123 réponses à ce sujet

[deuce985]

I agree with everything you posted.

I liked the consequences in Alpha Protocol. Don't hold me to my word here but I seem to remember Bioware actually commenting on this. They said it's against their philosophy to put too many unseen consequences in the game and ****** the players off...

Could've swore I saw that somewhere.

[esper]

Maria Caliban wrote...

-snip-

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 agree with Allan here, but that was because in da:o it felt like: bad consequene, bad consequence, vastly superior consequence brought to you via max coercion.

The problem is to not make it a good and a bad consequence, but two consequences that feels equally rewarding. Forexample had the talk Zatherian down and solve the werewolf curse nothing existed for Nature of the Beast, I would have sided differently with the werewolf and the elves depending on the characther. As it was, however, there never really was a choice in it for me.

To take a da2 example I actually feel equally rewarded by letting the dalish clan die and manage to talk them down, but that is because I feel both outcomes fitted naturally to Merill's story. Had there been a talk the clan down and get them to understand Merill's point of view, the other two outcomes would have been completely negated anf felt unrewarding.

Generally speaking, I would want less side quest. Completely do away with fetch quest and that is both those of da2 (which was so miniscule that I didn't mind) and the fetch me 18 corpse gall from da:o. Instead have more of such as the Magisters son which involves persons who could be of importance and then have a reaction to those in game. 

If the consequence first comes in the epilog slide, I do not consider it a consequence any more, but just a meaningless bit of text about a person I barely remember anymore.

[Nashimura]

I agree with this, not much more i can say to a well thought out post. There is a choice in ME3 to let the bad Rachni Queen go - honestly you should be unable to win the game after making such a dumb decision...

I think decisions that seem evil should sometimes benefit you while good ones can hurt, i would of that type of randomness that really supports the shades of grey i think Origins was going for. Being good and moral the whole time should not equal always doing the right thing. Cruel to be kind...and such.

[PsychoBlonde]

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. 

Or, in DA2, things will all go to hell regardless because, well, it's Hawke.

I could write a dissertation about this issue if I really wanted to, because it's a huge, sprawling issue with many interrelated problems.  Let me see if I can enumerate some of what I see to be the bigger ones.

1.  There are two paths that not only lead to the same destination, but the view on the way is basically identical.  Example: look at the culmination of Izzy's main quest path.  If you go for main friendship or main rivalry, it's the same--she shows up with the book, the Arishok wants to take her away, she protests, and you either fight the Arishok or let him take her away.  It's not even relevant which path Hawke took--which decision you made--you get exactly the same result.  The only way to get a different option is to be indecisive and keep Izzy around the middle on the rivalry/friend meter.

How to fix this?  Well, change the view.  You don't necessarily have to have two completely separate paths, but the paths DO need to pass by some different scenery on the way.  Wouldn't the decision whether to Friend or Rival Izzy have been MUCH more significant if in the rival version, she volunteers to go with the Arishok and then makes some snide comment about how she's going to escape and Hawke will regret it?  (And then, of course, you can insist on fighting anyway and ****** her the heck off.)  The end result would be the same--lose Izzy or keep Izzy, but it'd feel much more like two very different outcomes depending on what path you pursued with Izzy.  And if you didn't pursue a path with her, you'd get what you'd earned--a sort of "meh" response to the whole thing.

2.  Doom is foretold but never materializes.  If you have a major decision where one group wants things one way and the other group wants things another way and they're foaming at the mouth about it, then you decide to do X, the group that didn't get its way swears revenge, and then you NEVER HEAR FROM THEM AGAIN EVER . . . it looks dumb.

How to fix it?  Well, this one is an easy fix--if people swear revenge on you, have them freakin' show up again later (preferably at the worst possible time). Sheesh.  If you're going to telegraph something, you need to follow up on it.

3.  Doom is telegraphed but you have no ability to forestall it.  I, personally, hate this one.  If you're going to give out hints like having the lying schmuck hesitate over their words, giggle insanely, refuse to answer questions, etc., to the point where it's OBVIOUS they are getting ready to betray you, then for chrissakes let the PC say things like "you're acting suspicious" and "I'm not doing anything you ask until you explain!"  Granted, they had this with Anders' pre-quests, but it didn't matter because that quest line also merged with problem #1 up there.  Heck, it was even worse because the doom was telegraphed, you could **** at him about it, but the resulting view prior to the denoument was IDENTICAL.  Something different should have happened depending on whether you went along blithely or not.  I'm not saying it should have prevented the annihilation of the Chantry, but there should have been some different scenery on the way.

How to fix this--let the PC do SOMETHING that makes them look the LEAST TINY BIT savvy even if it only has the effect of changing the scenery instead of the result.  But it better change SOMETHING.  The setup with Jade Empire (which was awesome, btw), is an exception to this because it was done well enough that while you might have been thinking "this is odd", you weren't quite thinking "there's something wrong here".

4.  Something totally un-telegraphed suddenly results in doom.  The whole deal in DA2 where Grace kidnaps your LI/best bud was completely out of the blue, and here's the best part, it didn't matter what decision you made earlier in the game.  Okay, I can understand Grace having a beef with Hawke if you turned her over to the Templars, although at the time she seemed more despairing than vengeful.  The whole thing was horribly mismanaged and what could have been a cool scene left more of a WTF is wrong with you people impression than anything.  It really felt like this storyline was supposed to have 3 or 4 more installments that got cut, and what was left just wasn't remotely enough to carry it.

How to fix this one--don't have characters come back in a manner that's completely divorced from your earlier interaction with them.  If they come back, it needs to be directly tied to what happened earlier OR you need to TELEGRAPH THE HELL out of whatever resulted in this new situation.  Otherwise, if you feel the need for Random Surprise Doom, have it involve new characters.

I don't buy this idea that people complain if things play out other than precisely how they expected.  I actually LIKE it if things play out in an unexpected way (Jade Empire!).  What I don't like is when the cues are mismanaged.  There needs to be a clear distinction between "more coming!" cues and "this is it" cues.  There needs to be a clear distinction between "it matters what you decide" and "it doesn't matter what you decide" cues.  If you're giving one set of cues and the other result, yeah, people are going to be annoyed that things "didn't play out how they expected".  It's not that they wanted a happy ending and you didn't give them one, it's that they were expecting a result of SOME kind and you left them, metaphorically, standing naked in the living room with their dick in their hand while you snuck out the back way.

[Blastback]

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.

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?

While that's true, you also have to avoid making the situation one where you are essentially punishing the player for being good.  Should there be hardship?  Sure.  But I think it can become way to easy to make a player feel like they are possibly doing more harm as a good person.

[Taleroth]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
 What I don't like is when the cues are mismanaged.  There needs to be a clear distinction between "more coming!" cues and "this is it" cues.  There needs to be a clear distinction between "it matters what you decide" and "it doesn't matter what you decide" cues.  If you're giving one set of cues and the other result, yeah, people are going to be annoyed that things "didn't play out how they expected".  It's not that they wanted a happy ending and you didn't give them one, it's that they were expecting a result of SOME kind and you left them, metaphorically, standing naked in the living room with their dick in their hand while you snuck out the back way.

I'm going to have to steal this for use in my next rant.

[PsychoBlonde]

Taleroth wrote...
 I'm going to have to steal this for use in my next rant.

Heh.

Perhaps I should also add--the Acts of Mercy quest earlier in the game where you first meet Grace was actually a really good example of a well-cued "your decision doesn't matter" choice. Not that your various decisions weren't cosmetically different (turn them over or don't turn them over), but it was VERY well telegraphed that EITHER choice was NOT A GREAT CHOICE.  Let them go?  They've been using blood magic and raising the dead.  You can't trust them.  Send them with the templars?  The one with the direct line to The Boss is a murderous brute.  Both of those choices were UGLY.  The cues in that section were PERFECT, and if they'd either just left it hanging there OR properly managed the later cues, it would have been a great storyline.  As it was, the WTFness of what happened later ruined it.

I see the distinction between "your decision matters" and "your decision doesn't matter" as more a divide between "I can make a *right* choice here" and "I *can't* make a right choice here" instead of "the decision I make will completely determine all events that proceed from it" or "I get pretty much the same result regardless".  I don't expect the story line in a video game to completely diverge (although I'd like to see some differing scenery please!).  The templars v. mages choice at the end of the game I actually see as being (mostly) a "decision does matter" choice--it is not right to let a bunch of people be murdered for something they didn't do, so there's a (slightly) righter choice even though it's not a great one.

Anyway, just to reiterate--it's not the choices per se or the proceeding events that winds up bugging me, but the cues and scenery surrounding those choices that determines whether it's going to be awesome or flop like a dying fish.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

I liked how you could tell Kelly Chambers to keep doing what she was doing, and stand tall and be proud and it gets her shot in the face. I like that kind of surprise outcome.

[AlanC9]

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. 

Well, you could pick Refuse if you want Shepard to make a bad decision that really counts.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Terrorize69]

Choice: PC kills chooses to kill some person.

Result: Later in the game, relative of that person kidnaps PCs LI or party member with highest friendship, if certain conditions are not met. Companion dies.

[ArenCordial]

deuce985 wrote...

I liked the consequences in Alpha Protocol. Don't hold me to my word here but I seem to remember Bioware actually commenting on this. They said it's against their philosophy to put too many unseen consequences in the game and ****** the players off...

Could've swore I saw that somewhere.

I remember something similar, which is kind of why BioWare has made choice and consequence basically not matter in DA2 and ME3. 

Did you kill Leliana......well Bards are decapitation proof.
Did you hand over Isabella....well theres a rumor she escaped....
You need to choose to side with the Mages or Templars...but don't worry you'll have to fight both anyway.
Did you save/destroy the Council/Rachni Queen/Collector Base....don't worry 1 or 2 auto-dialogue fetch quests will count for more or you can play a game of mulitplayer.

Whats the point of having a choice with no real reprecussions?  It invalidates any need to consider your choice or even care about it.

Modifié par ArenCordial, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:36 .

[Momiji.mii]

I for one would very much like to see more negative outcome of an optimistic way of dealing with in-game conflicts etc. I'm ok with getting a bit punished for playing the good guy, because it is risky to always trust people unconditionally and I'd love to see in-game choices reflect that.

[whykikyouwhy]

ArenCordial wrote...

I remember something similar, which is kind of why BioWare has made choice and consequence basically not matter in DA2 and ME3. 

Did you kill Leliana......well Bards are decapitation proof.
Did you hand over Isabella....well theres a rumor she escaped....
You need to choose to side with the Mages or Templars...but don't worry you'll have to fight both anyway.
Did you save/destroy the Council/Rachni Queen/Collector Base....don't worry 1 or 2 auto-dialogue fetch quests will count for more or you can play a game of mulitplayer.

Whats the point of having a choice with no real reprecussions?  It invalidates any need to consider your choice or even care about it.

Regarding the bolded - are these examples of choices not have reprecussions, or choices leading to outcomes that weren't favorable? Choices are made and actions are taken with the hope for a certain result, but they may not always result in something expected or desired. While that may not be indicative of vast reprecussions, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the choice, or the impetus behind it.

[Taleroth]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I see the distinction between "your decision matters" and "your decision doesn't matter" as more a divide between "I can make a *right* choice here" and "I *can't* make a right choice here"

I think the idea of a *right* choice is fairly degenerate design altogether. The problem I have is that entire mind set. If a choice structure has a right and wrong answer, then it has failed in some fundamental way. Sometimes that failure is in following up on its consequences.

A choice should be about allowing a player to express his character. The consequences should be about taking what the player wants of his character and creating interesting narratives for him. Those narratives can challenge a player, but I worry that attempts to challenge will turn into judgements. Which I guess is cool if you want to make a game about insulting goody-two-shoes players, but I don't think that narrative should be told lightly. The game should still try to equally validate it compared to the other options, otherwise.

[PsychoBlonde]

Taleroth wrote...
I think the idea of a *right* choice is fairly degenerate design altogether. The problem I have is that entire mind set. If a choice structure has a right and wrong answer, then it has failed in some fundamental way. Sometimes that failure is in following up on its consequences.

A choice should be about allowing a player to express his character. 

If you're doing a good job with your writing, the nature of the "right" choice will be subjective based on the audience, so it will, in fact, accomplish that goal.  I see it as important to have the majority of the choices in the game work this way because otherwise your story will bog down in endless retreads of the same ground.  The right/wrong choices are the ones that wrap up story elements instead of just leaving them hanging unfinished forever.

Having definitive choices like these are not the same as declaring in advance which one is right and which one wrong.  It just means, here's a definitive moment as opposed to yet another looming uncertainty, pick which one you think is the right one.

Kaiden vs. Ashley was a right/wrong choice of this kind.  I'm not talking about choosing between "everything is sunshine and rainbows and happy endings" and "evil covers the lands for a thousand years".  I'm talking more about choosing "this is how I WANT this to resolve" (even if it doesn't wind up resolving in precisely that way) vs. "it's clear this won't be resolved by my choice, pick one".

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:54 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

4.  Something totally un-telegraphed suddenly results in doom.  The whole deal in DA2 where Grace kidnaps your LI/best bud was completely out of the blue, and here's the best part, it didn't matter what decision you made earlier in the game.  Okay, I can understand Grace having a beef with Hawke if you turned her over to the Templars, although at the time she seemed more despairing than vengeful.  The whole thing was horribly mismanaged and what could have been a cool scene left more of a WTF is wrong with you people impression than anything.  It really felt like this storyline was supposed to have 3 or 4 more installments that got cut, and what was left just wasn't remotely enough to carry it.

That one was actually totally telegraphed. You can go see Grace in the Gallows and she keeps ranting at you about how this is all your fault.

[ArenCordial]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Regarding the bolded - are these examples of choices not have reprecussions, or choices leading to outcomes that weren't favorable? Choices are made and actions are taken with the hope for a certain result, but they may not always result in something expected or desired. While that may not be indicative of vast reprecussions, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the choice, or the impetus behind it.

Basically that the player had zero impact on ultimately what becomes of the companion.  I can appreciate unintended consequences but thats not what happened there.  Now if I gave Isabella to the Qunari and she escapes anyway then comes to foil me in another quest that prevents the ideal outcome or attempts to kill me okay thats good.   I would have loved that.   My choice would have mattered.  But It seems that in the aforementioned examples here that the end goal was keep Izzy and Leliana alive for The Silent Grove/DA3/etc.

And I'm sorry as far as Leliana goes, the only unintended consequence from cutting off Leliana's head should be Oghren drunkingly trips over it.  : P

Modifié par ArenCordial, 22 octobre 2012 - 10:04 .

[PsychoBlonde]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

That one was actually totally telegraphed. You can go see Grace in the Gallows and she keeps ranting at you about how this is all your fault.

Ah, so it was telegraphed if you went to see Grace in the Gallows.  And how was it telegraphed exactly if you let her go free and she never ends up in the Gallows?

[L. Han]

I support the idea of having bigger consequences. It should also include actions, like stealing, using blood magic, etc. etc.

[whykikyouwhy]

ArenCordial wrote...

Basically that the player had zero impact on ultimately what becomes of there companion.  I can appreciate unintended consequences but thats not what happened there.  Now if I gave Isabella to the Qunari and she escapes anyway then comes to foil me in another quest that prevents the ideal outcome or attempts to kill me okay thats good. 

I don't think the player has zero impact on the companions. Choosing the friend or rival path, handling the companion quests, taking the time to ask them questions - all of those things influence how the companion develops, who they ultimately become. Those changes may be subtle, and may only be evident in dialogue, but they are there. That all smacks of some influence and impact.

For all we know, it might have been planned for Isabela to return and somehow foil Hawke's endeavors - it may have been something discussed at the writers' table but never added in. Or perhaps she will show up in a future game with something to say about the Champion of Kirkwall, as well as a plot of revenge. How the ripple affect post-DA2 actually moves through Thedas and the lives of the companions when they part ways has yet to be revealed, if it will be revealed at all (I suspect it might happen in codex entries or some such).

[Taleroth]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

If you're doing a good job with your writing, the nature of the "right" choice will be subjective based on the audience, so it will, in fact, accomplish that goal. 

Kaiden vs. Ashley was a right/wrong choice of this kind.  

In this, we are in accord. We just use different words.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Not all outcomes should be predictable.

In Baldur's Gate, there's a quest in the city with some young women, and it's possible to get those women killed.  If you do, their father - a powerful wizard - will teleport you to a prison island.  That's certainly not predictable, but it was terrific.

[Sylvius the Mad]

A good example of a poor decision working out well is the third option in Redcliffe. There are all sorts of reasons to think that going to the Circle Tower to get mages isn'y going to work out, and it exposes so many more people to so much more risk - frankly, it's a terrible idea. But it works.

That was a good unpredictable outcome, too.

[ArenCordial]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I don't think the player has zero impact on the companions. Choosing the friend or rival path, handling the companion quests, taking the time to ask them questions - all of those things influence how the companion develops, who they ultimately become. Those changes may be subtle, and may only be evident in dialogue, but they are there. That all smacks of some influence and impact.

For all we know, it might have been planned for Isabela to return and somehow foil Hawke's endeavors - it may have been something discussed at the writers' table but never added in. Or perhaps she will show up in a future game with something to say about the Champion of Kirkwall, as well as a plot of revenge. How the ripple affect post-DA2 actually moves through Thedas and the lives of the companions when they part ways has yet to be revealed, if it will be revealed at all (I suspect it might happen in codex entries or some such).

You're taking what I'm saying out of context.  I'm talking about the choice that the games give to the player to stand against their companion.  That was the example I made, I have no idea why your saying that I'm applying it to all characters.   I'm saying that particular example is poorly done/implemented.  I also gave you an example of how they could have made that decision meaningful in the game. 

As for speculating for what may happen down the road.   Honestly, you can say that about anything, but theres no impact for Hawke the character you are playing and who should have been affected by their choice.  Besides we've done the whole wait a few more games to see how your decisions turn out thing.....It didn't matter, thats partly what this thread is discussing.