72 réponses à ce sujet

[eyesofastorm]

Currently in Bioware games, taking path A leads the player to outcome A and taking path B leads to outcome B.  How would you feel about playing a game where, in certain cases, taking path A might give you a 70% chance of getting outcome A and a 30% chance of getting outcome B and where taking path B might give you a 40% chance of getting outcome A and a 60% chance of getting outcome B?  Basically, the choices you make ingame would tilt the odds of different outcomes happening, but not guarantee them.  I think this idea might be used to great effect in matters of moral ambiguity, really making you weigh decisions since your decision to exsanguinate the virgin in order to save the village instead of saving her and her virgin goodness might actually backfire with the village getting destroyed anywy.   Also it could potentially make additional playthroughs more exciting because choosing a different path might or might not lead you to a new destination.  Thoughts?  Would you support losing a little bit of control as the protagonist to invite a level of uncertainty into your game?

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 08 novembre 2012 - 11:13 .

[hexaligned]

I think it wouldn't matter for a first playthrough, and if anything would cut down on replay value. If I make a different choice than I did the first time through the game, I want a different outcome. If we are going for randomness I would much rather have random dungeons and maps.

Modifié par relhart, 08 novembre 2012 - 10:44 .

[eyesofastorm]

relhart wrote...

I think it wouldn't matter for a first playthrough, and if anything would cut down on replay value. If I make a different choice than I did the first time through the game, I want a different outcome. If we are going for randomness I would much rather have random dungeons and maps.

I think it would matter in the first playthrough.  Even if we have managed to avoid spoilers and have chosen not to metagame, we have all been conditioned to expect a specific outcome based on the ingame decisions we make.  Think about the posessed boy in DA:O (can't remember his name) and the choices involved in dealing with that.  If you knew that every choice you could have made to deal with that situation would only alter the chance of getting a certain outcome rather than give you this strict outcome or that strict outcome, would you have chosen differently?  Would you at least have thought more carefully about your choice?  I think I would have.  As for subsequent playthroughs, I understand where you are coming from and get your drift, but I think the problem could be alleviated to some extent by making the equation a little bit bigger.  Add a few more variables and percentages into the equation and it would make things more interesting.

[esper]

Short answer too your question: No, I do not want that uncertainty.

Long answer: I can see where you are coming from, but I enjoy replaying my personal canon-stories of the games and perfecting them, if I had to deal with randomnization of the consequences of path A and path B, it meant a lot of reloading which I would properly find tedious.

[eyesofastorm]

esper wrote...

Short answer too your question: No, I do not want that uncertainty.

Long answer: I can see where you are coming from, but I enjoy replaying my personal canon-stories of the games and perfecting them, if I had to deal with randomnization of the consequences of path A and path B, it meant a lot of reloading which I would properly find tedious.

Fair enough.  You know what the answer to that problem would be?

[MichaelStuart]

I not really a fan of random outcomes

[eyesofastorm]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I not really a fan of random outcomes

What about semi-random outcomes?

[Kahpya]

No - simply and plain.

I don't want random thing so i can't remake it with the next play-through if that was my wish.

I'm not a fan of random and i'm not going to be if it has any impact on how the end of the story(game) is going to be decided.

That said If and only if the game and story matches a way for where the main-plots and how you deal with them turn the out come towards end A and not end B that would be acceptable.

And that would even work better if there was multiple endings. Because that would make people think more about where to comprimise to " save the girl instead of the village" and where to just let the girl die. I guess that this was somewhat what you meant OP ? 

And if it was then i would be all for it. but if you want dice-roll for how the game unfoldes then apsolutely NO!

Modifié par nikihap, 08 novembre 2012 - 11:02 .

[esper]

eyesofastorm wrote...

esper wrote...

Short answer too your question: No, I do not want that uncertainty.

Long answer: I can see where you are coming from, but I enjoy replaying my personal canon-stories of the games and perfecting them, if I had to deal with randomnization of the consequences of path A and path B, it meant a lot of reloading which I would properly find tedious.

Fair enough.  You know what the answer to that problem would be?

Uhm... no?

Currently the system is working fine for me, when I want to replay the same characher, I replay her and just tweak her a little/change the difficulty/ tries for lesser battle reloads. I replay the same characther when I wants to relive the same story.

When I wants to experience a different characther I choose path B instead of path A (to keep it simple).

I simply don't want the randomnized outcomes, because I sometimes wants to experience the same story and anything that would randomnize the outcomes would mean reloading everytime the outcome was wrong. I don't see any way to make that non-tedious.

[eyesofastorm]

esper wrote...

Uhm... no?

A toggle of course.

[eyesofastorm]

nikihap wrote...

And if it was then i would be all for it. but if you want dice-roll for how the game unfoldes then apsolutely NO!

A dice roll based on percentages.  I can't believe that no one is going for this.  

[MichaelStuart]

eyesofastorm wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I not really a fan of random outcomes

What about semi-random outcomes?

To me, semi-random is just random.

[esper]

eyesofastorm wrote...

esper wrote...

Uhm... no?

A toggle of course.

Well, okay.

I suppose I can't say anything against that.

But my I ask why you want this?

[eyesofastorm]

esper wrote...

But my I ask why you want this?

Why I want randomness?  Yes, you may ask.

[MichaelStuart]

Why is getting hit randomly ok, but random endings are not?

[esper]

eyesofastorm wrote...

esper wrote...

But my I ask why you want this?

Why I want randomness?  Yes, you may ask.

....

I am asking: Why do you want it? What good does you think it brings to the game? Because I have a hard time seeing it.

[eyesofastorm]

esper wrote...

....

I am asking: Why do you want it? What good does you think it brings to the game? Because I have a hard time seeing it.

Because it adds ambiguity and more weight to decisions.  Makes hard decisions even harder.  Every decision, every time is a risk, not an automatic.

[hexaligned]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Why is getting hit randomly ok, but random endings are not?

Because they are different things. 

[Navasha]

I wouldn't want pure randomness as in a dice roll to get an outcome. To me that means your decisions was basically meaningless.

However, I would LOVE to see multiple branching outcomes influenced even by minor decisions.

As long as if I make the exact same choices on another playthrough I should still arrive at the same outcome.

Example:
AAAA = Love interest lives, become couple and live happily everafter....
AAAB = Love interest lives, however they don't want to be together
AABB = Love interest lives, but they surprise you by exclaiming their love for someone else.
ABBB = Love interest dies a deep and meaningful death
BBBB = Love interest dies suddenly horribly and for no good reason.

[Wulfram]

I think it would be annoying and feel unsatisfying in a story based game to feel that success and failure were based on the whims of the RNG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Such a system would take the uncertainty that should be experienced by the PC and forces that uncertainty upon the player.

The only benefit of this I can see is it would stop people complaining about the availability of an optimal outcome (like the third option in Redcliffe). But since I think those complaints are unfounded, I have no reason to desire such a feature.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That said, I would like to see persuasion checks and the like resolved randomly, just as combat events are.

[eyesofastorm]

Navasha wrote...

I wouldn't want pure randomness as in a dice roll to get an outcome. To me that means your decisions was basically meaningless.

Not pure randomness.  Percentages.  Percentages!  You can nudge an outcome, but you can't guarantee it.  It makes the act of making the decision more meaningful, not less.  

[MichaelStuart]

relhart wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Why is getting hit randomly ok, but random endings are not?

Because they are different things. 

But why?
Surely choices on a small scale, shoulds be just as improtant as one on a big scale.

[brushyourteeth]

I really, really like the idea of unexpected outcomes. Like, completely way out of left field surprise outcomes.

But random? I'm ok without that. I like the idea that something happened because of your specific actions - that's what consequence is. Some things are outside of your control, sure - and they might feel random to you, but those events are fixed in time and were going to happen because the stage was set for them. Having that upset by a dice roll would, I think, be pretty frustrating for me.

I would be more than happy with simply more choices and more outcomes, rather than the same amount of choices and a large number of random outcomes. Random and unpredictable (at least without metagaming) don't have to be the same thing, after all.