209 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Do you know what makes great quests and decisions less great? Predictability. Peeking at the guide and doing a second playtrough and all the mistery is gone.

What I propose is to have consequences be somewhat random (when appropriate of course).

Let me give an example:

REDCLIFFE.

You got 3 choices of which one (getting help from mages) is superior because there is no danger in it. You KNOW nothing bad will happen when you leave. Something that is a risk, a chance, ceases to be.

But what if you didn't know? Waht if - no matter how many uides you read, how many times you play - you can never be certain that everything will be OK once you get back?


Basicly, when approprite - usually when events are outside of  player character control - have the outcome randomized to a point.

Now, if you had a great victory at Redcliffe and prepared everyone, chance of something bad happening is 40%
If you had a good victory, chances are 50%
If you did bad, chances are 60%

If the bad consequence happens, even the extent can be randomized.
If all knigts survived - high chances of Teagen being alive, but some knights died protecting him (for example)



This makes unpredictable things unpredictable. Taking a risk is always a risk - you can increase your chances, you can take some precautions to reduce the fallout - but you will never KNOW. You will enver be sure.


***

Now he question is - what is stopping the player from reloading?

That depends on whow it's done. When is the roll determined? Once rolled, does it become static?

So let's say the roll is made the second you head out towards the Circle Tower.

Let's also say it's not static. You'll have to re-do the Broken Circle quest (unless you did that already) and travel there and back  for a CHANCE to change the outcome.

Let's say it is static. Roll sez Teagan dies. Too bad. No re-loading will help you now, Teagan dies.

Unless maybe, you load an even older save and change some of the other variables (like how well the Redcliffe milita is equipped). In this case, a roll would be static UNLESS some variables change. In which case it would be rolled again an then become static again.
Which would make it both fair and at the same time incredibly frustrating to save-scum.

[Plaintiff]

People already complain incessantly about how choice was taken away from them in DA2 (an argument I strongly disagree with, but that's beside the point). I expect that randomizing the outcome would annoy those same people furhter, and I wouldn't like it either.

Not to mention, it would be a heck of a lot of work for what I expect would be fairly minimal returns.

[Scott Sion]

I think randomized choices would be interesting. You can't always control how things will turn out.

[AlexJK]

What you've described isn't really random at all - good victory vs. bad victory depends on tactics and approach to combat, not randomisation. I'd be in favour of more subtle consequences in DA3 where smaller factors that you might overlook (though have a reasonable chance to correctly analyse!) can determine small parts of the outcome to a quest, act, etc.

As to randomisation... randomised factors at the *start* of a quest or mission can be fun and help increase replayability, with the player having to adjust their tactics and approach accordingly. Random factors that you have no control over? No thanks. That's not fun in this context.

And as to "what is stopping the player from reloading?"... nothing. Why would it? Some players like to play for the best outcome first time. If that's fun for them, so be it.

Modifié par AlexJK, 29 octobre 2012 - 08:47 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

People already complain incessantly about how choice was taken away from them in DA2 (an argument I strongly disagree with, but that's beside the point). I expect that randomizing the outcome would annoy those same people furhter, and I wouldn't like it either.

Not to mention, it would be a heck of a lot of work for what I expect would be fairly minimal returns.

Randomizing events THE PLAYER HAS NO CONTROL OF ANYWAY. Nor should he.

In the case of Redcliffe, the PC isn't there. He can't influence anything while he's at the Circle.

What happens at Redclifee depends entirely on what the demon-Connor decides to do and what Teagan and his men do. Connor may decide to stay in hir room. Or he may attack. You don't know. The Warden doesn't know.

And frankly, I think it's worth it.

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

People already complain incessantly about how choice was taken away from them in DA2 (an argument I strongly disagree with, but that's beside the point). I expect that randomizing the outcome would annoy those same people furhter, and I wouldn't like it either.

Not to mention, it would be a heck of a lot of work for what I expect would be fairly minimal returns.

Randomizing events THE PLAYER HAS NO CONTROL OF ANYWAY. Nor should he.

In the case of Redcliffe, the PC isn't there. He can't influence anything while he's at the Circle.

What happens at Redclifee depends entirely on what the demon-Connor decides to do and what Teagan and his men do. Connor may decide to stay in hir room. Or he may attack. You don't know. The Warden doesn't know.

And frankly, I think it's worth it.

Well frankly, I don't. Any feature designed to increase replayability is a difficult case to argue for because telemetry shows that a lot of players don't complete a game the first time. As far as this particular mechanic is concerned, I can't forsee any scenario in which it would cause anything but frustration.

The player already has no control over the vast majority of the events of DA:O and DA2, because they happen one way regardless.

Random anything is a giant pain in the ass. Battles, loot drops, whatever. It's a ****ty, boring mechanic designed to force grinding in order to pad out a game that is short on content to begin with. Grinding for story would be a million times worse, because 'gameplay' would consist of nothing except hitting the reload button over and over again. Unless they implemented your idea of forcing people to redo entire questchains and cutscenes potentially forever.

Not everybody who plays a roleplaying game actually wants to roleplay. Maybe they just want to experience the story. Maybe they want to metagame, so they can get whichever ending they consider to be the "right" one. If that's the case, then they should be allowed to play the way they want. If they only have limited time to play, then they're especially not going to want to redo the same dungeon they just did the other day.

This sounds like a feature that would not only be useless to me, but would actively hamper my enjoyment of the game.

[iSignIn]

Hahahaha I'm sure Gibbed will come up with an editor to provide the best possible outcome if you so wish.

But great idea regardless. Improves realism.

[Xilizhra]

People may joke about the developers being sadists, but I doubt they're actually clinically sadistic, as this idea could well show.

[dragonflight288]

Lotion, I personally agree with that.

My first of the game, I did the blood magic ritual because I didn't do so well in the battle of Redcliff. One of Ser Perths knights was dead and so was the mayor Murdock. I thought that if I was gone (I hadn't done the Broken Circle quest yet) for a long enough time, the people I did save would be killed.

It's an interesting idea, and would make a play-through more entertaining.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...
Well frankly, I don't. Any feature designed to increase replayability is a difficult case to argue for because telemetry shows that a lot of players don't complete a game the first time. As far as this particular mechanic is concerned, I can't forsee any scenario in which it would cause anything but frustration.

Well, by that logic all the Origins are pointless.
As well as race selections. Or different quest outcomes. Since peopel will only make one playtrough and do the quest one way.

Mind oyu - this doesn't only increase replayability. It adds uncertanty. It adds real risk.

Random anything is a giant pain in the ass.

No, it's not. Blanket statements are as pointless as they are stupid.

For example, in Jagged Alliance and X-Com games, there is a "chance to hit" roll. Randomness.
In BG2 and many RPGS - damage is rolled. Critical hit? Critical miss?

Grinding for story would be a million times worse, because 'gameplay' would consist of nothing except hitting the reload button over and over again.

Only for people obsessed with gaming the system and uncapalbe of accepting the consequences of the risks they knowingly took.

I weep for them not.

Not everybody who plays a roleplaying game actually wants to roleplay. Maybe they just want to experience the story. Maybe they want to metagame, so they can get whichever ending they consider to be the "right" one. If that's the case, then they should be allowed to play the way they want. If they only have limited time to play, then they're especially not going to want to redo the same dungeon they just did the other day.

This sounds like a feature that would not only be useless to me, but would actively hamper my enjoyment of the game.

Cheats. Mods. Hacks.

Ultimatively if you don't want ot play teh game as it is meant to be played, but force yourself on it, the problem is not with the game.

[Pedrak]

A certain level of randomization could work.

I remember a paladin/stronghold quest in BG2 where you had to watch over a girl until some other paladin came to escort her away. Unless my memory betrays me, the quest could randomly go in different directions:

1) The real paladin comes, you can either give him the girl or refuse;
or
2) A guy pretending to be the paladin comes to bring the girl away, and again you can either refuse or accept.

Whether the real paladin or the impostor came, I believe it was determined randomly. I remember casting a "detect evil" spell to discover the truth. It certainly was a way to add more impredictability to the game.

Modifié par Pedrak, 29 octobre 2012 - 12:27 .

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Ultimatively if you don't want ot play teh game as it is meant to be played, but force yourself on it, the problem is not with the game.

There are plenty of times where gameplay elements are simply bad.

I'm also extremely certain that the developers are not going to write, code, voice and animate multiple possible outcomes for every major choice.

[AlexJK]

Let's be clear, you're really not talking about "random" outcomes here, you're talking about alternative story options, which could be presented based on different choices made and actions taken by your PC throughout the game, as well as a small random factor to reduce predictability in first or subsequent playthroughs. That all sounds really good.

What does not sound good is a random event, completely outside of the player's ability to expect, understand or control, leading to an unpredictable (possibly undesirable) outcome. For most players, that's not fun.

[ Edit: exceptions exist of course; for example sudden twists in story - but those aren't really the same. ]

Modifié par AlexJK, 29 octobre 2012 - 12:41 .

[AlexJK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Grinding for story would be a million times worse, because 'gameplay' would consist of nothing except hitting the reload button over and over again.

Only for people obsessed with gaming the system and incapable of accepting the consequences of the risks they knowingly took.

I weep for them not.

Just becase *you* don't play that way doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly acceptable way to approach the game.

Cheats. Mods. Hacks.

Ultimatively if you don't want ot play teh game as it is meant to be played, but force yourself on it, the problem is not with the game.

I don't even know what you mean here. Are you implying that anyone who plays the game differently to you is cheating, modding or hacking? And what does "forcing yourself" on a game even mean?

Modifié par AlexJK, 29 octobre 2012 - 12:37 .

[wright1978]

AlexJK wrote...

Let's be clear, you're really not talking about "random" outcomes here, you're talking about alternative story options, which could be presented based on different choices made and actions taken by your PC throughout the game, as well as a small random factor to reduce predictability in first or subsequent playthroughs. That all sounds really good.

What does not sound good is a random event, completely outside of the player's ability to expect, understand or control, leading to an unpredictable (possibly undesirable) outcome.

Agree completely, random events sounds a terrible concept imo.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

People may joke about the developers being sadists, but I doubt they're actually clinically sadistic, as this idea could well show.

What's so sadistic about it?
It adds realism and uncertanty WHERE IT BELONGS.

Unless of course you are reffering to players who MUST have a perfect playtrough and will pull their hair out.

For them there is always cheats and mods - after all, they are practicly cheating anyway by using guides and save-scumming.

[Pzykozis]

In some ways I'd like to see achievement based outcomes for some quests, It was nice being rewarded in Redcliffe with that helmet for saving everyone (well all the named characters anyway) but I'm not sure if randomised is a good way to take it, causality is fairly important and luck based rules affecting that is kinda iffy.

I could see certain things being randomised as in actions and events, that is not to say random events but randomised things happening within those events to keep things fresh but disallowing any input and giving something an arbitrary luck based roll... ehh not for me.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexJK wrote...
Let's be clear, you're really not talking about "random" outcomes here, you're talking about alternative story options, which could be presented based on different choices made and actions taken by your PC throughout the game, as well as a small random factor to reduce predictability in first or subsequent playthroughs. That all sounds really good.

I am talking about a random consequence. Of coruse, influced by the players actions.

What does not sound good is a random event, completely outside of the player's ability to expect, understand or control, leading to an unpredictable (possibly undesirable) outcome. For most players, that's not fun.

So what exactly about Connor doing something while the PC is away is unpredictable or un-understandable?
Honestly. Even the other character mention the risk.

You don't have complete control of it (you can reduce the chance of it happening, not eliminate it completely) - but why should you?

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexJK wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Only for people obsessed with gaming the system and incapable of accepting the consequences of the risks they knowingly took.

I weep for them not.

Just becase *you* don't play that way doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly acceptable way to approach the game.

I tend to disagree.
If you don't want to follow the story and rules, but try to carve your own story no matter what, you might as well write your own novel. You don't need to play a game.

I don't even know what you mean here. Are you implying that anyone who plays the game differently to you is cheating, modding or hacking? And what does "forcing yourself" on a game even mean?

Are they?
Do you consider guides, walktroughs and save-scumming cheating?

[AlexJK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexJK wrote...

Just becase *you* don't play that way doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly acceptable way to approach the game

I tend to disagree.

I gathered that.

If you don't want to follow the story and rules, but try to carve your own story no matter what, you might as well write your own novel. You don't need to play a game.

That doesn't make sense. Nobody is "carving their own story" by metagaming, reloading saves, or following game guides. They're still following the story of the game, in their own preferred way. Same as you. What on earth makes their experience less valid than yours?

Do you consider guides, walktroughs and save-scumming cheating?

I don't consider guides and walkthroughs to be cheating, no. And I don't consider "save-scumming" to be a thing at all. Save games are for reloading. That is their purpose. If player A chooses to reload every time he gets an outcome he doesn't like, that's his choice. If player B chooses never to save and always accepts whatever happens, that's her choice.

[ Edit: I'm not ignoring the fact that save/reload does create balance issues for some games, and there are various methods employed by developers to counteract this, eg. checkpoints, limited saves, hardcore modes, etc. It's just not the point of the debate re: random outcomes... ]

Modifié par AlexJK, 29 octobre 2012 - 01:08 .

[Wulfram]

I can appreciate the intent, but I don't know it would actually be very satisfying. The knowledge I could have got a better outcome with a purely random roll would bug me, I think. Strategy games can make good use of chance and risk, but RPGs are maybe more fun if they're determinist.

My suggestion would be to have some random elements in the game that could shake up stories and choices, but to have these elements be at least somewhat visible before the choice is made.

I first thought of this is the context of a mystery - the mystery would be more satisfying on subsequent playthroughs if the guilty party was not always the same, and the clues changed to reflect that.

Modifié par Wulfram, 29 octobre 2012 - 01:16 .

[Sol Downer]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexJK wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Only for people obsessed with gaming the system and incapable of accepting the consequences of the risks they knowingly took.

I weep for them not.

Just becase *you* don't play that way doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly acceptable way to approach the game.

I tend to disagree.
If you don't want to follow the story and rules, but try to carve your own story no matter what, you might as well write your own novel. You don't need to play a game.

I don't even know what you mean here. Are you implying that anyone who plays the game differently to you is cheating, modding or hacking? And what does "forcing yourself" on a game even mean?

Are they?
Do you consider guides, walktroughs and save-scumming cheating?

What did you say about me? What did you say about me?! Not everybody uses a walkthrough, so don't lump us all in together! Just because I would prefer my game the way it is doesn't mean I'll cheat to have it that way!

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I agree overally (specially about consequences influenced by percentages and Teagan).

In general every game should have few determined consequences made by players decisions or the game losts its consistency and player feels he is playing in a total chaos; next playthroughs might be avoided by him.

[Il Divo]

I like this idea alot.

/signed.

[Fast Jimmy]

I would love it. But I would have nightmares about coding it.



Also, it would have to be done so that the choice was coded WAY before the decision was given, otherwise you'd just have people reloading saves every time if things didn't go their way. And you'd also need to alert the player (who may not know about this feature the first time they play) somehow, letting them know their outcome was the "crappy" version of that outcome. Or the awesome one, either way. There would be plenty of players who pick up your game not knowing anything about it, so any gameplay mechanic like this would need to be explained IN GAME.