209 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Indeed, because these terms mean different things.  Unpredictable is an epistemological term that reflects the state of one's knowledge.  Deterministic is a metaphysical term that reflects the state of reality.

If you want to get even weirder, it is entirely possible that people have volition (a term I like better than "free will") but are still deterministic--volition (however it works) is one of the determining factors, not a determined one.

In any case, I think randomizing the game is absurd.  That's not to say that random or semi-random games can't be fun, but I'd like to have a real story here and not a session of Oregon Trail.

[Aulis Vaara]

AlexJK wrote...

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.

But in the suggested scenario there isn't a random chance of failure. The option with the chance is always the optimal outcome and you CHOOSE whether or not you want to take the RISK. You're still allowed to take the option that give you a guaranteed outcome.

The suggestion is not that you can lose randomly, rather that when you say to the game "sure, I'll take the risk", that you actually take a risk. Can you really not see where we are coming from?

Modifié par Aulis Vaara, 30 octobre 2012 - 04:03 .

[Aulis Vaara]

Solmanian wrote...

Insanity is repeating an action and expecting diferent results.

Well that's not true. Every tried poking someone every five minutes? I guarantee you you'll get different results with each poke. Unless it's a pokewar. People are strange like that.

[Estelindis]

I think that the example of Redcliffe is one of the few situations where limited randomization might work, if it was tied to a timer, e.g. if the help of the mages is enlisted within X time there is a 0% chance of Connor losing control and causing further havoc, X+n days leads to a variable percentage chance with more added per day, and by the time two weeks have passed it's a 100% chance. Honestly, though, I think that even in such a case keeping things carefully locked down would be better, e.g. quickly solving the mages' problems makes sure that there are no further casualties, taking some more time leads to more casualties, and then beyond a certain point the result is disaster. In an identical situation, identical things should happen.

As a side point, I know some people really hate timers in games. I'm sorry, but I think some situations call for them. Even if not a timer in terms of a certain number of days and hours spent (which might "punish" people who need more reloads and resting), there could be an event timer. For instance, if the player goes straight to the Circle Tower and then comes straight back with help for Connor, that could enable the best outcome for the Redcliffe quest line. Doing some side missions would make things worse. Going to Orzammar and to the Dalish straight after Redcliffe and leaving the Circle until last should have led to a bloodbath.

To my mind, the real issue here is replayability. In situations like Redcliffe, replayability (and general writing) could have been improved using other methods, such as the timer. Another option would have been the choice to leave a party member behind to handle things while the Warden goes to the Circle. In case there are any disturbances with Connor, the party member you have left behind would handle it in their own way. As a mage, Morrigan would be the best able to deal with the early stages, but if matters got much worse she would make the cold but necessary choice to kill either Connor or Isolde. A different party member would handle things another way.

Ultimately, there are always lots of ways to add variability and added replayability. They just depend on seeing the issues at each story point clearly and having the time and resources to allocate to giving a satisfactory range of options. It's not going to be possible to give the variability of the Landsmeet or the Prison Break to every story thread, or else the game would end up being only a quarter as long. Or so I would guess, in my amateur fashion!

Modifié par Estelindis, 30 octobre 2012 - 04:29 .

[AlexJK]

Aulis Vaara wrote...

But in the suggested scenario there isn't a random chance of failure.

Yes there is. The suggestion is that there are three states of preparedness (un/moderate/well), corresponding to a chance of success of 20, 50 and 80% respectively. Which means an 80, 50 or 20% chance of failure, respectively.

So I can do everything the game will allow me to do to be "well prepared" and have a 1 in 5 chance to fail.

The suggestion is not that you can lose randomly, rather that when you say to the game "sure, I'll take the risk", that you actually take a risk. Can you really not see where we are coming from?

Why can't I play the risk? If I have to get somewhere and back quickly, why can't that be measured? If I am running the risk that Connor will go mad and destroy the castle, why can't I put a backup plan in effect or leave a mage party member behind to secure the situation? (Perhaps an offer I can only choose if I have made appropriate friendships with my party?)

Risk is good. Consequences are good. Random is the mechanic I have an issue with!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I knew the first time.

No you didn't.  That's nonsense.

You believed it the first time, and your belief turned out to be true, but knowledge is more than merely a true belief.

I would argue that your initial belief, though correct, was an error.  You did not yet have reason to believe that.

[mopotter]

wright1978 wrote...

AlexJK wrote...

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

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

Agree completely, random events sounds a terrible concept imo.

Also agree.  I don't mind choices.  Choices are why I replay a game to see what the outcome of those choices are.  I hate random events.  I don't play video games for life filling events I can't control.  

[mopotter]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Nope. Hate it.

I like feeling like I'm in control of things. That's why I play video games and not slots.

Yes.  I like choices, not random chance.

[the_one_54321]

Diverse and multitudinous, not random, please.

[Aulis Vaara]

AlexJK wrote...

Why can't I play the risk? If I have to get somewhere and back quickly, why can't that be measured? If I am running the risk that Connor will go mad and destroy the castle, why can't I put a backup plan in effect or leave a mage party member behind to secure the situation? (Perhaps an offer I can only choose if I have made appropriate friendships with my party?)

Risk is good. Consequences are good. Random is the mechanic I have an issue with!

Please learn to separate details from the core concept. Taking precautions are different game mechanics, details to be filled in by the developer. It's not an argument against risks being actual risks.

Not to mention that you always conveniently forget that taking a risk is a CHOICE. A choice that we right now don't have. And you can't leave someone behind to handle situations right now, either, so how exactly is that a downside to the suggestion?

The only thing I am defending is that if the game presents you a risky option, that it is actually risky. I know the majority of players really only want an ideal outcome and to be able to reach it without effort.

Forget it. I'm getting frustrated talking about this to people who can't separate main points from side issues and who keep concentrating on the first suggestion that was only an incomplete example to begin with. It seems to me that you simply don't want change, or maybe you're just afraid of something you don't have control over (ironically, I also think that about Bioware sometimes). I wish you good karma, but I won't be there to greet it with you.

[mopotter]

Maclimes wrote...

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.

Yes.  I don't have a problem with a decision causing problems and really if there had been a couple of outcomes with Connor I would have been fine with that.  Go to the mage circle 1st and after Redcliffe you can bring the mages back save both Connor and his mother.  Go to Redcliffe first and you have to help the circle causing you to take so long that Connor ends up killing his mother or Teagan and goes into a comma until you confront the demon, but he's never the same and the mages have to lock him up in a tower or make him tranquil asap or end up killing him because the demon took him over.  

But just random outcomes suck. 



 

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

I'm not sure why you feel this can never happen again.

[mitthrawuodo]

Perhaps in another game but not DA3; with many hoping that past choices will make a difference in this game doing random consequences is basically screwing people over. Consequences that realistically take into account many factors will be hard to program but enjoyed a lot more

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I'm not sure why you feel this can never happen again.

Indeed.  Even if the possible outcomes are all equally good or equally bad (though I don't see why the writers would do that, either), they don't all need to look equally good or equally bad when the decision is being made.

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

The realism argument is irrelevant. What you describe isn't realism. The only guarantees come from metaknowledge, which is irrelevant to the game world. The only reason why you "knew" that going to the circle the first time would be ideal is based on prior experiences with other games.

Also, if you bothered reading - which I can only assume you didn't

The attitude isn't necessary.

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.

Aha! So what this really is, is a request for more content. This is a very different type of request. Furthermore, the situation you describe is still something that can be done deterministically too.

[the_one_54321]

Deterministic is always going to be better than random, except in cases where the determining factor is poorly defined. Multiple potential outcomes will do a better job of implying a potential for lack of control. Random outcomes would simply actually be a constant lack of control. And with no way to meaningfully affect the game world, what then is the point of playing the game?

[General User]

One of the ways I've seen other video games use a system similar to this to great effect has been where persuasion/intimidation speech checks don't have a certainty of succeeding but only a chance of doing so.

Modifié par General User, 30 octobre 2012 - 08:45 .

[Pzykozis]

General User wrote...

One of the ways I've seen other video games use a system similar to this to great effect has been where persuasion/intimidation speech checks don't have a certainty of succeeding but only a chance of doing so.

These aren't bad, though to be honest I wish we could go beyond speech checks now make conversations like mini battles in and of themselves.

But that's a different subject.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Deterministic is always going to be better than random, except in cases where the determining factor is poorly defined.

I would agree with that, but that just moves the argument to whether the determining factors should be poorly defined.

[Lotion Soronarr]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Deterministic is always going to be better than random, except in cases where the determining factor is poorly defined. Multiple potential outcomes will do a better job of implying a potential for lack of control. Random outcomes would simply actually be a constant lack of control. And with no way to meaningfully affect the game world, what then is the point of playing the game?

Which is purely subjective

[the_one_54321]

And that matters how?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I knew the first time.

No you didn't.  That's nonsense.

You believed it the first time, and your belief turned out to be true, but knowledge is more than merely a true belief.

I would argue that your initial belief, though correct, was an error.  You did not yet have reason to believe that.

I did. I knew how BioWare designes games.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexJK wrote...

Aulis Vaara wrote...

But in the suggested scenario there isn't a random chance of failure.

Yes there is. The suggestion is that there are three states of preparedness (un/moderate/well), corresponding to a chance of success of 20, 50 and 80% respectively. Which means an 80, 50 or 20% chance of failure, respectively.

So I can do everything the game will allow me to do to be "well prepared" and have a 1 in 5 chance to fail.

Yes. But the quest itself is complete and life goes on.
So the "faliure" is to get the perfect outcome.

The suggestion is not that you can lose randomly, rather that when you say to the game "sure, I'll take the risk", that you actually take a risk. Can you really not see where we are coming from?

Why can't I play the risk? If I have to get somewhere and back quickly, why can't that be measured? If I am running the risk that Connor will go mad and destroy the castle, why can't I put a backup plan in effect or leave a mage party member behind to secure the situation? (Perhaps an offer I can only choose if I have made appropriate friendships with my party?)

Risk is good. Consequences are good. Random is the mechanic I have an issue with!

Risk is tied to randomness.