209 réponses à ce sujet

[HTTP 404]

This is a tall order. I can't help but forsee frustration for players if implemented much less for the development team to create this....


I think it should be tweaked to increase chances of success.  So say if the player did 5 things right to get optimal consequence it would result in a 95 percent chance of intended success.  If the player only did one thing right the intended success would be less like 20 percent.

Even this could frustrate a gamer who has a failing consequence for doing everything right. 

Modifié par HTTP 404, 29 octobre 2012 - 08:34 .

[Wozearly]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

I'm sorry but this idea is just like Bioware making Mommy Hawke's death be optional. When they tested it they found many players just reloaded a save to get the 'better' ending. Thats what would happen if bioware did what your suggesting in DA3. It would cost a lot of money for bioware to do this and then 80% of the players would just reload and skip the 'bad' consequences.
Plus if you do awesome in Redcliffe why should there even be a chance that the town is destroyed? that makes no sense, You just worked your butt off saving Redcliffe, now despite your efforts it is destroyed the same as if you'd done a poor job? No thank you.

Doing Action A leads to Consequence B. Determinism is the way to go.

Since players are already reloading to skip the 'bad' consequences in the current model, its hard to see how a random element is worse than a deterministic choice, except that it could cause you to reload more often if you're determined to get the 'best' outcome and there's a now a dice-roll in the way.

That, to me, sounds like a bad way to implement the concept. That doesn't mean that the concept itself is flawed.

If the intention is to always allow that 80% of players a guarantee of getting the 'best' outcome in every influenceable situation (even if this is achieved via reloading), then determinism is clearly the better option, as it presents them with less barriers to play the game in that way.

However, if the intention is not to allow any player to always get the 'best' outcome every time then take the stratified random approach I outlined in my last post as an alternative. You're now presenting a situation where, in effect, you can only get 2 of the 3 possible 'best' outcomes.

But rather than Bioware deciding which will fail by selecting a static quest that will always go wrong, or allowing the player complete deterministic control over which will go wrong (e.g. whichever quest you do last will fail), it gives you the ability to (in effect) select one quest line that will definitely succeed, and not be sure what will happen with the next one. If the mechanic is that straightforward, you'd know how the third would end up after completing the second.

There's no reason for this to be more costly than implementing win / 'fail' conditions for the affected questlines, which Bioware already use across the game. You're not changing the number of permutations, all you're changing is how the outcome is determined. Yes, you're removing part of that from the player's control but, perhaps most crucially, you're not forcing them to consistently fail a specific quest no matter how awesomely they handle it or giving them the ability to guarantee which quest will fail no matter how awesomely they handle it.

That is, in my view, a much better way to introduce the idea the idea of risk and consequence than outright determinism. Whether this is considered valuable or not may depend on people's attitude to there being unexpected consequences to the actions you take in game.

Modifié par Wozearly, 29 octobre 2012 - 08:36 .

[Allan Schumacher]

In a way... yes. When there's only one character (the player character) whose takes action(s) to meet the preconditions that inevitably lead to any given consequence, I don't see how anyone could say that they aren't determining it.

Keep in mind the only perspective you're shown is the players.

If you tell me to be careful the roads are dangerous and don't interact with me again, and I drive more carefully, doesn't mean that you alone determined my behaviour. Who's to say that after trying the King to not execute a prisoner, that after you leave the Queen echoes what you've been saying a dozen times over to show the King the error of his ways.

Because the fact is everything isn't equal (or it shouldn't be anyway). To stick with the Redcliffe scenario, perhaps (after the Warden left for the Circle) Bann Teagan decided to assign Guardsman A instead of Guardsman B to watch the door Connor locked himself behind, and Guardsman A makes decisions or has vulnerabilites that Guardsman B wouldn't have.

What would motivate Teagan to make this decision differently? If it's a dice role, then his decision starts to become arbitrary, which is maybe okay if Teagan is considered an arbitrary character.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 29 octobre 2012 - 09:29 .

[Lennard Testarossa]

Maclimes wrote...
Bad things happening should be a result of a player making a poor decision (or having to choose the lesser of two evils), not the result of a dice roll.

Which is the case in the example. You're presented with the option to play it safe and sacrifice one life or to take the risk of going to the circle. If you take a risk and people die, you made a poor decision.

Maclimes wrote...
But if you're talking about allowing random chance to determine the result, even if you've literally done everything in your power to get the desired outcome, then no. What's the point? It doesn't make decisions more meaningful, it makes them LESS meaningful, because it's up to chance, not choice.

Sometimes, things don't go as planned, despite your best efforts to the contrary. Making choices is not about being a god that determines the course of the world but about choosing with path to take, doing your best to get the desired results and hoping for the best. If you make a very risky choice, that means you accept the possibility of failure. That's what risk is.

[Genshie]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm all for excluding casual players if doing so makes the game better, but I don't think that happens here.

(I know this is being overused a bit. And holy crap this is the first post which I fully agree with Sylvius here)

Remember when games were directed at "gamers", when games didn't have a difficulty setting, and games which you could actually get stuck with no way out. I do back in the old days of NES. Hello Contra/Battle Toads/Original Zelda/Final Fantasy 1/ect.. anybody?

I feel like easier difficulties actually weaken a game in all aspects in terms of story and gameplay. I know this may be a narrow view and I know that in the end its all about making a profeit but I honestly feel like delevopers/publishers should really start focusing on the loyalties of their old fanbases instead of constantly trying to find new ways to bring in fresh meat. (One reason why I stopped playing trading card games like Pokemon and Yugioh because they literally isolated the older players)

Modifié par Genshie, 29 octobre 2012 - 08:53 .

[Maclimes]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Sometimes, things don't go as planned, despite your best efforts to the contrary. Making choices is not about being a god that determines the course of the world but about choosing with path to take, doing your best to get the desired results and hoping for the best. If you make a very risky choice, that means you accept the possibility of failure. That's what risk is.

That's true. And that definetly has it's place in many games.

But not in Dragon Age. This series is about stories, not about simulation. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What would motivate Teagan to make this decision differently? If it's a dice role, then his decision starts to become arbitrary, which is maybe okay if Teagan is considered an arbitrary decision.

This is a good point.  While, in-character, you wouldn't know it was a dice roll, so it would look no more arbitrary than a determinisitic outcome, if you're in-character then you don't need the randomness anyway.

But if the player wants the game to look more credible from a metagame perspective, and thus desires the random outcomes, he is then able to perceive the arbitrariness, which harms the game's credibility.

I think you've effectively demonstrated that the cure is in fact exactly the same as the disease.

[Sable Rhapsody]

A system of randomized consequences would only serve to make me compulsively save and reload worse than I already do. XCOM randomizes recruit classes when they level up, and it's driving me nuts.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But if the player wants the game to look more credible from a metagame perspective, and thus desires the random outcomes, he is then able to perceive the arbitrariness, which harms the game's credibility.

Reality is a very complex system in which the tiniest of changes in the initial conditions can have a huge impact on the outcome. Reality very often seems arbitrary. Having that in a game does not harm the game's credibilty in any way.

Maclimes wrote...
But not in Dragon Age.

I disagree.

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
A system of randomized consequences would only serve to make me compulsively save and reload worse than I already do.

Depending on the system used, reloading wouldn't help or you'd lose several hours of progress.

Modifié par Lennard Testarossa, 29 octobre 2012 - 09:05 .

[Nerevar-as]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

A system of randomized consequences would only serve to make me compulsively save and reload worse than I already do. XCOM randomizes recruit classes when they level up, and it's driving me nuts.

The old times of Baldur´s Gate and reloading tens of times so I would get max HP on level up.

[Dave of Canada]

I've seen and read this thread and over the past few hours I've been thinking about it, there's elements which I like and elements which I dislike. I approve that every playthrough would have to have the character deal with various conflicts in different ways, perhaps you're the good man and everything is going wrong because the die rolls against your favor.

However, this troubles me because you're doing it at the roll of a die. Redcliffe burning while you're away and then being fine being left to chance would irritate me, it turns into something which would feel arbitrary and--like mentioned in your post--would make save-scumming feel frustrating. They'd still do it, just be frustrated while doing so.

In addition, you'd have to worry about the majority who'd never touch the game past that initial first playthrough--they're among the majority, this would seem to feel like something which would benefit the few of us which are hardcore and play these games dozens of times, yet these people would never get to experience the system.

The best way to stop save-scumming and creating a system which allows fresh replayability is creating no-win scenarios, choice A kills your companion but wins you a territory that saves many lives down the line or choice B kills them and the territory is secured by your enemy, causing them to kill many of your men and perhaps imprison another companion left with them.

Both systems cost a lot of resources but allowing the player to influence how the story plays--no matter how grim--is nice. Allow people to pick their poison and how they react afterwards, not placing multiple cups and some are poisoned and some are not.

[Vicious]

Great idea, but mostly impossible.

[draken-heart]

I....Actually agree wholeheartedly. Randomize choices and nobody should complain because all choice is randomized and they do not have to worry about imports ruining things. could even please both by having three worlds and having a option to randomly choose one for you.

[Nerevar-as]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The best way to stop save-scumming and creating a system which allows fresh replayability is creating no-win scenarios, choice A kills your companion but wins you a territory that saves many lives down the line or choice B kills them and the territory is secured by your enemy, causing them to kill many of your men and perhaps imprison another companion left with them.

.

This is kind of what The Witcher games do. There are some big choices where the outcome doesn´t play until several hours of playing later, and some have different bad outcomes as helping some people makes others hate you, or because you couldn´t be in 2 places at once. But it was done skillfully enough that you could still feel like you had made the best of a really bad situation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But if the player wants the game to look more credible from a metagame perspective, and thus desires the random outcomes, he is then able to perceive the arbitrariness, which harms the game's credibility.

Reality is a very complex system in which the tiniest of changes in the initial conditions can have a huge impact on the outcome. Reality very often seems arbitrary. Having that in a game does not harm the game's credibilty in any way.

But if you're looking at it from a metagame perspective (which you've claimed is somehow mandatory), then you know the result is randomised.  That's the very definition of arbtrary.  The problem isn't that it's unpredictable - the problem is that it's actually random.

If, however, you think that the perspective that matters here is the in-game perspective - that the dice roll isn't perceptible to the characters involved - then you've just undercut your argument in favour of randomness in the first place.

[Maclimes]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I've seen and read this thread and over the past few hours I've been thinking about it, there's elements which I like and elements which I dislike. I approve that every playthrough would have to have the character deal with various conflicts in different ways, perhaps you're the good man and everything is going wrong because the die rolls against your favor.

However, this troubles me because you're doing it at the roll of a die. Redcliffe burning while you're away and then being fine being left to chance would irritate me, it turns into something which would feel arbitrary and--like mentioned in your post--would make save-scumming feel frustrating. They'd still do it, just be frustrated while doing so.

In addition, you'd have to worry about the majority who'd never touch the game past that initial first playthrough--they're among the majority, this would seem to feel like something which would benefit the few of us which are hardcore and play these games dozens of times, yet these people would never get to experience the system.

The best way to stop save-scumming and creating a system which allows fresh replayability is creating no-win scenarios, choice A kills your companion but wins you a territory that saves many lives down the line or choice B kills them and the territory is secured by your enemy, causing them to kill many of your men and perhaps imprison another companion left with them.

Both systems cost a lot of resources but allowing the player to influence how the story plays--no matter how grim--is nice. Allow people to pick their poison and how they react afterwards, not placing multiple cups and some are poisoned and some are not.

Dave's got it right. The way to make decisions meaningful is to give true consequences to your actions, not by adding randomization to the outcome.

[Vestua]

Well a system like this could work I wouldn't like it but it could. For instance at Redcliffe lets say you did everything to prepare you'd have a 100% chance of succes. If you do a thrid of the preparations you'd get 80%, half would net you 60% and so on that's the only way I could see it working and keeping the randomization down a bit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The best way to stop save-scumming...

Stopping "save-scumming" is not something with which the developers should concern themselves.

[Maclimes]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The best way to stop save-scumming...

Stopping "save-scumming" is not something with which the developers should concern themselves.

True, but replayability is, and it was the next noun in the sentence you snipped.

[Nerevar-as]

Vestua wrote...

Well a system like this could work I wouldn't like it but it could. For instance at Redcliffe lets say you did everything to prepare you'd have a 100% chance of succes. If you do a thrid of the preparations you'd get 80%, half would net you 60% and so on that's the only way I could see it working and keeping the randomization down a bit.

I liked that the everyone lives in Redcliff depended on my performance as a player during the battle, although that makes succeeding at low levels kind of impossible on NM.

[Wulfram]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The best way to stop save-scumming and creating a system which allows fresh replayability is creating no-win scenarios

And creating Always-Win scenarios.

Cake or Death isn't an interesting choice, but that doesn't mean it always has to be Death or Death.  It can be Cake or Cake too.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Sylvius the Mad  wrote...
But if you're looking at it from a metagame perspective (which you've claimed is somehow mandatory), then you know the result is randomised.  That's the very definition of arbtrary.  The problem isn't that it's unpredictable - the problem is that it's actually random.

If, however, you think that the perspective that matters here is the in-game perspective - that the dice roll isn't perceptible to the characters involved - then you've just undercut your argument in favour of randomness in the first place.

A metagame perspective is mandatory to some extent. If I know what the consequences of a decision will be, that decision will be influenced by that knowledge, either by my picking the choice that yields the best outcome or by my knowingly not taking it for the sake of roleplaying. Truly ignoring what you know is impossible.

I know it is random from a metagame perspective. That does not invalidate that which it represents in-game. It is only through my metagame knowledge of the outcome being random that I can truly see the choice from an in-game perspective.

[Allan Schumacher]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Reality is a very complex system in which the tiniest of changes in the initial conditions can have a huge impact on the outcome. Reality very often seems arbitrary. Having that in a game does not harm the game's credibilty in any way.

That reality may seem arbitrary (a notion I'm not sure I agree with) doesn't mean that it necessarily is.  It just means that you may not know all the influences.

For something to happen arbitrarily, it needs to happen truly randomly, or perhaps more clearly: without reason.


What I've been getting at is, why would the events play out differently all else being equal?  If you have set things up so that there's 10 guards to defend the king, why would they make different decisions (right down to their attacks and tactics) without some external force (player or otherwise) influencing those decisions.

The problem with comparing this to real life (since I've seen other also state that this is "more realistic") is that we never get the opportunity to completely replay out reality the same way that the characters in a video game do.

If you look at my history, I made decisions and I could have made different ones along the way.  But I didn't, I made the decisions that I actually did.  Why would I make different decisions in my past in the event that nothing of my past is presented differently in any way?

[Maclimes]

Wulfram wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The best way to stop save-scumming and creating a system which allows fresh replayability is creating no-win scenarios

And creating Always-Win scenarios.

Cake or Death isn't an interesting choice, but that doesn't mean it always has to be Death or Death.  It can be Cake or Cake too.

I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. I feel the Alistair/Loghain choice is one of those: It's a lose-lose situation (in that you lose a valuable warrior either way), but it's also a win-win, because either way, you keep a valuable warrior at your side. (As well as a number of other factors, such as vengenance for Cailan, support from Anora, Grey Warden recruitment, approval of the Banns, leadership of Ferelden, etc)

[Allan Schumacher]

And creating Always-Win scenarios.

Cake or Death isn't an interesting choice, but that doesn't mean it always has to be Death or Death. It can be Cake or Cake too.

Agreed, choice of equivalent value.

Although, even in the case of "Cake of Cake" there's still going to be some level of opportunity cost. I.E. Getting the sweet two-hander as a reward, or getting the sweet crossbow. You still don't get both.