143 réponses à ce sujet

[Bob Garbage]

I like the text conclusions, they're harder to **** up.

[Plaintiff]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

[esper]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

And that was the resolution I haded the most because the outcome had zero to do with my warden as the full blown consequence of that is so far out in the future that she would properly be doing her calling anyway.

You could have hinted which way it was going in da:o, but there was no need for me to know the actual long term outcome at that time as there was no way my warden would ever know it. In fact knowing it detracts from the choice since none of my warden were dwarfs so they had nothing to gain from the choice (they get an army either way) and thus I choose purely on meta level.

[Fallstar]

Text endings are great. You can go into far more detail with them than you can with a cutscene ending for example.

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

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

As in, you may pick a choice in one game and come out with an ending, and pick the same choice in another game and come out with a slightly (or maybe even DRASTICALLY) different outcome. It would lower the ability to metagame (and, if the variable is set when you make the choice, rather than right before the epilogues starts, people wouldn't be tempted to reset their game and keeping beating it until they received their preferred endings). It would take more resources, but I was always under the impression that pure text epilogue slides were fairly simple to pull off?


That being said, if not a random chance at different events, maybe tie choices in with each other? For instance, if you saved the Anvil and support Bhelen, his terrible, cruel use of it will cause a revolt and lead Orzammar into a dark age, instead of him being the best decision. Or if you saved the Anvil for Harrowmont, he used it wisely but sparingly, and allowed a new corp of golems that cemented his reign and was able to keep the peace instead of being highly ineffectual.


Either way would require more time and work on the endings, which couldn't be a bad thing... but I know there are limited resources, just like with anything else.

[Sejborg]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

It could have been done in DA2 where you had a story that lasted ten years. But sadly there was no choices of consequence in that game. 

[Sejborg]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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

As in, you may pick a choice in one game and come out with an ending, and pick the same choice in another game and come out with a slightly (or maybe even DRASTICALLY) different outcome. It would lower the ability to metagame (and, if the variable is set when you make the choice, rather than right before the epilogues starts, people wouldn't be tempted to reset their game and keeping beating it until they received their preferred endings). It would take more resources, but I was always under the impression that pure text epilogue slides were fairly simple to pull off?

This make very little sense. Also as Albert Einsten said. :
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
That being said, if not a random chance at different events, maybe tie choices in with each other? For instance, if you saved the Anvil and support Bhelen, his terrible, cruel use of it will cause a revolt and lead Orzammar into a dark age, instead of him being the best decision. Or if you saved the Anvil for Harrowmont, he used it wisely but sparingly, and allowed a new corp of golems that cemented his reign and was able to keep the peace instead of being highly ineffectual.

This I would like. It's a good suggestion. Having choices intervene like that could result in having different endings that could be seen as equally good or bad. Grey choices and all that. 

[Caio Cesare Giulio]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

While the text endings are fine, I can see the move to cinematic endings as a way to lend more weight to what happens, and in some ways it can give the feeling that you as a player are still apart of the ending; with the text endings, for me anyway, there is a very abundant sense that things are over and you're no longer a part of the story.

I agree. Text endings are fine for me too, they give you a sense of closure (like DA:O). But cinematic endings are on another level, they involve your emotions and are more involving (I loved ME3 ending!) 

[NRieh]

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

Next thing you will ask for - is a random level generator...

And I don't really think random ending is good. Same as any random stuff. ME3 had random nightmares generator, for example...which made them even worse...

[nightscrawl]

Plaintiff wrote...

The text slides in Origins were largely pointless. If they dealt solely with the main characters, and kept a degree of ambiguity, that might be okay. But I don't need to know the life story of every single sad-sack I helped along the way. I don't care which faceless cutout Teagan married, I don't care what happened to Brother Burkel or to Dagna or to Bevan. I'm not going to get to play these stories, so what's the point?

I think the point there is to show the consequences of your actions, good or ill. The various slides about Bevan or his sister are largely positive, while both of the slides pertaining to Dagna or Brother Burkel are negative in that they provoke the Chantry.

Let's just take Brother Burkel as an example. The first time I persuaded the Shaperate to allow Burkel to open his Chantry in Orzammar I did so in the spirit of bringing the option to the residents of Orzammar. I felt that those who wanted to continue to revere their ancestors and the Stone could continue to do so, while others can have the freedom to explore something else. I didn't do it as an ardent supporter of the Chantry. I was honestly surprised that the epilogue slide ended up that way =/.

The epilogue slides neglect the majority of the incidental questgivers anyway, but I don't see anyone complaining that Wade and Herren didn't get "closure".

You don't have any quests involving or helping them though, they only craft some armor for you.

And what about Ruck's mother? Or Zerlinda and her child?

This is more valid I think. It begs the question: how do the devs choose which story to delve more into in the epilogue slides? Why do Bevin and Kaitlyn merit a mention while Zerlinda and her son do not?

Modifié par nightscrawl, 23 octobre 2012 - 01:25 .

[tmp7704]

I quite like the ending text/slides, personally.

The shift in the medium from visuals-heavy to text/stills lends well imo to making it feel like a part of denouement rather than part of the core experience. And all these who complain how games are 'visual medium' may want to consider even the most visual medium the games nowadays try so hard to emulate (the movies) don't shy away from having "slides" or purely text-based epilogue.

Regarding potential continuity issues -- that's not a problem specific to text ending, but to having clear epilogue in general. And it's up to the writer to realize what corners they're writing themselves into with the endings they provide, and to plan ahead to minimize and/or avoid these instances. Dodging that instead by not providing any resolution is a pretty poor alternative "solution" in my eyes.

Modifié par tmp7704, 23 octobre 2012 - 04:08 .

[Maria Caliban]

jackofalltrades456 wrote...


Well I've been rather skeptical of this whole "we'll going to bring all these features back from Origins and combine them with Dragon Age 2!" Yet, so far every feature you've announced has been purely Dragon Age 2 features like iconic appearances, the dialogue wheel, voiced protagonist, set human protagonist with no playable Origins, focus on cinematics . Yet, with Origins feature you refuse to comment or simply state that your not going to bring that feature back at all.

I'm sorry, but hearing no playable races or Origins has only increased my skepticism that you're going to deliver on this statement at all.

The appearance might be iconic, but you can place armor on companions and it does change the way they look. This is something people who felt Dragon Age II was 'dumbed down' specifically asked for. Likewise, they're increasing the size and openness of the levels.

But you're right, there are no announced features for people who liked DA:O but hated DA II. I doubt there will be any.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

jackofalltrades456 wrote...


Well I've been rather skeptical of this whole "we'll going to bring all these features back from Origins and combine them with Dragon Age 2!" Yet, so far every feature you've announced has been purely Dragon Age 2 features like iconic appearances, the dialogue wheel, voiced protagonist, set human protagonist with no playable Origins, focus on cinematics . Yet, with Origins feature you refuse to comment or simply state that your not going to bring that feature back at all.

I'm sorry, but hearing no playable races or Origins has only increased my skepticism that you're going to deliver on this statement at all.

The appearance might be iconic, but you can place armor on companions and it does change the way they look. This is something people who felt Dragon Age II was 'dumbed down' specifically asked for. Likewise, they're increasing the size and openness of the levels.

But you're right, there are no announced features for people who liked DA:O but hated DA II. I doubt there will be any.

I'm foolishly holding out for a mod kit. I feel like this is bad idea for me to even entertain... but hey, I've had worse.

[Mark of the Dragon]

I actually liked and preferred the text endings. I feel that they explained the different ways all our choices had an impact. I mean yea cinematic’s are cool but they only get you so far. Text dialogue I feels let you get more in depth with the outcomes.
This does not mean however that no choice reactivity in the game is good however. I still feel some short term choices and consequences should be represented in the game.

[Blastback]

Plaintiff wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

Problem is, without knowing that, unless you play a dwarf commoner, then the game makes it look like it's encouraging you to support Harrowmont.  The choice only gained the depth it had when you saw the endings. 

[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 .

[Scott Sion]

I wanted those epilogues to be in the EC so bad! Now all I'm left with is questions.

[Scott Sion]

Blastback wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

Problem is, without knowing that, unless you play a dwarf commoner, then the game makes it look like it's encouraging you to support Harrowmont.  The choice only gained the depth it had when you saw the endings. 

As Dwarf Noble and Human Noble I sided with Bhelen. My Dwarf Noble resented Bhelen, but knew Orzamar needed to change. My Human Noble sided with Bhelen for trading opportunties between dwarfs and humans. I honestly never felt like the game wanted me to choose Harrowmont. Morally? Yes. Other then that it depended on each Wardens views.

[nightscrawl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

This is certainly true with some things for me. For example, I don't help Brother Burkel anymore, I also try to rig it so Kaitlyn ends up marrying Teagan. I wish I could say the same for helping Behlen over Harrowmont. Although I like the idea of Orzammar moving forward, the act of helping him leaves such a bad taste in my mouth I can't stand to complete a play with that choice anymore.

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.

While I REALLY like the possibility of this, it's not something that even you devs can plan for with 100% certainty, as we saw with the now-cancelled Exalted March expansion for DA2. If you had used that method thinking that we were to see some consequences in EM, we would never have seen anything at all, sadly.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 24 octobre 2012 - 12:39 .