6 réponses à ce sujet

[Burnouts3s3]

 

Recently, I've felt that the recent Bioware games (mainly Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3) have put an emphasis, if not an over-empahsis, on cinematic endings that seem to look great but leave a lot of open questions. While I understand the mystery of certain aspects can be entertaining from a writer's perspective, many of readers and audience would appreciate definitive answers to all of their choices and interactions with the companions. 

To which, i suggestion another solution: why not simply have text endings, based on choices, akin to Jade Empire and Dragon Age: Origins? It's easy to produce, much more simplier than recording dialogue, and will give satisfaction to fans of each character/aspect the player chooses to focus on. Even, if say, you wish to continue the series with sequels where you answer a character's fate in that game, why not simply tell us what became of that character by the end with a simple hint of text. For example, Morrigan would have her resolution in Witch Hunt but at the end of Origins, the game 'hinted' at the character's fate without giving too much away.

That, in my opinion, seems the best way to answer any linguering questions while still playing with upcoming mysteries.

[David Gaider]

Burnouts3s3 wrote...
To which, i suggestion another solution: why not simply have text endings, based on choices, akin to Jade Empire and Dragon Age: Origins?

It's something we're considering-- both in terms of the text endings (as in DAO) and a playable denouement after the climax. For the text endings, it's possible they could be voiced-- and I think, if we did them, we'd want to make sure they didn't cast too far into the future as those are the things that are most likely to be contradicted when plans change in development. But it's definitely a possibility.

[David Gaider]

Caiden012 wrote...
No not really. All I am saying is that saying "we'll see" at the end of the post tells everyone that there is a chance it will happen. There is really no hidden meaning to what I am trying to say. You assume too much.

It got some peoples hopes up and now they are down. That is all that happened.

Four months ago, the decision had not yet been conclusively made.

What you are indeed telling me is we shouldn't tell anyone when there's a "maybe"-- like "we're considering doing text epilogues"-- because that's evidently just teasing you and stringing you along? Or, far worse, used as evidence in the future that we must have already known the answer was "no" and were simply lying at the time? If so, that's disheartening if hardly surprising.

Modifié par David Gaider, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:00 .

[David Gaider]

Blastback wrote...
Well, lets be fair, there has been some evidence of that sort of thing happeing in the past.  When players asked about a toolset in DA2, for months we were told that it would come down to if you all had the time to put into it.  Then eventually Priestly said that there had never been much of a chance of getting one, because you used 3rd party tools yourselves.

And every time the toolset was brought up, obstacles like the 3rd party tools were brought up. And yet we said it remained up in the air because we were indeed trying to find a way to resolve those difficulties. We weren't filled with hope, no, but the possibility remained.

Should we have not said so? For all the fans here constantly telling us that we should clue them in on the "maybes" of development, and that they can be trusted not to take them as iron-clad promises, it's sometimes hard not to get the opposite impression.

[Allan Schumacher]

It's pretty simple: I and others want to see the consequences occur in the game. They should have an effect before the ending, not after. I want to see the immediate impact my choices have in the game I am playing. I don't want or need to know what happened a year or more later, especially if it means the writers will be restricted when it comes to future development. If I'm not playing it myself, it does not matter. Save that stuff for a possible sequel, or put it in secondary media like a novel or a comic.

The problem with immediate consequences is sometimes they don't make sense. My favourite resolution in DAO was learning about how Harrowmont's archaic ways is ultimately much worse for Orzammar, which isn't really something that can be experienced immediately. That said, it could still be done in game, if just done differently.

[Allan Schumacher]

Are you disputing that it can't be experienced immediately? Or just my interpretation of the consequences of Harrowmont being leader?

My point was more just that some consequences shouldn't really be felt for some time.

[Allan Schumacher]

Plaintiff wrote...
Well, that's one of the things I could stand to simply not know. In fact, in this particular instance, I think I would almost prefer it. Knowing the long-term consequences affects my playthroughs, because I'm an awful metagamer and if I'm made aware of the long-term consequences, then I'm going to play the game with the intention of acheiving what I've predetermined to be the "best" outcome.

I'm typically of the mind that the first playthrough is usually the most significant, because metagaming cannot occur if you keep yourself free from spoilers from external sources.


And given that the consequence for this action is shown right at the end of the game, the idea of the player going "What!?  I don't want that.  Ima reload" is a bit too late as people are already in a "I have completed the game and now I see how things turn out" state of mind.

Granted, it's something that we could easily show in sequels too.  If we're going to do some sort of import, this may be an acceptable way of informing the player of long term repercussions, and limit an epilogue to the more immediate aftermath.

A randomizer for the endings may be an idea that would be TOTALLY awesome.

If people already feel that their actions are inconsequential, however....

I think I prefer a more deterministic set of consequences.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 octobre 2012 - 06:23 .