209 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You haven't been reading what I wrote carefully or I suck at explainig.

No, perfect isolation is impossible.

And why is it needed? Actors know how a movie is going to end because they read the script beforehand, but they still manage to play their roles.

You are role-playing. Your character is not you. Your knowledge is irrelevent to what the character does or does not know.

It is mostly irrelevant to how  one roleplays a character.
It's not irrelevant to how I feel like when playing.

I have no problems with thinking "in character" and making decisions based on the knowledge they would have. not everoyne is me or you tough.
It still doesn't change the fact that the "magic" is not there.
It doesn't change the fact that I - as the player - know there is a perfect way to get thing doe and this does influences how I percieve and experience the game.

It's a story. There is never any genuine risk.

In a fully deterministic story/game, no.

But it CAN be there. Play a game on IRONMAN and then tell me there is no risk.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 31 octobre 2012 - 11:27 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexJK wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Why would it make your actions pointless? Do you think everything is defined only by the result?
That only the destination of a journey matters, and not the trip itself?
How does trying NOT help define the character? Regardless if you suceeded or failed at the end.

Because we're talking about a video game where the parameters of your journey are absolute; the player can only choose X actions from Y possibilities, working from the best knowledge they have of the situation. To then offer a randomised outcome destroys the value of the journey in this context.

FOR YOU.
Keyword.

Your word is no law. Youre prefferences are not a sacred cows.
I have a right to want a different game experience, just as you have. Yours doesn't superceede mine.

No, I'm not having an argument against a point I didn't make. I am not demanding any particular content or method of game design.

Do you argue against it's inclusion? Yes or not?
Do you not cal it "bad design" that invalidates choices? Yes or no?

If you answer Yes to both (and you did), then yes. You ARE arguign agaisnt such a game design.


And b.t.w - what I think constites as cheating is totally irrelevant to the whole discussion.

Adapting to it, your characters reaction to it, moving and and continuing despite the setback - that is a challenge. Accepting non-perfection is a challenge in itself.

Adapting to a setback, yes. Accepting that a perfect outcome is not possible, or due to my choices unachievable, yes. But not randomly. You seem happy to fail a task because the game rolled a die. I'm not.

Life can be soemtimes unpredictable.
You may not want that element in a game. I do. I have no problem accepting that not everything bows down to my whims.

But it does. the PC is not in control of Redcliffe. It makes PERFECT sense.

I believe Allen touched on this earlier - why would Redcliffe behave any differently in the PC's absence, assuming all input factors are the same?

Why would it not?
You are postulating that everyone will always beahve the same way every time.

If I choose to swing a sword left, then when presented with the same scenario, I'll do it again? Sez who?
This is ultimatively a philosophical matter, but you'll have a hard tiem proving that your hypothesis is correct.
Actually, you can't prove it.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

I guess it's okay as long as it doesn't seem too contrived, which would be hard. I think the main use will be subsequent playthroughs and it'd be a good idea to be able to turn it off or have it consistent within each playthrough.


Actually this reminds me of Radiant Story. Writing walkthroughs should be fun

Modifié par fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb, 31 octobre 2012 - 11:48 .

[AlexJK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

FOR YOU. Keyword. Your word is no law.

Look, this is a discussion, a debate. I'm putting forward my position: random outcomes are bad. You're putting forward yours: random outcomes are good. I will argue my position, you will argue yours, we may eventually reach agreement, or it may just end up a stalemate. That's how this works.

I have a right to want a different game experience, just as you have. Yours doesn't superceede mine.

No, it doesnt. But since we're on a Dragon Age 3 discussion forum, discussing possible features for Dragon Age 3, I am expressing my opinion that a feature you want (random consequences) is something that I would find extremely frustrating, and that I do not believe should exist in a story-driven RPG like Dragon Age.

And b.t.w - what I think constites as cheating is totally irrelevant to the whole discussion.

It's irrelevant to the discussion of random consequences, yes, but this particular part of my response was (follow it back...) to do with your repeated suggestion that people who didn't play the game in the same way as you should just cheat/mod/hack/write their own story instead of playing Dragon Age "as intended". Which was, and still is, silly.

Life can be soemtimes unpredictable.
You may not want that element in a game. I do. I have no problem accepting that not everything bows down to my whims.

Cool, then let's agree to disagree. You want random outcomes, I absolutely do not. Done.

Modifié par AlexJK, 31 octobre 2012 - 12:15 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]AlexJK wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

FOR YOU. Keyword. Your word is no law.[/quote]
Look, this is a discussion, a debate. I'm putting forward my position: random outcomes are bad. You're putting forward yours: random outcomes are good. I will argue my position, you will argue yours, we may eventually reach agreement, or it may just end up a stalemate. That's how this works.[/qutoe]

Except we both know this isnt' going anywhere.

Random outcomes being good/bad is not a provable/disprovable position, since it's a matter of prefference.

Such a design has pros and cons, and you're of the oppinion that the cons outweight the pros. I hold the opposite oppinion.

What I do claim is that it - like the Ironman mode - won't really affect you.

So your entire rebellion against the idea is pointless.

[AlexJK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What I do claim is that it - like the Ironman mode - won't really affect you.
So your entire rebellion against the idea is pointless.

Technically yes, a switch could be installed in the options screen for "randomise quest outcomes" which I could choose not to activate, thereby never experiencing said random outcomes.

BUT... the same argument could be applied to pretty much any feature or contentious issue discussed on these forums - shall we just not bother having conversations any more? Don't like romance options? Let's have a switch to toggle them off. Don't like bittersweet endings? OK, one more switch to toggle them off and only see the happy ones.

I don't think so. Anyway. We seem to agree on the fact that this is a stalemate, at least.

Modifié par AlexJK, 31 octobre 2012 - 01:58 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sylvius teh Mad wrote...

You want to experience your character's emotions?  Weird.

No.
I want it to feel like a risk. I want to spend 10 minutes agonizing over a decision, weighing pros and cons.
But that ATMOSPHERE is just not there.

My characters often agonize over choices.  That doesn't mean I have to.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexJK wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What I do claim is that it - like the Ironman mode - won't really affect you.
So your entire rebellion against the idea is pointless.

Technically yes, a switch could be installed in the options screen for "randomise quest outcomes" which I could choose not to activate, thereby never experiencing said random outcomes.

BUT... the same argument could be applied to pretty much any feature or contentious issue discussed on these forums - shall we just not bother having conversations any more? Don't like romance options? Let's have a switch to toggle them off. Don't like bittersweet endings? OK, one more switch to toggle them off and only see the happy ones.

I don't think so. Anyway. We seem to agree on the fact that this is a stalemate, at least.

Point is that at least when it comes to random consequences, a switch is a simple implementatation.

Whenever a chacne for an outcome is greater than 50%, it automaticly becomes 100% (hence deterministic for you)
Whenever a chance is lower than 50% it automaticly becomes 0%.
Simple. Same quests, same cutscenes, same EVERYTHING.

Just a number in the script changes.

[nos_astra]

It's an interesting idea. I think, I could enjoy it. In my book it's always a good thing to make a game world more responsive, less static and less predictable.

I mean, the Redcliffe example sounds really nice: two choices that yield suboptimal outcomes but are safe and one risky choice that may or may not lead to a better or slightly worse outcome. Neither locks you out or makes the game unbeatable. Yeah, good.

Modifié par klarabella, 31 octobre 2012 - 10:21 .

[naughty99]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

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

Let me give an example:

REDCLIFFE.

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

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


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

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

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



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


***

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

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

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

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

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

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

This sounds like a great feature, although probably best implemented with a light touch. I don't think this would work with having really important NPCs in the game die due to a random die roll.

However, in some smaller scenarios for side quests or certain elements of bigger quests, it could really add to the game's replay value. For example the Lady Boyle mission in Dishonored presents you with three possibilities of an assassination target, three sisters in costume at a masquerade party. Each time you play the game she could be any one of the three NPCs.

Or, perhaps some smaller side quests, Chantry's board stuff, etc., could incorporate some dynamic elements, so each time you play through the game they could be slightly different.