209 réponses à ce sujet

[Lennard Testarossa]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
What I've been getting at is, why would the events play out differently all else being equal? I

But everything else isn't equal. On every single playthrough, things will be a little different. Maybe you took three minutes longer than on your last playthrough to get to Connor. The randomization would simulate such small differences.

[Maclimes]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Yeah, he said that way better than I did. It's almost like he has a lot of experience with these BSN discussions, as well as some level of understanding of game design...

[Bean-shidh]

I agree with Sylvius and Dave. The more I think about the dice roll outcomes idea, the more I don't like it. What is the benefit of implementing it? Without being aware of it on the first playthrough it wouldn't be noticed. On the subsequent playthroughs it would irritate me to know that the outcome is randomised. Also, if only some 'risky' decisions are randomised than how do you know which are risky and which aren't in the first playthrough? And why not simply have a punishment for taking the risk (like for the decision to go to the Circle to get help for Connor).

I much rather like the idea already implemented in DAII where the quests are slightly influenced by the choice of companions you take with you to different locations - I would love to see it developed further and have more impact on the events and quest outcomes. Companions hijicking the quests by interrupting the conversations, accidentally revealing your lie or killing somebody too quickly (for example before you manage to get important info out of them) - that would be interesting but I realise that also an absolute nightmare to implement.

[Fast Jimmy]

As I suggested in my original post, a system that doesn't role the dice, so to speak, right before the decision is made would prevent save-spamming. Also, not letting us know exactly the consequence of our actions until much later (or even the end) would be another way to prevent people from feeling they 'lost' the dice roll.

[Allan Schumacher]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
What I've been getting at is, why would the events play out differently all else being equal? I

But everything else isn't equal. On every single playthrough, things will be a little different. Maybe you took three minutes longer than on your last playthrough to get to Connor. The randomization would simulate such small differences.

It actually wouldn't, because it'd be random and arbitrary.  If there's a reason for things to play out differently due to time differences, why should it not be accounted for more deterministically?  The next time I play I take 5 minutes longer, but now I get a different (perhaps even more ideal!) solution?  How does that make sense?

You're getting into one heck of a butterfly effect type of argument here, and if randomization is simulating the small differences, why shouldn't it be reproducible?  Unless you're getting to the idea that a player using a sword instead of a mace is sufficient to alter the outcomes where the player isn't even present in the future.

So you'd still have to convince me that the NPCs are going to make choices that are signficantly different enough to actually result in different decisions that alter the outcomes of situations that the player cannot observe nor influence.

Because you took 3 minutes longer (or two minutes less, or 15 seconds longer, or 30 hours longer) there will be an arbitrary force influencing how other characters make their decisions.

[Nerevar-as]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

As I suggested in my original post, a system that doesn't role the dice, so to speak, right before the decision is made would prevent save-spamming. Also, not letting us know exactly the consequence of our actions until much later (or even the end) would be another way to prevent people from feeling they 'lost' the dice roll.

The moment players learn they lost for a dice roll and not their performance they´ll feel cheated. Unless it´s a game version of The Sting, that´s usually NOT a good idea.

[General User]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

True.  This sort of mechanic/feature/whatever would far and away make the most sense when used in scenarios or missions where there are truly inscrutable factors or persons at work.  That being said however, given the number of baddies in Dragon Age who have been demon possessed, outright insane, or both, there should be any number of times this sort of thing would indeed fit.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I'd say Teagan would (in theory) be motivated to make is choice by any of the literally uncountable possibilities that are so numerous and pervasive that we can't really comprehend them in real life, let alone recreate them for digital characters.  Minute decisions made in combat by unnamed characters, or even the somewhat comical truth that sometimes things happen to Person A and not Person B just because A happened to be standing on the left and not the right. 

It would, I should think, be all but impossible to simulate all these endless little factors for minor (mostly) off-screen characters.  But it seems to me  that the overall effect of this aspect of reality could be (at least partially) simulated by implementing a system akin to what the OP proposes.

Modifié par General User, 29 octobre 2012 - 10:45 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I like the concept for the intent, but as not stated. Rather than fully randomized consequences for actions, I would like the game to portray randomness in other ways that can also give the feeling of the Butterfly Effect. Things that happen in the world but don't boil down to a cinematic choice.

It would probably require a different mindset to create the gameworld though (one BioWare isn't much interested or talented in) since it's geared towards simulation and a coherent sandbox experience instead of cinematics and romantic character dramas. As such, it's more common to find in sandbox games, or as elements of a grand strategy game.

A couple of examples that come to mind outside of the strategy gaming realm are the Dragon attacks in Darklands (a 1992 game) which would wipe out cities if you stayed clear of them, or the faction wars in STALKER: Clear Sky. To a lesser extent, the family wars in New Reno (Fallout 2) as well.

[Allan Schumacher]

Minute decisions made in combat by unnamed characters, even the somewhat comical truth that sometimes things happen to Person A and not Person B just because A happened to be standing on the left and not the right.

I agree! My question is: "Should we expect that thing to NOT happen to Person A if we were to replay the situation?"



The impression I am getting is that people are wanting the NPCs to be bound by the same dice rolls the player is when the player is making decisions. Is this somewhat accurate at least?

[Bean-shidh]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

As I suggested in my original post, a system that doesn't role the dice, so to speak, right before the decision is made would prevent save-spamming. Also, not letting us know exactly the consequence of our actions until much later (or even the end) would be another way to prevent people from feeling they 'lost' the dice roll.

What you say explains the mechanics of randomisation of the outcomes but I still don't get what is the reason behind implementing this in the first place? However I look at it, I still don't see what's 'fun' about this idea. Let's look at the example from DA:O - the choice about whom you choose to support in Orzamar - the consequences of the choice you make are revealed at the end of the game and going by your logic they could be randomised - once it's good to choose one side, another time it turns out that the other side would be better. What's the point of it? 

[General User]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Minute decisions made in combat by unnamed characters, even the somewhat comical truth that sometimes things happen to Person A and not Person B just because A happened to be standing on the left and not the right.

I agree! My question is: "Should we expect that thing to NOT happen to Person A if we were to replay the situation?"

I would say "no, we shouln't."  Because, even with dedicated conscious effort, it is all but impossible to precisely replay any given situation.  Perhaps you attack the darkspawn on the left with your bow and arrows vs hitting the darkspawn on the right with a sword.  Things like that.

Randomizing the consequences for certain scenarios doesn't take all those factors into account, but it would (in theory, and albeit imperfectly) simulate the overall effect.

The impression I am getting is that people are wanting the NPCs to be bound by the same dice rolls the player is when the player is making decisions. Is this somewhat accurate at least?

I'm not sure if I 100% know what you mean.  But, if I am following like I think I am, I'll give a qualified "yes."

With the caveats being: "some NPC's more than others", or even "some NPC's and not others", and "not in every situation or mission".   Because some characters and situations (certainly many of the ones the Warden and Hawke have gotten into) truly are unpredictable.  To see that aspect of the real world reflected (to one extent or another) in a video game would be very interesting to me.

Modifié par General User, 29 octobre 2012 - 10:47 .

[Aulis Vaara]

 For some option this would work, but overall consequences should be based around your choices, not luck. That's not to say that, as the OP pointed out, there can't be some risk involved in some choices, such as leaving Redcliffe to fetch the mages. It would actually be very awesome if some option is pointed out as a risk, that it is actually a risk. It would actually be pretty cool if you got the option to take a risk to get a better outcome, or settle for the mediocre one but you know what the end result is going to be.

The options where this would be viable gameplay mechanic, however, are small in number and should be exactly that. It would be annoying if every choice is unpredictable. It actually detracts from replayability at that point, rather than adding to it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It actually wouldn't, because it'd be random and arbitrary.  If there's a reason for things to play out differently due to time differences, why should it not be accounted for more deterministically?  The next time I play I take 5 minutes longer, but now I get a different (perhaps even more ideal!) solution?  How does that make sense?

I think the reasoning here is that you taking 5 extra minutes isn't the only thing that's different.  Other events, perhaps events off-screen of which you are unaware, might play out differently as well.

You're getting into one heck of a butterfly effect type of argument here, and if randomization is simulating the small differences, why shouldn't it be reproducible?

Because the player doesn't control all of the variables.  In some playthroughs, perhaps Connor has slightly more strength of will.  All we see are the effects, but perhaps the inputs are different (and random).

So you'd still have to convince me that the NPCs are going to make choices that are signficantly different enough to actually result in different decisions that alter the outcomes of situations that the player cannot observe nor influence.

Because the NPCs are themselves not the same people.  They're merely similar people.  I've been making this exact point for years to explain how Leliana might interpret a line correctly on one playthrough while interpreting incorrectly on another.

The logic is the same.  Only if you presuppose that every character is exactly the same character every time you play the game (something of which you could only even be aware from a metagame perspective) does this even become a contentious point.

Because you took 3 minutes longer (or two minutes less, or 15 seconds longer, or 30 hours longer) there will be an arbitrary force influencing how other characters make their decisions.

But the arbitrariness is imperceptible from the PC's perspective.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The impression I am getting is that people are wanting the NPCs to be bound by the same dice rolls the player is when the player is making decisions. Is this somewhat accurate at least?

That strikes me as a different issue, but I would answer an unequivocal yes to that.

[AlanC9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Maybe all else is not equal. There are things the PC knows, and things he doesn't know. On a second playthrough the things he doesn't know could be different without changing anything except the result.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There are known knowns, and there are known unknowns. But here we're actually talking about variability in the unknown unknowns. Since those could always be different, and the PC (and possibly player) would never know, it renders the "all else being equal" standard inapplicable.

[Allan Schumacher]

I would say "no, we shouln't." Because, even with dedicated conscious effort, it is all but impossible to precisely replay any given situation. Perhaps you attack the darkspawn on the left with your bow and arrows vs hitting the darkspawn on the right with a sword. Things like that.

Why would the person decide to attack stuff in a different order with no outside influences affecting his decision making process? Do you make the decisions that you make "randomly." Yes, you can choose to attack the guy on the left or the guy on the right. But whichever one you choose is the one that you choose. Is there any reason to assume that your choice was random and not the sum of conscious and subconscious thought?

Simply because an action is not predictable, however, doesn't mean it is not deterministic. I understand what you're saying, as it goes back to Chaos Theory. So yeah, it can make sense for slight differences in initial conditions to result in different outcomes, but not in a random way.


And this all then boils back to: "Does this actually make a superior product?"

[Allan Schumacher]

Note, I just wanted to clarify why I was contributing to this thread.

This is a philosophical debate, and any that state one way or another better serves "realism" will find such a position is not certain (at least at this time).

I was discussing the topic from the school of thought of biological determinism and the general idea that free will is an illusion. If a person fires an arrow at the guy on the left is because all the conscious and subconscious effects on said person led to that decision being made.

There are a lot of other schools of thought on how we make our decisions. An advantage of the computer simulation is that we get exact replicas of said situations. It's not unreasonable for someone to take this information and have a set of assumptions that goes along with it. They aren't wrong (or even right) for believing this way.


In terms of whether or not this actually provides for an interesting game mechanic is not something I entirely agree with. I disagree with the notion that it makes the games more replayable, because for some gamers part of what they enjoy about replayability is going through and making different choices and seeing how the story/narrative plays out from there. So while this might be a "very good idea" from one perspective, it may not be from another.


From a QA perspective, random chance starts to become a nightmare to verify. I'm not a huge fan of it because it's not a situation where you can quickly set up a unit test to verify that the system is working as expected (automated testing for plots is mindcrushingly frustrating from a maintenance perspective). The problem is exacerbated the more complicated the system becomes.


I have to go, but I'll check back on the thread when I get back from Volleyball.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 29 octobre 2012 - 11:59 .

[ledod]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

But everything else isn't equal. On every single playthrough, things will be a little different. Maybe you took three minutes longer than on your last playthrough to get to Connor. The randomization would simulate such small differences.

It actually wouldn't, because it'd be random and arbitrary...

True dat


Edit: Only in the case where there was a timed quest would variations in the timeline affected by the player's expediency be meaningful. For example...

Rando' agitated lady: " 'ello sirrah, my daughtah, she's got the taint. Oooo, I'd gander I'd be super sad, 'n stuff, if she turned ghoulie. Lost mah 'usband to the taint. You's the look of ah warden, SAVE  MAH DAUGHTAH ROFLROFL"

Omnipresent quest god-timer:  YOU HAVE 2 MINUTES TO CONDUCT A JOINING OR THE GIRL BECOMES A GHOULIE, AND WILL EAT YOUR FACE OFF, BRO.

Fail, she become a ghoulie, the mom goes 'Rambo,' a la spaceballs, on your butt, and YOUR JOURNEY ENDS HERE.

Succeed, and some random girl become a grey warden...ONLY TO GET THE CALLING TWO MINUTES LATER

Modifié par ledod, 30 octobre 2012 - 12:13 .

[Xilizhra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

It'd be less work if you just picked a choice randomly.

[General User]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I would say "no, we shouln't." Because, even with dedicated conscious effort, it is all but impossible to precisely replay any given situation. Perhaps you attack the darkspawn on the left with your bow and arrows vs hitting the darkspawn on the right with a sword. Things like that.

Why would the person decide to attack stuff in a different order with no outside influences affecting his decision making process? Do you make the decisions that you make "randomly." Yes, you can choose to attack the guy on the left or the guy on the right. But whichever one you choose is the one that you choose. Is there any reason to assume that your choice was random and not the sum of conscious and subconscious thought?

Not the way I see it, no.  The thing is though, whether the choices were randomly made or the sum of conscious and subconscious thought, the result (that each playthrough will have slight to not-so-slight differences no matter how hard one might try) will be largely the same.

Simply because an action is not predictable, however, doesn't mean it is not deterministic. I understand what you're saying, as it goes back to Chaos Theory. So yeah, it can make sense for slight differences in initial conditions to result in different outcomes, but not in a random way.

If you're saying that out-of-left-field "you randomly 'lose' because the dice came up bad" scenarios are things to be avoided, I would very much agree.  However I would contend that, by the same token, "you will always 'win' as long as you make the 'right' choices" scenarios are nearly as bad.

Redcliffe and Connor are really the perfect example.  I mean the Warden flat out says before heading off to the Circle that doing so is "a chance worth taking" (or near enough to that as makes no difference).  Only it isn't a chance at all.  It is a certainty that, no matter what, Connor will still be waiting patiently for the Warden to come save him.  Indeed, there are many times in the Dragon Age games where the protagonist has to decide to either "take the safe route" or to "take a chance on someone/something."  I think it would be interesting if those chances we take were actual chances.

(Sorry if that isn't really what you asked.)

And this all then boils back to: "Does this actually make a superior product?"

I'd say it would.  The idea of a video game that reflects the reality that many persons and events truely are unpredictable (no matter how or why they do the things they do) is something that would be very interesting to me.

Modifié par General User, 30 octobre 2012 - 12:47 .

[Direwolf0294]

Life is predetermined. Everything is connected. Whether or not you turn up to a meeting five minutes late or not does have a rippling effect that changes the future. Whether or not you were late is not your choice, it was always going to happen or not. Who you are and the decisions you make are determined by nature, nuture and circumstance. Those three things in turn are set in stone, as they were determined by the things that came before them, right back to the beginning of the universe.

In life, we never get to replay events, never get to see how things happen if we'd done anything differently. This is probably a good thing. Even minor, seemingly inconsequential differentiations would eventually change the future. You could easily end up like that Halloween episode of the Simpsons where Homer desperately tries to get his life back after messing around with time.

In video games, you can. You can play events over and over again. The idea that minor changes to how you play have an impact on how the story plays out is an interesting one, but for realisms sake randomness and chance should not be involved in it at all. As I mentioned above, everything is set in stone. If you somehow managed to change an event, which would be possible within a video game world, everything that follows the event you changed would still be set in stone. There wouldn't be a randomness to it. Funnily enough of course, even if they did implement some sort of randomisation feature, whether or not the coin falls on heads or tails for that particular playthrough is already determined and pre-set. Video games let us explore and manipulate entire worlds, but the code behind those games, the things that determine whether a sword swing hits or misses and our own actions in controlling those games are still influenced by the pre-set reality of our universe.

That's not the only reason the system shouldn't be implemented of course. Making fictional things as close to reality as you can doesn't always take precedence and randomness can be fun. At the moment though, with current technology levels, not to mention time and money, they would simply not be able to create enough outcomes for enough small actions for the system to be fully satisfactory to the consumer. There are just too many variables. Maybe one day in the future a video game will come along like that, but it's certainly not going to be DA3.

[Bean-shidh]

General User wrote...

(...)
Redcliffe and Connor are really the perfect example.  I mean the Warden flat out says before heading off to the Circle that doing so is "a chance worth taking" (or near enough to that as makes no difference).  Only it isn't a chance at all.  It is a certainty that, no matter what, Connor will still be waiting patiently for the Warden to come save him.  Indeed, there are many times in the Dragon Age games where the protagonist has to decide to either "take the safe route" or to "take a chance on someone/something."  I think it would be interesting if those chances we take were actual chances.
(...)

It is a perfect example that shows that what you really would be happy about is the awareness of there being a chance in a game. In theory the idea that there might or might not be repercussions for a Warden heading off to the Circle seems very interesting but consider that playing for the first time you are no way going to notice whether you succeded or failed because of a chance. Assuming that you are not aware as a gamer of the 'chance' outcomes in the game, it is only on third playthrough at best that you would discover that going, or not, to the Circle has any influence on how the quest plays out. Saying that, I would rather face the consequence of going to the Circle - not a 'chance' of facing it.

I get an impression that if there was a line in the game guide that stated that there are events in game that are subject to 'chances', it would make you excited even if it wasn't really implemented in the game at all.

[dragonflight288]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Minute decisions made in combat by unnamed characters, even the somewhat comical truth that sometimes things happen to Person A and not Person B just because A happened to be standing on the left and not the right.

I agree! My question is: "Should we expect that thing to NOT happen to Person A if we were to replay the situation?"



The impression I am getting is that people are wanting the NPCs to be bound by the same dice rolls the player is when the player is making decisions. Is this somewhat accurate at least?

If I may try it from another perspective? And I'll use Redcliff as it's the predominant example here that's being used.

Let's go back to the things we can do in Redcliff to prepare the village for the assault.

1. Convince Owen to supply the men with arms and armor.
2. Convince Dwyn to join the militia
3. Convince Berwick the elven spy to fight with the militia
4. Intimidate Lloyd to fight with the militia
5. Tell Ser Perth about the oil
6. Give him and his men the amulets.

Rather than focus on the attack order, we could instead focus on the priorities we made in which ones were done first, if they were done at all.

Take Dwyn the dwarf. We can pay him to fight, in which case he's very mercenary about the whole thing, but we can also convince him that we'd put a word in with Teagan regarding his heroism if our coercion skill is high enough. If we persuade him instead of hiring him, and he survives the night, Teagan may put him and his men in charge of guarding Connor.

Likewise if Lloyd survives the night, he feels accomplished for the first time in his life, gives the warden an amulet, and may volunteer to help out more often. If we hired Dwyn and didn't persuade him, Lloyd could be put in charge of guarding Connor or Isolde instead, and his personal vices and lack of professionalism would lead to a greater disaster than the veteren Dwyn.

Or if we got Owen working on arms first, the entire militia is well armed, but if we got him going last, he wouldn't have enough time to arm everyone, and many of the militia will have rather crappy arms and armor. Better than nothing, but it won't be near as good a quality than if we did it first.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the giving the milita free ale.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 30 octobre 2012 - 01:23 .

[General User]

Bean-shidh wrote...

General User wrote...

(...)
Redcliffe and Connor are really the perfect example.  I mean the Warden flat out says before heading off to the Circle that doing so is "a chance worth taking" (or near enough to that as makes no difference).  Only it isn't a chance at all.  It is a certainty that, no matter what, Connor will still be waiting patiently for the Warden to come save him.  Indeed, there are many times in the Dragon Age games where the protagonist has to decide to either "take the safe route" or to "take a chance on someone/something."  I think it would be interesting if those chances we take were actual chances.
(...)

It is a perfect example that shows that what you really would be happy about is the awareness of there being a chance in a game. In theory the idea that there might or might not be repercussions for a Warden heading off to the Circle seems very interesting but consider that playing for the first time you are no way going to notice whether you succeded or failed because of a chance.

Most every player is savvy tell when their character is taking a chance on someone or something.  Often enough the game flat out says so.  "I'll give you this chance",  "It's a chance worth taking", etc.

Assuming that you are not aware as a gamer of the 'chance' outcomes in the game, it is only on third playthrough at best that you would discover that going, or not, to the Circle has any influence on how the quest plays out.

Going to the Circle would always have an influence on how the quest plays out.  Namely since doing so makes possible a means of resolving the crisis with Connor that would not otherwise be an option.  No matter how that possibility ultimately pans out, simply by taking it you've already effected (as opposed to determined) the eventual outcome.

Saying that, I would rather face the consequence of going to the Circle - not a 'chance' of facing it.

I would rather have both.  IE, face the consequences of taking a chance.  Which, by the way, is exactly what the player character is doing.  Maybe the chance pays off and you're a daring and visionary hero.  Maybe the chance doesn't pay off and you're a fool.  Maybe the chance just plain doesn't pan out and you're right back where you started.  Maybe you decide not to take the chance at all and have to face the consequences of that choice.

I get an impression that if there was a line in the game guide that stated that there are events in game that are subject to 'chances', it would make you excited even if it wasn't really implemented in the game at all.

I love video games.  Daring and innovative features in video games do indeed tend to catch my interest.  Never seen one that turned out to be a red herring though.

Modifié par General User, 30 octobre 2012 - 01:36 .

[Fast Jimmy]

One facet about this feature that hasn't been discussed is the benefit it brings to the players via the 'grim/dark' concept by the writing team.

The writers don't want to give a perfect choice and a suboptimal choice for a game... one that is success with no consequence and success with some consequence. It's not good because the player feels they made the 'wrong' choice and pushes them to do one outcome when replaying (assuming they aren't going for some dark outcomes play through). So the alternative is either to make no bad things happen (which is often viewed as cheesy, by fans, critics and the writers themselves) or the choices can equally grim/dark, meaning that there is no 'good' choice.

If the choice at Redcliffe had only been Isolde sacrificing herself or killing Connor, there would have been no good outcome. But having a third outcome that resulted in a perfect ending felt good to the player, but also caused us to make that choice on subsequent playthroughs.

To avoid meta-gaming, the devs could instead offer us a risky choice. A choice that offers Graf reward, but also great ruin. Not EVERY choice would have to be loaded as such, but the choices that are could even be flagged as potentially ruinous, or potentially perfect.

I'll move to another example, because Redcliffe has been done to death. What if, upon completion of the Brecillian Forest, you try and convince Zathrien to remove the curse. He agrees, giving you a perfect ending in the original game. But, what if instead, he double crosses you and uses the connection to the werewolves to kill them, the White Wolf and all of the Dalish who were infected, giving you no werewolves and far fewer fighters?

This would be a truly sub-optimal outcome, but it offers an outcome that is happy for all involved (except Zathrien, of course). The werewolves are free from the curse, the Dalish are healed, the army is intact to help the Warden... all good things. If a random element was introduced for this choice to make it equally devastating, it would be a very interesting role playing question:

Kill the Dalish, recruiting the werewolves?
Kill the werewolves, recruiting the Dalish?
Ask Zathrien for help removing the curse, which could result in everyone living or which could result in many people dying and your army to be less fortified/robust.


This benefits the player in knowing there is the POSSIBILITY of a 'best' ending, but it makes the risk of something equally disasters us happening if that option is pursued very off-putting. Again, this wouldn't be for every option, but for options when a third choice is truly a doubl edged sword of good vs. terribly bad. And, of course, the randomization would be removed from right before the choice, so one could not keep on reloading just to get the good ending.