123 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Yes, part of it is a desire for dark and gritties, but part of it is the odd sensation that the quests themselves happen in a void.

Let me pull this horse corpse out and give it a swift kick, okay? At the end of the Mass Effect trilogy, the most important choice I made was whether to play MP or not. There's a feeling that Shepard is infallible even if he makes totally contradictory decisions. Things will always work out because he's the Goddamn Shepard. I don't like that feeling. I want to feel as though my character could make mistakes, which also means I can feel as though I've made a particularly smart decision.

A good example of this is my turning the noble's insane, murderous son over to the guards. He explicitly tells me that he'll get back at me, but that never materializes.

Which goes back to the sensation that each quest is its own little bottle. I'm not having an impact on the world because the world itself rarely reacts to what happened on that quest.

I believe there's one instance where if you kill a Templar, other Templars will attack you. I liked this.

Honestly, it doesn't have to happen all the time. I'd suggest one splashy example where a PC's choices have a negative reaction at the beginning of the game. If the player believes something bad might happen because they've seen it, they'll carry that with them to every other quest.

Now, I believe Allan once mentioned that if there's a 'good' option and a 'bad' option, he's probably going to pick the good one as picking the bad one doesn't make much sense. That doesn't make it much of a choice.

I don't think that's something to worry about because 1) The majority of people only play the game once, and 2) most people don't hang out on the forum and spoil themselves rotten.

Anyways, that's my idea.

[AntiChri5]

People complain to no end if their choices don't turn out exactly the way they intended.

[Sidney]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Let me pull this horse corpse out and give it a swift kick, okay? At the end of the Mass Effect trilogy, the most important choice I made was whether to play MP or not. There's a feeling that Shepard is infallible even if he makes totally contradictory decisions. Things will always work out because he's the Goddamn Shepard. I don't like that feeling. I want to feel as though my character could make mistakes, which also means I can feel as though I've made a particularly smart decision.

Yes but people don't like that choices have consequences. There can't be a "wrong" call or people will say it isn't a choice. I agree, I'd prefer to have things blow up in my face. I might be impuslve and self centered...and that might work X Y and Z times but blow up A B and C. All that said, you want as much interactivity as possible. Heck, I'd
even like it that if I was a jerk to person X it turns out that someone
else hates me because they are friends not a "formal" association just someone knows someone who heard you aren't a nice guy.


The reason the quests feel like they are each independent is that they are. You have to be responsible for making your character consistent even if, looking at the game logs it won't be. Example, my first DAO character was a city elf. Developed a real dislike for humans. I was about as total a jerk to humanity as I could be so I was picking a lot of Renegade/Dark Side/Evil whatever type options...until it came time to help a fellow elf then I went full Paladin.

[Wulfram]

I generally prefer choices with fairly predictable outcomes. It puts the emphasis on the character and what they value, rather than on me having to try and read the writers mind in order to assess the risks associated with the choice.

[LobselVith8]

AntiChri5 wrote...

People complain to no end if their choices don't turn out exactly the way they intended.

I don't know about that. People responded positively to New Vegas, and there were good and bad consequences to different actions that the Courier performed in the Mojave.

[thebigbad1013]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Yes, part of it is a desire for dark and gritties, but part of it is the odd sensation that the quests themselves happen in a void.

Let me pull this horse corpse out and give it a swift kick, okay? At the end of the Mass Effect trilogy, the most important choice I made was whether to play MP or not. There's a feeling that Shepard is infallible even if he makes totally contradictory decisions. Things will always work out because he's the Goddamn Shepard. I don't like that feeling. I want to feel as though my character could make mistakes, which also means I can feel as though I've made a particularly smart decision.

A good example of this is my turning the noble's insane, murderous son over to the guards. He explicitly tells me that he'll get back at me, but that never materializes.

Which goes back to the sensation that each quest is its own little bottle. I'm not having an impact on the world because the world itself rarely reacts to what happened on that quest.

I believe there's one instance where if you kill a Templar, other Templars will attack you. I liked this.

Honestly, it doesn't have to happen all the time. I'd suggest one splashy example where a PC's choices have a negative reaction at the beginning of the game. If the player believes something bad might happen because they've seen it, they'll carry that with them to every other quest.

Now, I believe Allan once mentioned that if there's a 'good' option and a 'bad' option, he's probably going to pick the good one as picking the bad one doesn't make much sense. That doesn't make it much of a choice.

I don't think that's something to worry about because 1) The majority of people only play the game once, and 2) most people don't hang out on the forum and spoil themselves rotten.

Anyways, that's my idea.

I think the mere knowledge that something like this could happen in a game would add quite a lot to it if you knew that you were able to make bad calls. I like it.

[grregg]

Hmm... my impression was that this is the model that BioWare settled on in their games. It goes somewhat like this: "win, win, win, Win, Win, Win, Win!, Win!, WIN, WIN, WIN!, WIN!!, !!!111WIN!11!!!"

Their combat works like this (no retreat, only total destruction of the enemy), and their stories tend to stick to it as well. And it seems to be working, the main complaint seems to be that the last win isn't big enough. Setbacks type of thing doesn't really fit there, I think.

[thebigbad1013]

grregg wrote...

Hmm... my impression was that this is the model that BioWare settled on in their games. It goes somewhat like this: "win, win, win, Win, Win, Win, Win!, Win!, WIN, WIN, WIN!, WIN!!, !!!111WIN!11!!!"

.

I take it you didn't play ME3, then? Not a lot of winning going on there.

[Wulfram]

bigbad1013 wrote...

I take it you didn't play ME3, then? Not a lot of winning going on there.

Or indeed DA2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AntiChri5 wrote...

People complain to no end if their choices don't turn out exactly the way they intended.

I complain if they always do.

[labargegrrrl]

i think it might be just a touch unfair to my new pc for every single choice my warden or hawke made to have drastic impact on her universe, given that they've already made a bunch of choices that ended up starting a war that she's going to get saddled with. that's enough consequence in MY opinion.

[Potato Cat]

I agree there needs to be more serious repercussions when you make the "wrong" choice. I but I also don't want it to turn into the black and white of ME3 where nearly every paragon decision was way more beneficial than the renegade decision.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Yes, part of it is a desire for dark and gritties, but part of it is the odd sensation that the quests themselves happen in a void.

Let me pull this horse corpse out and give it a swift kick, okay? At the end of the Mass Effect trilogy, the most important choice I made was whether to play MP or not. There's a feeling that Shepard is infallible even if he makes totally contradictory decisions. Things will always work out because he's the Goddamn Shepard. I don't like that feeling. I want to feel as though my character could make mistakes, which also means I can feel as though I've made a particularly smart decision.

A good example of this is my turning the noble's insane, murderous son over to the guards. He explicitly tells me that he'll get back at me, but that never materializes.

Which goes back to the sensation that each quest is its own little bottle. I'm not having an impact on the world because the world itself rarely reacts to what happened on that quest.

I believe there's one instance where if you kill a Templar, other Templars will attack you. I liked this.

Honestly, it doesn't have to happen all the time. I'd suggest one splashy example where a PC's choices have a negative reaction at the beginning of the game. If the player believes something bad might happen because they've seen it, they'll carry that with them to every other quest.

Now, I believe Allan once mentioned that if there's a 'good' option and a 'bad' option, he's probably going to pick the good one as picking the bad one doesn't make much sense. That doesn't make it much of a choice.

I don't think that's something to worry about because 1) The majority of people only play the game once, and 2) most people don't hang out on the forum and spoil themselves rotten.

Anyways, that's my idea.

I would like this to happen in game more... but I'd really be fine with these types of things being addressed in an epilogue slide. If I let the crazy SOB live, a slide telling me later her busted out of prison and cannibalized a village of Elves would probably make me regret that decision. Then again, there was almost no reward for helping out the councilor, so having something in game is always better. 

Of course, a combination of the two is the best. If I want to be greedy.

[SeptimusMagistos]

As long as you're allowed to deal with the consequences too rather than having them dropped on you.

For instance, Templars attacking me because I killed some of their buddies is a perfectly fine way to resolve things.

[Tootles FTW]

They had a great opportunity with the Old God Baby choice at the end of DAO, but now I don't think we'll ever see a real conclusion to that storyline outside of a reference or two. A shame, because a serious repercussion to this would have been awesome and STILL so worth it to get my happy ending with Alistair.

[Palipride47]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

As long as you're allowed to deal with the consequences too rather than having them dropped on you.

For instance, Templars attacking me because I killed some of their buddies is a perfectly fine way to resolve things.

+1. With all the stuff that people threaten to kill me for meddling in, I'm surprised I didn't get jumped MORE often in-game. 

Maybe the dwarf brother or that magistrate took vengence for those three years I was blacked out. 

[grregg]

bigbad1013 wrote...

grregg wrote...

Hmm... my impression was that this is the model that BioWare settled on in their games. It goes somewhat like this: "win, win, win, Win, Win, Win, Win!, Win!, WIN, WIN, WIN!, WIN!!, !!!111WIN!11!!!"

.

I take it you didn't play ME3, then? Not a lot of winning going on there.

Wulfram wrote...

Or indeed DA2.

Can't comment on ME3 since I didn't play it. DA2 however had quite a conflict going on between the "win, win, win, acrobatically make enemies explode, and win some more" gameplay and the "largely powerless against the forces of history" story. Felt totally schizophrenic to me to the point that I never finished DA2. YMMV.

To be honest I prefer a consistent "you are so awesome and you will win for the win!" version over a contradictory "win, win, win, oh, you were just a minute late, you lose, haha!" thing.

[Giltspur]

I'd like this too.  Why?  Look at storytelling in books and in movies: a series of things don't work out for the protagonist until perhaps the end.  In books and movies, there's no choice.  You know the author didn't screw up and that you just have to keep following along.  In a game, maybe the challenge is that the gamer is afraid he screwed up and needs to reload when something goes wrong.  I think if you could communicate to the gamer that some failure is a part of the story and that it's worth toughing it out then this sort of reaction could make the stories in games more compelling.  Personally?  I'm all for it.  But I definitely see hesitation from others on these topics sometimes.  Maybe you should be able to talk to an companion character about a big decision, and  he/she could sort of hint to the player that setbacks and not knowing the future is just how it goes and that you have to keep moving forward in a setting with no easy solutions. 

Somewhat on a different track, everyone's conditioned to games.  We're conditioned to do all side quests before doing a main quest.  We're conditioned to go the wrong way in a dungeon before we go the right way so that we find every treasure chest.  There's all sorts of counterintuitive things that should be "immersion breaking" that aren't immersion breaking because we're used to it and do it out of habit.  And so in a world with strategy guides and romance faqs and people saving Skyrim brooms for possible future broom dungeon content that open-ended consequences would make some uneasy...but I think as long as the writers make sure there are no dead ends and that all paths are interesting you can work past that conditioning and make the stories in games better by having more reactivity, including unintended consequences that you have to then adapt to (and be able to adapt to).

Modifié par Giltspur, 22 octobre 2012 - 07:43 .

[Taleroth]

I have to vociferously object. Gotchas simply aren't worthwhile.

RPGs are a collaborative storytelling effort. All players working together to weave an interesting tale. Is this gotcha something that you're working with the player for or working against him for? Is it something he's likely to appreciate or feel that you're punishing him with? And what is this gotcha saying to the player?

Good/bad outcomes are simply bad form. All outcomes should be roughly equal. And they should aim to appeal to the type of player who would choose them. This doesn't mean all outcomes have to be ideal, but they have to work with the player's intention. If a player strives to save a life, they can fail, but they needs to have improved that life for the effort. The player needs the choice that was made to be validated.

Gotchas don't make you feel like you can be wrong, anyway. They just make you feel that the world is unfair. Which makes you question the writer or designer.

Modifié par Taleroth, 22 octobre 2012 - 07:53 .

[upsettingshorts]

Taleroth wrote...

I have to vociferously object. Gotchas simply aren't worthwhile.

It's not a gotcha if it's a predictable outcome.

Mass Effect provides a ton of examples - Paragon choices mostly - of missed opportunities for negative feedback following decisions that displayed breathtaking optimism in contexts that didn't justify them, and pretty much every time nothing of consequence happened as a result.

That's where I think that series dropped the ball.  Being a good person/character and doing the right thing is a reward within itself.  The characters in the game feel good about you, and you feel good about you.  It's a good feeling.  Such decisions don't need tangible ingame rewards, so having neutral/equal ingame rewards for being nice and making tough calls that weigh on you is, I think, lame.

What's so special about being the good guy if it doesn't cost you anything?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 octobre 2012 - 07:54 .

[marshalleck]

Sidney wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Let me pull this horse corpse out and give it a swift kick, okay? At the end of the Mass Effect trilogy, the most important choice I made was whether to play MP or not. There's a feeling that Shepard is infallible even if he makes totally contradictory decisions. Things will always work out because he's the Goddamn Shepard. I don't like that feeling. I want to feel as though my character could make mistakes, which also means I can feel as though I've made a particularly smart decision.

Yes but people don't like that choices have consequences. There can't be a "wrong" call or people will say it isn't a choice. I agree, I'd prefer to have things blow up in my face. I might be impuslve and self centered...and that might work X Y and Z times but blow up A B and C. All that said, you want as much interactivity as possible. Heck, I'd
even like it that if I was a jerk to person X it turns out that someone
else hates me because they are friends not a "formal" association just someone knows someone who heard you aren't a nice guy.


The reason the quests feel like they are each independent is that they are. You have to be responsible for making your character consistent even if, looking at the game logs it won't be. Example, my first DAO character was a city elf. Developed a real dislike for humans. I was about as total a jerk to humanity as I could be so I was picking a lot of Renegade/Dark Side/Evil whatever type options...until it came time to help a fellow elf then I went full Paladin.

It's mostly the lawful good type of player that would complain about this

[Wulfram]

Being a badass is also it's own reward.  [edit: so is dealing out vigilante justice]. And renegade choices also frequently relied on breathtaking optimism of some sort.

Modifié par Wulfram, 22 octobre 2012 - 07:56 .

[Taleroth]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

I have to vociferously object. Gotchas simply aren't worthwhile.

It's not a gotcha if it's a predictable outcome.

Anything beyond the immediate or that's beyond the express reasoning behind the choice is arbitrary, thus not predictable.

Consistency is key here. If you're consistently predictable, then there's no point in coming back to bite the player in the ass. The player already knew it was going to happen. If you're inconsistent, then you're sending mixed messages for the sake of shock value.

The idea of good and bad outcomes is just dreadful to begin with. All outcomes should be equally valid and predictable. This doesn't mean all outcomes have to be ideal, it just means you have to take the extra effort to recognize complexity.

Modifié par Taleroth, 22 octobre 2012 - 08:13 .