go to Tevinter? Hawke cannot suggest other places and reject her mother idea.

Let say, as soon as they arrived at Kirkwall, Hawke using her magic killing a lot of peoples who get angry because cannot get in, someone report to the Templar, Hawke goes into the Gallow.....What i mean is, there is no choice, Hawke must go into Kirkwall and cannot get out until she kill Meredith.

The whole thing have been set up like that, Hawke must go to Kirkwall even it is like giving her neck to the rope, she cannot choose to get out, then she must kill Meredith to escape Kirkwall. What are the choices? What are consequences? Nothing.

Certain story elements didn't really make much sense in the context of Dragon Age II. Being railroaded into letting Petrice live when she admits she wants to kill innocent people to start a religious war simply to railroad Hawke onto a specific path doesn't make much sense.

[DarthLaxian]

well - consequences, ok

but killing of a companion character like that (which is not really necessary? - sorry, nope...if it is a noble "sacrifice" with choice (like ME1 - Virmire) then ok, but just like that? - no way mate!)

greetings LAX
ps: really influencing the story (unlike DA:O were it was basically the same till the epilogue...with a few differences of course, but nothing all that major!) would be "cool"

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gileadan wrote...

Well, I would rather prefer that in your example, said kid returns as an abomination and might *try* to kill my party member, but that I can try and kill it first.  Consequences are welcome to come back and try to bite my ass, as hard as they please, but I should be able to prevent it from happening. It's fine if that is hard to do, but the option should be there.

You should be able to try to prevent it from happening.  Even if it is impossible, the option should be there.

I would have preferred the Virmire choice from ME if Shepard could have tried to save both Ashley and Kaidan, even if any such attempt was guaranteed to fail (either that one of them would inevitably die, or Shepard would die).  But even if failure is guaranteed, we should play out that failure through gameplay.