123 réponses à ce sujet

[whykikyouwhy]

ArenCordial wrote...

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. 

I was addressing your comment about zero impact.

With regard to Isabela, if you hand her over to the Arishok, you do stand against her - you pretty much declare that you're done, you've cut your ties and you turn your back. You hand her over so that she can be handed over to the punishment of the Qun, which doesn't necessarily mean she is going to her death (though perhaps to a fate far worse). The codex entry that tells of her rumored escape doesn't change what was done to her, it doesn't negate how you role-played Hawke to commit that act. 

And sure, it would have been interesting to see her return with a dagger especially sharpened for that sort of Hawke. DA2 unfortunately had a few cases where story arcs weren't fully fleshed out. But who's to say what was planned and wasn't. I suspect that there will be a concerted effort to handle loose ends differently in the next game.

[ArenCordial]

Filament wrote...

I don't personally disagree but I think I have to respect that not everyone is willing to put that much stock in bioware's writing to accept these explanations. They just see it as a lame excuse for the devs not to have to deal with the consequences of the choices they gave us. It defies their suspension of disbelief because of what they think "ought to" have happened.

Perhaps as far as tolerance to a particular instance of suspicious writing quality goes it could be related to the recent comics involving Isabela.

There are plenty of other ways that could have made the consequences of that decision both unfavorable and meaningful.  Isabella screwing Hawke over after escaping, her luring Hawke to an abandoned warehouse and attempting to kill him, sending the Crows after him, etc.   The way it was done bascially ensured Isabella was alive and well at the end that was it.

I noticed how no-one has mentioned being able to kill Leliana and Wynne then having that choice invalidated.   Kinda hard to brush aside decaptiation I suppose though.

[ArenCordial]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I was addressing your comment about zero impact.

With regard to Isabela, if you hand her over to the Arishok, you do stand against her - you pretty much declare that you're done, you've cut your ties and you turn your back. You hand her over so that she can be handed over to the punishment of the Qun, which doesn't necessarily mean she is going to her death (though perhaps to a fate far worse). The codex entry that tells of her rumored escape doesn't change what was done to her, it doesn't negate how you role-played Hawke to commit that act. 

And sure, it would have been interesting to see her return with a dagger especially sharpened for that sort of Hawke. DA2 unfortunately had a few cases where story arcs weren't fully fleshed out. But who's to say what was planned and wasn't. I suspect that there will be a concerted effort to handle loose ends differently in the next game.

I was talking about zero impact on the end fate of Isabella, not the entirety of the party.   Not sure if I made a reference that was confusing so sorry about that if I did.

Anyway long story short, if BioWare is going to offer us a choice along those lines I think it should follow guidelines like this.

1.)   You're decision should have an impact in the game the decision is made either immediate or delayed.
2.)  Character's should not be allowed to be killed then have the decision reversed to support an imposed cannon.

I also hope BioWare improves their consequences in the third game, I just don't feel they should get a hand wave to explain away any inconsistances or say the decision is going to be felt down the road unless it is basically telegraphed that way such as the Old God Baby.

Personally I'd argue that BioWare's unwillingness to have drastic consequences affect a players performance down the road is holding them back.  Strange thing to say considering this is company that allowed you fail the Suicide Mission in ME2. 

Modifié par ArenCordial, 22 octobre 2012 - 10:48 .

[lokisjoke13]

I'm behind maria 100%. The example with the magistrate hit the nail on the head. I killed the crazy son and waited for retaliation....and waited.....and waited. Felt kinda letdown

[rapscallioness]

Unseen consequences add to the replay value for me. Or, even if they're not "Unseen" exactly...how can I say?...maybe offer some hints that I as the player can pick up on/find out about, and use to help make a better decision.

If I as the player don't pick up on the hints, or I am not thorough....then I'm on my own. Unseen consequences. So, maybe instead of outright unseen, give us the opportunity in game to glean info that would add to our decision making process....but keep it dicey. That's all I'm trying to say. Lol.

And more nuanced choices. Ones where you have to really try to think of the ramifications. Weigh the advantages, or disadvantages.

Actually, I would like most of the choices to have advantages and disadvantages. Like the DAO Orzammar king. Sheesh, that was a bit difficult for me because both Harrowmount and Bhelen had advantages and disadvantages to their personalities.

But yes, if a character says they're gonna get me for what I've done....I'd like to see them try.

[Vit246]

Choices should have consequences, "good" and "bad". There should also be some moral relativity. 

And some "good" choices should probably have bad repercussions as well. Some examples:

1) Giving a poor money man some money seems like the right thing to do, but all you did was a meaningless kindness by giving him something he did not earn and making him a target. The other poor who see him elevated like that attack him, and all your charity accomplished was more pain.

2) On the other hand, if you tell him no and/or be cruel to him, then you may have made things worse. Such cruelty leads to suffering and that suffering spreads until it consumes him. And if someone tries to be kind to him at that point, that kindness is rejected and punished.

3) A man's wife is trapped in an location where it's being guarded by thugs and no one can normally get in or out. The man asks for your help. By yourself, you kill at the least the guards who were blocking the entrance/exit and you reunite the man and his wife. A good deed, yes? Not really. Not completely.

What you ultimately accomplished was weaken the husband and made him more dependent on others to solve his problems for him. You took away the challenge he was suppose to overcome himself and "gave" him a reward he did not truly earn. Even worse, you may have weakened or destroyed the bond of that couple if they can no longer depend on each other. If he had at least went with you and exposed himself to risk, than he would have been a little stronger from the ordeal and his bond with his wife strengthened as well.

BUT, you may have a chance to fix that thing as well. If you encourage the reunited couple to help others as you helped them, then they may become stronger and better from that.

Modifié par Vit246, 22 octobre 2012 - 11:02 .

[The Hierophant]

ArenCordial wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I was addressing your comment about zero impact.

With regard to Isabela, if you hand her over to the Arishok, you do stand against her - you pretty much declare that you're done, you've cut your ties and you turn your back. You hand her over so that she can be handed over to the punishment of the Qun, which doesn't necessarily mean she is going to her death (though perhaps to a fate far worse). The codex entry that tells of her rumored escape doesn't change what was done to her, it doesn't negate how you role-played Hawke to commit that act. 

And sure, it would have been interesting to see her return with a dagger especially sharpened for that sort of Hawke. DA2 unfortunately had a few cases where story arcs weren't fully fleshed out. But who's to say what was planned and wasn't. I suspect that there will be a concerted effort to handle loose ends differently in the next game.

I was talking about zero impact on the end fate of Isabella, not the entirety of the party.   Not sure if I made a reference that was confusing so sorry about that if I did.

Anyway long story short, if BioWare is going to offer us a choice along those lines I think it should follow guidelines like this.

1.)   You're decision should have an impact in the game the decision is made either immediate or delayed.
2.)  Character's should not be allowed to be killed then have the decision reversed to support an imposed cannon.

I also hope BioWare improves their consequences in the third game, I just don't feel they should get a hand way to explain inconsistances or say the decision is going to be felt down the road unless it is basically telegraphed that way such as the Old God Baby.

Personally I'd argue that BioWare's unwillingness to have drastic consequences affect a players performance down the road is holding them back.  Strange thing to say considering this is company that allowed you fail the Suicide Mission in ME2. 

Imo this is where FO:NV truly shined for me as your decisions in, and out of companion quests had immediate results, affected your companion's outlook, and lead to multiple results in the epiologue.

[Nerevar-as]

Vit246 wrote...

Choices should have consequences, "good" and "bad". There should also be some moral relativity. 

And some "good" choices should probably have bad repercussions as well. Some examples:

1) Giving a poor money man some money seems like the right thing to do, but all you did was a meaningless kindness by giving him something he did not earn and making him a target. The other poor who see him elevated like that attack him, and all your charity accomplished was more pain.

2) On the other hand, if you tell him no and/or be cruel to him, then you made things worse. Such cruelty leads to suffering and that suffering spreads until it consumes him. And if someone tries to be kind to him at that point, that kindness is rejected and punished.

3) A man's wife is trapped in an location where it's being guarded by thugs and no one can normally get in or out. The man asks for your help. By yourself, you kill at the least the guards who were blocking the entrance/exit and you reunite the man and his wife. A good deed, yes? Not really. Not completely.

What you ultimately accomplished was weaken the husband and made him more dependent on others to solve his problems for him. You took away the challenge he was suppose to overcome himself and "gave" him a reward he did not truly earn. Even worse, you may have weakened or destroyed the bond of that couple and they separate. If he had at least went with you and exposed himself to risk, than he would have been a little stronger from the ordeal.

BUT, you may have a chance to fix that thing as well. If you encourage the couple to help others as you helped them, then they may become stronger and better from that.

Kreia´s BS. I still don´t get why people listen to such an insane whiny hypocrite who was also trying to destroy all life (only way of destroying the Force - either that or the writing team forgot OB1´s definition).

[ArenCordial]

I don't think Obsidian forgot what the Force was at all. Kreia was a great character because she's there to test the player. Kreia makes some good points which is why she is compelling, but in the end I think the player as the Exile needs to realize that they can only control themselves and their actions not the future. In the end its up to the player to choose how they will act in the galaxy as an agent of evil or good and rise above Kreia's manipulations.

[Zu Long]

My problem with the consequences thing is that it often seems what some people are really asking for is to have the writers punish anyone with the temerity to enjoy playing a good guy who tries to make the world a better place.

[RandomSyhn]

I like the idea of choices coming back around to kick me in the but. There were a few in previous games such as borrowing money from Dougal he came back wanting more. But the one I really liked was the whole ruler of Orzammar. I hated Behlan's personality but I made him king in my first play through because of Rica (playing as a dwarf commoner and all) and then I find out what kind of king he makes in the Epilogue. After I find out how Harrowmonts rule proceeds I realize the best king for Orzammar may not be the guy I like best. I'd like to see this kind of decision possibly make a more immediate impact but making everything in shades of gray rather than your standard black and white definilty adds more to the story.

[ArenCordial]

Zu Long wrote...

My problem with the consequences thing is that it often seems what some people are really asking for is to have the writers punish anyone with the temerity to enjoy playing a good guy who tries to make the world a better place.

I don't think everyone is asking for this all the time or that they think the good guy should be getting screwed.  Lets face it...if thats all they did it would be predicatable, but a lot of times heroes in comics/movies/literature the hero has an otherwise noble act backfire on them.   Its part of the Hero's trials to remain true to their principles.

Honestly though I don't think thats what Maria means here, but rather she'd like to have some unintended pop up every once in a while.  So if you save the serial killer, maybe he gets loose again and your again faced with hunting him down and bring him to justice or simply killing him. 

Batman isn't any less a hero for not killing the Joker despite the fact he may in the end save more lives if he just did.

Modifié par ArenCordial, 22 octobre 2012 - 11:42 .

[Zu Long]

ArenCordial wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

My problem with the consequences thing is that it often seems what some people are really asking for is to have the writers punish anyone with the temerity to enjoy playing a good guy who tries to make the world a better place.

I don't think everyone is asking for this all the time or that they think the good guy should be getting screwed.  Lets face it...if thats all they did it would be predicatable, but a lot of times heroes in comics/movies/literature the hero has an otherwise noble act backfire on them.   Its part of the Hero's trials to remain true to their principles.

Honestly though I don't think thats what Maria means here, but rather she'd like to have some unintended pop up every once in a while.  So if you save the serial killer, maybe he gets loose again and your again faced with hunting him down and bring him to justice or simply killing him. 

Batman isn't any less a hero for not killing the Joker despite the fact he may in the end save more lives if I just did.

See, comics are a good example of what I DON'T want to happen. Because of the need to preserve a dramatic status quo, all good or happy outcomes are immediately negated by an unpreventable tragedy.

If I'm going to be the hero of the game, I want to be able to look back at the end and know that I made a difference. The best example I can think of is Dragon Age 2. You can't save one of your siblings. You can't save Wesley. You can't stop Hawke's mother from being murdered and turned into a puppet corpse. You can't stop the Qunari from declaring war on the city. You can't stop Anders from blowing up the chantry. You can't make Meredith or Orsino see reason. You can't. You can't. You can't.

At the end of Dragon Age 2, all I felt looking back was a series of tragedies I couldn't do anything about. It didn't feel very heroic.

Compare that to Origins and Awakening. I could save the mages at the tower. I could save Eamon's son without resorting to blood magic. I could settle the werewolves dispute peaceably. I could unite Ferelden at the Landsmeet. I could save Vigils Keep AND Amaranthine with enough hard work. I could survive killing the Archdemon by trusting someone I thought of as my friend.

At the end of all that, I felt like my Warden was the baddest mother****er on the face of the planet, and it was awesome.

[Brockololly]

Maria Caliban wrote...
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.
 

I think its more that the player needs to have the impression early on that any choice they make could have a genuine consequence, good or bad.

But I don't necessarily want straight up "bad" or "good" consequences either. Most choices need to feel more like a tradeoff. A tradeoff maybe between a short term versus long term goal. Or a short term defeat with the prospect of a long term victory. Or short term victory at the cost of losing something down the road. Or at least in the moment of making a given choice, the prospect of some long term consequence is immediately apparent.

I think TellTale's The Walking Dead does a pretty good job with this. Like in the latest episode, you have the choice to try to save someone or effectively let them die. This character isn't an inherently bad or malicious person but most of the choices this character has made have led to people dying or put the larger group in jeopardy and he knows it- he more or less is begging the player character to let him die. Plus he is currently on the **** list of another possibly really helpful character. Plus that choice is a time sensitive one- you have the threat of zombies coming after you and the group in your immediate vicinity. So sure, the "good" guy choice is to save him anyway, but letting him die is valid too- its not necessarily a clear cut right or wrong choice. Although its not clear what the consequence of that choice is as of yet.

Basically, we need a greater diversity of choices with a greater diversity of possible consequences. Not every choice needs huge sequel spanning ramifications but you need some genuine consequences that result in genuinely unique and divergent outcomes to make it so any future choices are approached by the player as if they might have a truly divergent consequence, even if there actually isn't. And any consequence shouldn't feel like its coming out of left field- good or bad, it should be a logical possibility you're thinking about when you're actually making the choice. So that when you get to the consequence, you can actually have the lightbulb go off in your head and connect the dots between cause and effect.

[ImperatorMortis]

I want choices to have real consequences in the game. If someone makes a incredibly stupid decision I want them to pay for it, and maybe benefit from it in another way.

[David7204]

Consequences to choices that the player could never reasonably expect is not good storytelling. It's not mature, it's not realistic, it's not fun. It's frustrating, and it makes choices and heroism feel meaningless. What's the point, if you get just as bad an outcome for being heroic as you do for being a bastard? 

If there's a consequence to a choice that player could never anticipate, it's barely even a choice. It's a dice roll.

It isn't enough for a choice to 'cause' something. It has to be meaningful. A dice roll is not meaningful.

Modifié par David7204, 23 octobre 2012 - 12:52 .

[Darth Krytie]

I like the idea of choices having consequences, good and bad, and not having it be immediately obvious. Say, you save some dude. Good thing? Well, maybe later that dude does bad, bad things. Stuff like that makes a game more full.

DA2 was good for having certain quests have repercussions. Not all of them, of course. But the reactive quests were nice. As were the ones that were due to imports. DA:O only had that one...the trickster thing from the circle.

I wouldn't also mind something that had continuous impact during a game. Like...siding with one group or another during the beginning and having the help of one and the hate of the other throughout the game.

[ImperatorMortis]

David7204 wrote...

Consequences to choices that the player could never reasonably expect is not good storytelling. It's not mature, it's not realistic, it's not fun. It's frustrating, and it makes choices and heroism feel meaningless.

If there's a consequence to a choice that player could never anticipate, it's barely even a choice. It's a dice roll.

It isn't enough for a choice to 'cause' something. It has to be meaningful. A dice roll is not meaningful.

Its not a dice roll. 

For example, if someone chooses to release a murderer just because said murderer said that he/she would pay you/give you something good. Don't be surprised if that person does something horrible that may or may not affect you in the future. 

Its not a dice roll its logic. There should be some stupid decisions you can get away with though. Its not like people are watching you all the time. 

[Vit246]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Vit246 wrote...

Choices should have consequences, "good" and "bad". There should also be some moral relativity. 

And some "good" choices should probably have bad repercussions as well. Some examples:

1) Giving a poor money man some money seems like the right thing to do, but all you did was a meaningless kindness by giving him something he did not earn and making him a target. The other poor who see him elevated like that attack him, and all your charity accomplished was more pain.

2) On the other hand, if you tell him no and/or be cruel to him, then you made things worse. Such cruelty leads to suffering and that suffering spreads until it consumes him. And if someone tries to be kind to him at that point, that kindness is rejected and punished.

3) A man's wife is trapped in an location where it's being guarded by thugs and no one can normally get in or out. The man asks for your help. By yourself, you kill at the least the guards who were blocking the entrance/exit and you reunite the man and his wife. A good deed, yes? Not really. Not completely.

What you ultimately accomplished was weaken the husband and made him more dependent on others to solve his problems for him. You took away the challenge he was suppose to overcome himself and "gave" him a reward he did not truly earn. Even worse, you may have weakened or destroyed the bond of that couple and they separate. If he had at least went with you and exposed himself to risk, than he would have been a little stronger from the ordeal.

BUT, you may have a chance to fix that thing as well. If you encourage the couple to help others as you helped them, then they may become stronger and better from that.

Kreia´s BS. I still don´t get why people listen to such an insane whiny hypocrite who was also trying to destroy all life (only way of destroying the Force - either that or the writing team forgot OB1´s definition).

This is clearly an entirely other thing to discuss in another thread but just to clear things up:
1) her sanity/insanity is debatable.
2) her "whining" can be justified by her experiences and knowledge.
3) she acknowledged her hyprocrisy.
4) AND she was trying to destroy the Force in order for life to exist without it. And the Exile is/was an example of that, wasn't he?

Anyway, she still makes good compelling points that make sense in a way. She challenged the black and white morality/dichotomy of Star Wars. And in a "dark" fantasy with supposedly "gray" morality, I honestly think mine is a good idea. "Good" and "Bad" decisions do not necessarily always lead to totally "Good" and "Bad" outcomes. But I don't want every single choice to be that way.

Modifié par Vit246, 23 octobre 2012 - 01:05 .

[David7204]

That's not a consequence a player couldn't expect. Players can expect that something bad might happen if they released a criminal.

[ArenCordial]

Zu Long wrote...

See, comics are a good example of what I DON'T want to happen. Because of the need to preserve a dramatic status quo, all good or happy outcomes are immediately negated by an unpreventable tragedy.

If I'm going to be the hero of the game, I want to be able to look back at the end and know that I made a difference. The best example I can think of is Dragon Age 2. You can't save one of your siblings. You can't save Wesley. You can't stop Hawke's mother from being murdered and turned into a puppet corpse. You can't stop the Qunari from declaring war on the city. You can't stop Anders from blowing up the chantry. You can't make Meredith or Orsino see reason. You can't. You can't. You can't.

At the end of Dragon Age 2, all I felt looking back was a series of tragedies I couldn't do anything about. It didn't feel very heroic.

Compare that to Origins and Awakening. I could save the mages at the tower. I could save Eamon's son without resorting to blood magic. I could settle the werewolves dispute peaceably. I could unite Ferelden at the Landsmeet. I could save Vigils Keep AND Amaranthine with enough hard work. I could survive killing the Archdemon by trusting someone I thought of as my friend.

At the end of all that, I felt like my Warden was the baddest mother****er on the face of the planet, and it was awesome.

Right and I 100% agree with you on this.  One of DA2's problem was the lack of player being able to influence the outcome on a ton of what occured on the game and often when your given the choice, the outcome is same.   I actually said something similar along those lines in an earlier post.  

I'm just not opposed to getting a decision coming back to unexpected turn against you, either lets say making you change your mind or do something even more heroic to make things right.

[Maria Caliban]

David7204 wrote...

Consequences to choices that the player could never reasonably expect is not good storytelling.

It's not bad storytelling, either.

It's not mature, it's not realistic, it's not fun.

Having unintended consequences to actions is quite realistic. I hope you're not of the opinion that people in the real world have perfect clairvoyance and their decisions always turn out exactly as they expected.

It's frustrating, and it makes choices and heroism feel meaningless.

You're just full of overly dramatic statements, aren't you?

[Il Divo]

Vit246 wrote...

4) AND she was trying to destroy the Force in order for life to exist without it. And the Exile is/was an example of that, wasn't he?

Yep. That was pretty much why she was so interested in him, for being able to demonstrate strength by turning away from the Force. Especially if you play through Light Side, Kreia demonstrates how even the Jedi Masters lack the ability to do so when she strips the Force from them.

[David7204]

Maria Caliban wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Consequences to choices that the player could never reasonably expect is not good storytelling.

It's not bad storytelling, either.

It's not mature, it's not realistic, it's not fun.

Having unintended consequences to actions is quite realistic. I hope you're not of the opinion that people in the real world have perfect clairvoyance and their decisions always turn out exactly as they expected.

It's frustrating, and it makes choices and heroism feel meaningless.

You're just full of overly dramatic statements, aren't you?

Yes, it is bad storytelling if you're in a medium where choices and the protagonist's actions are expected to matter.

If the consequence of the choice is unrelated to the choice itself, the choice didn't matter. The protagonist's actions didn't matter. It doesn't get clearer then that.

In a narrative context, having your choices not matter is not "more realistic" than having choices matter. That ties in with the Theory of Narrative Causality.

Modifié par David7204, 23 octobre 2012 - 01:15 .