209 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

The trouble is that the risk is wholly artificial, wholly moronic, and wholly detrimental to people who just want to craft a story where this particular outcome turns out well. It has nothing to with player skill or judgment and would offer no satisfaction whatsoever. It should exist for no option and be buried in the dustbin of history.

[Bean-shidh]

[quote]General User wrote...
 Often enough the game flat out says so.  "I'll give you this chance",  "It's a chance worth taking", etc. [/quote]

To me, that is a good enough clue to influence how I make decisions of which path to choose and gives me enough to ponder whether it was a good choice. I don't need to actually experience a variety of consequnces to feel the thrill -  the idea that there might be repercussions is enough. As in the example of the quest with solving Connor's problem - we are presented with couple of options and it is implied that each has a consequence. Going to the Circle is a conscious choice of taking a risk - and just the implied danger of doing this is enough to feel that each minute spent in the Circle may result in failing to come back to Redcliffe in time. Isn't this implied risk enough? Do we really need to experience the chance consequences to enjoy how the choices play out? 

[quote]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.[/quote]

I never meant to say that goint to the Circle has no effect on how the quest plays out. What I meant is that it doesn't change much if there is a chance of possible repercussions for deciding to go to the Circle. Whether for the Warden taking the risk turned right in one playthrough and wrong in the next one doesn't make the game richer because the player has no way of knowing that these two options exist and consequently appreciate them. What's there to enjoy then about chance outcome of going to the Circle? The choices presented in the game already are interesting enough. Personally, I enjoy more being presented with difficult options and spending time thinking of what path to choose rather than discovering on the no 'x' playthrough that depending on the roll of dice there could be different conclusion to the quest.

[quote]...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.[quote]

But that already happens in the Connor quest depending on how you decide to solve it (doing the ritual, going to the Circle, etc). To me, it seems that there is no need to branch out the outcomes further by introducing chance outcomes to the 'going to the Circle' path. It is not going to make the quest any deeper or more interesting because you can't possibly be aware as a player that there could be different options (unless you reload a game by chance and experience it). For example lets assume that there are two random outcomes of the Warden going to the Circle - first is the Warden comes back too late to perform the ritual because Connor killed everybody, the second is - Warden comes back in time and everything is fine. Apart from feeling 'yay, it was a good choice' or 'oops, that was a bad choice,' there is really no reason to have them at all. They don't make the meaning of the choices richer and they wouldn't have any influence on whether one would go or not to the Circle in the next playthrough. That is why I think that introducing randomness and chaos is a waste of resources. Facing dilemmas and making difficult choices is more interesting to me than the concept of there being a random possibility of a different outcome in the next playthrough. 

[quote]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.[/quote]

I feel the same - love unusual games. I just wouldn't like a game that would use a seemingly interesting feature just for the sake of being innovative. That's what introducing 'randomness' would be in DA to me.

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

That people are unpredictable does not mean they are not deterministic.


I wouldn't get too hung up on the word "chance" since anything arguably has a chance, even if not explicitly stated. To solve this conundrum all you need are some of the "high risk" situations to not work out very well. If the player gets the impression that the chance may not actually work, suddenly those options become more interesting.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

The trouble is that the risk is wholly artificial, wholly moronic, and wholly detrimental to people who just want to craft a story where this particular outcome turns out well. It has nothing to with player skill or judgment and would offer no satisfaction whatsoever. It should exist for no option and be buried in the dustbin of history.

If you want to craft out a story, take up writing.

It's sad that you do not see the potential of this. Maybe it's you who belongs in the dustbin of history.

[Rawgrim]

i can see where the OP is coming from. Still I would love more options and outcomes to the choices i make in-game, however i would like to be able to influence those choices alot. Not leave it up to chance or anything like that.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Bean-shidh wrote...

To me, that is a good enough clue to influence how I make decisions of which path to choose and gives me enough to ponder whether it was a good choice. I don't need to actually experience a variety of consequnces to feel the thrill -  the idea that there might be repercussions is enough. As in the example of the quest with solving Connor's problem - we are presented with couple of options and it is implied that each has a consequence. Going to the Circle is a conscious choice of taking a risk - and just the implied danger of doing this is enough to feel that each minute spent in the Circle may result in failing to come back to Redcliffe in time. Isn't this implied risk enough? Do we really need to experience the chance consequences to enjoy how the choices play out? 

I never meant to say that goint to the Circle has no effect on how the quest plays out. What I meant is that it doesn't change much if there is a chance of possible repercussions for deciding to go to the Circle. Whether for the Warden taking the risk turned right in one playthrough and wrong in the next one doesn't make the game richer because the player has no way of knowing that these two options exist and consequently appreciate them. What's there to enjoy then about chance outcome of going to the Circle? The choices presented in the game already are interesting enough. Personally, I enjoy more being presented with difficult options and spending time thinking of what path to choose rather than discovering on the no 'x' playthrough that depending on the roll of dice there could be different conclusion to the quest.

Alas, a player cannot ever truly divorce himself from his knowledge.
The player IS the PC, so what you know will influence you. People in general are hard-wired for efficiency. For winning.

You can RP a character and pretend you dont' know everything will turn allright? You can. But deep down you know.
And it just doesn't have the same gravitas, the same tension.
You can spend days upon days in the Cirlce Tower. You KNOW there are no timed quests and nothing will happen no matter how much time you spend there. Connor will patiently wait and behave for moths if necessary.
Just as you KNOW that there will be no negative consequences.
You PC doesn't, but you do. And that will affect you both, weather you are willing to admit it or not.

Most poeple will simply do whatever promises the best outcome. They will tweak their PC personality if necessary, invent a headcanon reason for him to do X. Most people aren't good roleplayers.


And believe me, how you play a game can make ALL the difference in the world.

For example, ever played games like Jagged Alliance 2, the old UFO: EU or the new XCom: EU? Most people don't play them in IronMan mode. For a long time, neither did I.
But that's exactly how they are meant to be played. It's a compeltey different feeling, completely different atmopshere and challenge.

It's not much different here.
The Broken Circle doesn't FEEL like a risk because we know it's not one.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

I fail to see how this takes away from player choice and different outcomes? It gives players 1 more outcome.

If they sacrifice Isolde -> things paly out normally.  ending 1
If they kill Connor -> things play out normally. ending2

If the go to Circle, well prepared -> 80% chance everything will be allright when they get back. (possible ending 3)
If they go the the Cirlce, moderately prepared-> 50% chance of everything being alright
If they go the the Cirlce, unprepared ->20% chance everyxthing being alright. (possible ending4)

Two endings are still the same and certain.
The other two can be influenced to be almost certain.


I say again..mods. It's easy to change the 90% to 100%.

[Rawgrim]

I think I agree with Schumacher on this one.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Bean-shidh wrote...

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.

Wrong. You'll know at first playtrough. Probably befrore youre even done.

For one, since all previous games have been deterministic, there is no reason at all to suspect anything will change in the next playtrough.
For another, in the day or internets and discussions, you're very likely to come across people talking abotu that quest and find out.

[AlexJK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If you want to craft out a story, take up writing.

Why do you insist on making this response? You've repeated it, parrot-like, several times, but it does not make sense. Players are entitled to enjoy a game however they like. If they want to buy a guide and read it cover-to-cover before they even install the game, that is perfectly valid. If they want to make use of the save and reload system to achieve optimal outcomes to each scenario, that is perfectly valid. If they want to eschew all forms of meta-gaming, treat every choice as permanent as soon as it's made, and even delete their save file should their character die in combat, then that too is perfectly valid.

Nobody is trying to rewrite the game story, they are simply trying to enjoy it in different ways.

[AlexJK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

... The Broken Circle doesn't FEEL like a risk because we know it's not one.

You don't know that it's not a risk until you have either played it enough times to confirm experimentally, or researched the quest story and mechanics to discover that fact. A first-time player with no background information has no way of knowing (besides any assumptions they make, which is not the same) whether a line of dialogue saying "this might all go horribly wrong" is foreshadowing disaster or not.

For one, since all previous games have been deterministic, there is no reason at all to suspect anything will change in the next playtrough.

That's an assumption based on previous experience and meta-knowledge of game design, it seems. And it may very well be a correct one. But the best failures come from incorrect assumptions!

For another, in the day or internets and discussions, you're very likely to come across people talking abotu that quest and find out.

You are not "very likely" to come across any such information, unless you go looking for it.

If the go to Circle, well prepared -> 80% chance everything will be allright when they get back. (possible ending 3)
If they go the the Cirlce, moderately prepared-> 50% chance of everything being alright
If they go the the Cirlce, unprepared ->20% chance everyxthing being alright. (possible ending4)

This just doesn't sound fun to me. If I have completed optional quests, helped influential characters, made relevant friends, and ultimately have done "everything right", there should not be a *random* element to the outcome. Unpredictable, possibly. Surprise story twist, sure.

But *random* chance of failure doesn't sound fun to me.

Modifié par AlexJK, 30 octobre 2012 - 11:57 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Wrong. You'll know at first playtrough. Probably befrore youre even done.

For one, since all previous games have been deterministic, there is no reason at all to suspect anything will change in the next playtrough.
For another, in the day or internets and discussions, you're very likely to come across people talking abotu that quest and find out.

This is a valid point, even though it shouldn't. In today's Internet age, you can get a free guide for achieving the 'perfect' ending almost the day of launch. Even for someone who has never played the game, it is a temptation to look at these and be told exactly what to do.

As I said, that shouldn't be a concern of the developers, but to a degree it is a part of this conversation - people are going to be looking for ways to find the happiest/best ending. The solution the writing team says they are going for the equivalent of outcomes in most decisions, either giving us good/good outcomes or semi-bad/semi-bad outcomes, never a semi-bad/good outcome option.

Which is admirable, however this also means that there will never be a 'wrong decision for the right reasons' thrown out again. Harrowmont is a perfect example of this - the guy who isn't a murdering, lying, conniving bastard is actually the worst guy for the job. Go figure.

Adding a randomization to this outcome, however; could have made eithe candidate terrible or good, depending on the roll of the dice. Which means neither is good or bad, it is just a matter of luck.

To take a stab at the 'deterministic' discussion, plot choice in the game is a gameplay feature, just like, say, combat or crafting. Because I choose to use the exact same tactics in a fight, or use the exact same materials when crafting, there is still a chance I win the fight in one encounter and lose in another, or a chance my crafting fails.

Story elements, like dialogue and making decisions, are presented in a little more static light, especially in a game like the DA2, which has no speech skills. However, there is one aspect we are overlooking - our companions. These are NPCs who we do not directly control in conversation and who are known to make their own decisions and have their own opinions. If you say the PC is acting the same way to the same NPC, so why should there ever be any change, then I lay the blame at their feet. Perhaps a roll of the eyes, or a harsh look from a companion could be the determiner in why something did not go right. The devs would not be required to show or even explain this, but given the wide gaiety of companions, their various states of Friendship with the PC, the numerous ways they can be arranged in your party, their various builds and skills (which may color their perspective, such as Templar of Blood Mage), they could, arguably, be the 'X' factor here.

Since there ARE so many configurations of the NPCs, the devs wouldn't need to actually take this into consideration (unless, of course, the companion does in fact have a role to play in the decision, such as Shale with the Anvil), but could, instead, create a roll of the dice to see how these uncontrolled variables we call companions are making subtle differences to the world and resulting in different circumstances.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 octobre 2012 - 12:27 .

[General User]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

That people are unpredictable does not mean they are not deterministic.

"We must believe in free will; we have no other choice!" - Issac Singer

The way I see it, whether events are deterministic or not, or people have free will or not, are irrelevant questions, since no matter what the result is the same: persons and events lie beyond our ability to absolutely/ultimately predict or control.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the word "chance" since anything arguably has a chance, even if not explicitly stated. To solve this conundrum all you need are some of the "high risk" situations to not work out very well. If the player gets the impression that the chance may not actually work, suddenly those options become more interesting.

That's very true.  There are many video games that convey a sense of risk by having some of the gambles the player can take not pay out or even backfire.  I really see a system akin to what the OP describes as potentially taking that to the next level, ie conveying a sense of risk by (at least partially) including an actual element of risk.

Modifié par General User, 30 octobre 2012 - 12:54 .

[Xilizhra]

I say again..mods. It's easy to change the 90% to 100%.

If you must have this, put a "randomness" toggle on the options screen and turn it on. That way, both sides could be theoretically satisfied.

Which is admirable, however this also means that there will never be a 'wrong decision for the right reasons' thrown out again. Harrowmont is a perfect example of this - the guy who isn't a murdering, lying, conniving bastard is actually the worst guy for the job. Go figure.

No, he's a viciously racist bastard intent on stagnating dwarven society. You can, by looking closely, tell his deficiencies.

[Gibb_Shepard]

I can see many reloads due to such a system.

[OdanUrr]

OP, the idea you propose is intriguing but, from the phrasing of your post, I believe it stems more from the fact that you dislike people who only play games for the “best run” than because you want to give the player more options. Indeed, you propose several ways in which to curtail the save-reload mechanic many players use (myself included) to find that “best run.” This actually reminds me of an argument made by a DA2 dev that stated that because players ended up equipping their companions with the same armors (because they were the best stat-wise), they decided to forego this mechanic entirely in DA2 in favor of companions having their own sets of armor that you could upgrade (introducing another problem which is that your companions wear the same thing for ten years straight). Both come down to the same thing: since you don’t like players doing something, you place safeguards to prevent them from doing that something.

Having said that, let’s explore the idea of introducing a chance element, shall we? As my starting example, remember that time you joined the Wardens? There was a high risk that you could die from the joining, wasn’t it? So, by your reasoning, let’s make it a fifty-fifty roll that will determine whether you’ll survive to join the Wardens or not and that said roll will be made early in the game to prevent you from simply saving and reloading. Done. Now there’s a fifty-fifty chance that you’ll have to start the game all over again and play hour upon hour until the roll allows you to continue playing. Not a fair example? Why not? After all, the high risk element was present in this scenario.

Another example, how about that time you got trapped in the Fade? I mean, sure, you did a bunch of things to maximize your chances of getting out but that’s still a high risk situation and, really, your chances of actually leaving the Fade are pretty slim. To be fair, let’s make the roll for this situation happen when you get to the tower so you only have to invest another hour or so to see whether you’ll be allowed to progress. On the other hand, if you want to be really cruel, you could say this was tied to your “destiny” and was determined at the start of your game.

See where I’m going? To be honest, I’m purposefully picking examples that comply with your “high risk” scenario and are bad as hell from a player’s perspective. So let’s explore the Connor scenario you proposed in your OP. In this situation, you’re told that any delay may tip Connor over the edge before you can get the mages to help him, most likely resulting in the end of Redcliffe as we know it. The roll will come as soon as you leave Redcliffe with a best-case scenario of a 40% chance of the **** hitting the fan, resulting in having to replay the Broken Circle level should 40% become 100%. So, do you risk it? Will you risk Redcliffe in the off chance that the Circle will be able to help you? Bear in mind that maybe Connor is beyond the Circle’s help, which could be introduced with another roll. Let’s assume you deem the risk too great, you’re left with two options: either kill Connor or use blood magic to try and save him. Of these two choices only killing him will effectively prevent Redcliffe from being wiped out, since the other still carries a chance element that you might fail. Let’s kill him and see where that leads us. Well, Connor’s dead but that doesn’t guarantee Eamon will live. In fact, maybe killing Connor has a chance element leading to Eamon’s death? Wouldn’t that be something! Because that would mean killing Connor may also have negative consequences for your grand plan to forge alliances and defeat the Archdemon. The ripples are endless!

In the end, how do you determine when chance plays a part and when it doesn’t? Every time there’s “high risk” involved? That could easily be 90% of the game and it would be a mess to implement that many random events. Chances are you’ll end up frustrated in most of your playthroughs even if you attempt the now hampered save-reload strategy that could easily double the time spent playing the game. Do you pick and choose then? How? Unless you’re consistent throughout the player will be left with the bitter impression that you’re railroading certain portions of their game by using a random event generator to prevent him from playing the game the way they see fit.

I’m not dead set against introducing an element of chance in games but I do believe you have to be very careful about it, lest you end up alienating your players. Ultimately, I do believe it should be up to the player whether they want to explore different content by choosing different options. If a player wants to play the “best run” over and over, why is that a problem?

Modifié par OdanUrr, 30 octobre 2012 - 02:13 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexJK wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If you want to craft out a story, take up writing.

Why do you insist on making this response? You've repeated it, parrot-like, several times, but it does not make sense. Players are entitled to enjoy a game however they like. If they want to buy a guide and read it cover-to-cover before they even install the game, that is perfectly valid. If they want to make use of the save and reload system to achieve optimal outcomes to each scenario, that is perfectly valid. If they want to eschew all forms of meta-gaming, treat every choice as permanent as soon as it's made, and even delete their save file should their character die in combat, then that too is perfectly valid.

Nobody is trying to rewrite the game story, they are simply trying to enjoy it in different ways.

Players are entilted to what they can get and what the developers give them. Nothing more.

And you're not palying the game the developers made by "gaming the system".
You are avoiding the consequnces of your actions as the PC and avoiding the developers intent. And if you are doing both of those, you might as well just mod the game to get that.
Incidently, it would be rather trivial to have the mentioned outcomes externalized - basicly giving you an on/off switch in the options.

You keep saying that every approach to playing the game is valid?  Perhaps so. But not every approach has to be catered to and not every game is designed to be played a certain way.

You as a player can of course try everything (like playing a sneaking game in full rambo-mode), but doesn't mean the devs or the game have to meet you half way or even acknowledge you OR even allow you to do that.

Games always have limitations. And it's the devs who decide what they are - not any specific player.

[Xilizhra]

You as a player can of course try everything (like playing a sneaking game in full rambo-mode), but doesn't mean the devs or the game have to meet you half way or even acknowledge you OR even allow you to do that.

And here, they are not and will not design/ing things to happen randomly.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexJK wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

... The Broken Circle doesn't FEEL like a risk because we know it's not one.

You don't know that it's not a risk until you have either played it enough times to confirm experimentally, or researched the quest story and mechanics to discover that fact. A first-time player with no background information has no way of knowing (besides any assumptions they make, which is not the same) whether a line of dialogue saying "this might all go horribly wrong" is foreshadowing disaster or not.

I knew the first time.

That's an assumption based on previous experience and meta-knowledge of game design, it seems. And it may very well be a correct one. But the best failures come from incorrect assumptions!

Since no RPG's so far have had anything but deterministic outcomes, it's a safe assumption.
yopu might as well berrate me for thinking the sun will rise in the morning.

This just doesn't sound fun to me. If I have completed optional quests, helped influential characters, made relevant friends, and ultimately have done "everything right", there should not be a *random* element to the outcome. Unpredictable, possibly. Surprise story twist, sure.

But *random* chance of failure doesn't sound fun to me.

It sounds fun to me. You want ASSURANCE. You want guarantees. Which is something that doesn't exist in real life. It is that that gives weight to many of our choices.

You also have a notion that "doing everything right" MUST guarantee a super outcome. Which btw, isn't true in Real Life either.
Of course, given the outcry ME3 had for not allowing everyone their super-duper outcomes annd blue babies, I can't say I'm surprised by the responses.


Also, if you bothered reading - which I can only assume you didn't - you'd realize the chance isn't random. Your actions can affect it.

Not to mention that chance can be implemented in may ways and in no way does it constitute a "game over".


For another example, there's 50% chance Conor will flip out. You have NO control over that.

so it's:

A) Connor flips out

Connor behaves



However, you have control over the state of Redcliffes defenses.

So regardless if A or B happens, you can have damage migation and some buffer.



So let's say Connor does flip out.

If you posted guards, equipped the milita, made every preparations
before departing - Connor gets contained and only a few soldiers die.



And the worse you prepared the worse the bodycount becomes.



If you didn't prepare at all, half of Redcliffe lies in ruins. May Teeeghaaan dies too.

No matter what, Eamon survives, connor is ultimatively dealt with.


***

Now excuse me, I have blue babies to kill....

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

I say again..mods. It's easy to change the 90% to 100%.

If you must have this, put a "randomness" toggle on the options screen and turn it on. That way, both sides could be theoretically satisfied.

Like the IronMan mode.

Yes, that would work.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]OdanUrr wrote...

Having said that, let’s explore the idea of introducing a chance element, shall we? As my starting example, remember that time you joined the Wardens? There was a high risk that you could die from the joining, wasn’t it? So, by your reasoning, let’s make it a fifty-fifty roll that will determine whether you’ll survive to join the Wardens or not and that said roll will be made early in the game to prevent you from simply saving and reloading. Done. Now there’s a fifty-fifty chance that you’ll have to start the game all over again and play hour upon hour until the roll allows you to continue playing. Not a fair example? Why not? After all, the high risk element was present in this scenario.[/quote]

Well, since you ask:

1) The player doesn't really have any choice in the matter. He cannto refuse. There is no choice to make.

2) The PC must survive for the plot to go on. Basicly it's a game over screen.
Connor doesn't.
Not having a perfectly resolved quest does not end the game. Big difference.


[quote]
Another example, how about that time you got trapped in the Fade? I mean, sure, you did a bunch of things to maximize your chances of getting out but that’s still a high risk situation and, really, your chances of actually leaving the Fade are pretty slim. To be fair, let’s make the roll for this situation happen when you get to the tower so you only have to invest another hour or so to see whether you’ll be allowed to progress. On the other hand, if you want to be really cruel, you could say this was tied to your “destiny” and was determined at the start of your game.[/quote]

Again, PC must get out for the plot to continue.
Not a valid example.
And not really a choice to be made either.


[quote]
Let’s assume you deem the risk too great, you’re left with two options: either kill Connor or use blood magic to try and save him. Of these two choices only killing him will effectively prevent Redcliffe from being wiped out, since the other still carries a chance element that you might fail.[/quote]

Which is purely in the PC's hands.
So it's not fully outside of PC's control.

[quote]
Let’s kill him and see where that leads us. Well, Connor’s dead but that doesn’t guarantee Eamon will live. In fact, maybe killing Connor has a chance element leading to Eamon’s death? Wouldn’t that be something! Because that would mean killing Connor may also have negative consequences for your grand plan to forge alliances and defeat the Archdemon. The ripples are endless![/qutoe]

How exactly?
Also, you're not gointo into redicolosu extreems.


[quote]
In the end, how do you determine when chance plays a part and when it doesn’t? [/quote]

By using a little thing called common sense.

[AlexJK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Players are entilted to what they can get and what the developers give them. Nothing more.

Who's asking for "more"? What do you even mean by this?

And you're not palying the game the developers made by "gaming the system".

You are projecting YOUR preferred method of playing onto other people. Stop it. You are welcome to play however you like, but if someone else enjoys using a guide or whatever other method they damn well choose, who are you to call it "gaming the system"?

We're not even talking about multiplayer here - we're talking about a single player game experience, where the only person who could ever possibly be affected by the way you choose to play is you. So what does it matter?

You are avoiding the consequnces of your actions as the PC and avoiding the developers intent. And if you are doing both of those, you might as well just mod the game to get that.

No, sorry, that does not make sense. Player X (let's call her Jane) doesn't want to mod the game, she's never heard of modding and wouldn't care to muck about with game files anyway. Jane just wants to play Dragon Age, probably only once (she's a busy person) and she wants to come away having "won" the game (for the sake of argument, let's say "achieved the best ending she believes possible"). So she googles a quest that she's stuck on, or reloads a save when her dialogue has unintended consequences. This isn't avoiding anyone's intent - she's enjoying the game exactly as the developers made it. She isn't enjoying her game in the same way that John is enjoying his, or Diane is enjoying hers, but again - so what? She's not hurting your game experience, and neither the game nor the world in which the game is set has suffered in any way because of it.

You keep saying that every approach to playing the game is valid?  Perhaps so. But not every approach has to be catered to and not every game is designed to be played a certain way.

No, not every approach has to be catered to (for example, lots of games save only at checkpoints rather than freely throughout the game, to assist pacing and balance, and to increase weight of choices by increasing replay time following a reload). But we are talking about cRPGs, specifically ones with long, complex stories which DO offer save/reload systems and generally have strategy guides. So the approaches I'm describing ARE "catered to", aren't they?

Modifié par AlexJK, 30 octobre 2012 - 02:51 .

[OdanUrr]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

2) The PC must survive for the plot to go on. Basicly it's a game over screen.

So? In real life, sometimes you fail. That is what we're going for, right? Realism?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

How exactly?
Also, you're not gointo into redicolosu extreems.

Well, since you ask, Eamon is also trapped in the Fade, isn't he? Maybe killing Connor without confronting the demon in the Fade could result in Eamon being trapped in the Fade forever? Just a thought and not really a ridiculous one.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

By using a little thing called common sense.

And yet, common sense is the least common of all senses.

[AlexJK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I knew the first time.

Because you had done some kind of research into the quest (or weren't careful enough with what you read leading up to the game's release - might have been an accident, spoilers do happen), and thus had that information.

Since no RPG's so far have had anything but deterministic outcomes, it's a safe assumption. You might as well berrate me for thinking the sun will rise in the morning.

I would certainly suggest you'd gone mad if you wanted to randomise the chance of it doing so.

It sounds fun to me. You want ASSURANCE. You want guarantees. Which is something that doesn't exist in real life. It is that that gives weight to many of our choices.

I want a game that doesn't kick me up the arse because a virtual die rolled the wrong number. End of.

You also have a notion that "doing everything right" MUST guarantee a super outcome. Which btw, isn't true in Real Life either.

I didn't say I wanted a "super outcome". I'm happy enough with bad endings (or "bittersweet", the horrible phrase that loads of people are throwing around recently without really understanding what it means), but yes, the ending should make sense in context from what I've done along the way.

Once again, I don't have a problem with some unpredictability, or story twists, or a little surprise to keep me on my toes - those are all fine, very welcome and the makings of a good story-driven game - but I freely admit that I don't want randomness. Let's use ME2 as an example - I've fully upgraded the ship, done all the side quest loyalty missions, and made sensible tactical choices in the suicide mission. I don't mind losses, and was never expecting to complete the mission without losing some people, but I don't want the game saying "hmmm, you rolled a 1 so half your team now die".

Of course, given the outcry ME3 had for not allowing everyone their super-duper outcomes annd blue babies, I can't say I'm surprised by the responses.

Wow, you so don't understand why people don't like the ME3 ending.

Also, if you bothered reading - which I can only assume you didn't - you'd realize the chance isn't random. Your actions can affect it.

You suggested that my actions could influence the percentage, not remove the randomisation. That's what I disagree with. Just to clarify again - unpredictable, yes. Random, no.

Modifié par AlexJK, 30 octobre 2012 - 03:04 .

[Solmanian]

Insanity is repeating an action and expecting diferent results.