42 réponses à ce sujet

[IntoTheDarkness]

I won't write long on this topic, but I've always thought there should be heavier consequences for choices you make and some of them should be bad choices.

Most Bioware games try to balance different choices so whichever one you chooose you will alwyas end up with the results the developers intended. In ME, you will stop the reapers regardles of your choice and I dare say this game desgin is very player-centric for results are dependant on our choices alone and don't involve any exterior circumstances. (ex. you choose to save A instead of B, but A and B both get killed regardless because you made a bad choice.) It deprives players of illusion of choices in BIoware games, since you can pretty much expect your choices will solely affect the outcome.

A good counterexmaple will be PS3 title Heavy Rain and its predecessor work Indigo Prophecy. There are many choices in the game many of which will result in ways players never expected, and they are not noticable until very late. Players choices are not ultimate, and we can even end up with one of the protagonist killed and continue the story if we choose to do so.



The reason Bioware games are often marked with a tag, illusion of choices, is not only becuase their games are somewhat linear but also because they fail to give any real consequences to choices. Save the council? save the rachnii? choose to help werewolves over elves? Why, you get to meet old council members, you get to speak with the rachnii, you get werewolves in the final battle to replace elves. These so-called consequences are hardly relevant since they don't affect plots at all; only appearance and minor dialogue changes.

If making more flavoured choices require too much resources, just don't be afraid to introduce bad choices and bad endings. Deciding to save your *Love Interest* by sacrificing elite troops who can come in handy in the final battle should cost you something(rather than vague warscore thingy), perhaps a bad ending where you end up losing because you didn't have enough troops to fight with you.



In no literature has there been a protagonist who knows his choice will influece the outcome 100%. It's only in Bioware games where you choices always carry out as you wish, which should be impossible unless your character is a god.

*ME3 spoilers*

Realistically, in ME3 if you sabotaged the genophage cure and was discovered, a fleet of Krogan should ambush Normandy or you should be jumped by hundreds of krogan mercs and get killed. But nope, because you are a god, Wrex choose to confront you alone and that's it for the consequences.

*end of spoilers*


Letting players do whatever they wish should be left for sandbox games. If you are serious about telling stories, then put some darn restrictions on players victory conditions. Don't let them choose an option A "cuz I love this char and can't let him die!" and get away with it if you want your choices to be taken seriously.

Look at ME3 and see how childish it was because it wanted to respect player choices.



*ME3 spoilers*

(ex. ME3 final scene. Because your love interest has to be resqued, Normany getsa  plot armor that makes Harbinger ignore it)


*end of spoilers*

Modifié par IntoTheDarkness, 11 novembre 2012 - 04:07 .

[whykikyouwhy]

There were plenty of times within DA:O and DA2 where I felt that I had made a "wrong" choice - or a choice that had a less than desirable outcome, therefore there were (negative) consequences for it.

While both games had a particular path (in DA:O, the Warden has to battle the Archdemon, and in DA2, Hawke has to confront the forces of mages and templars), there are variances for how "victory" is achieved, and for some, the outcomes of both games weren't exactly triumphant.

@OP, if you have ME3 spoilers, you might want to put that message at the top of your post. Otherwise, your spoilers may sneak up on folks reading.

[PsychoBlonde]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

There were plenty of times within DA:O and DA2 where I felt that I had made a "wrong" choice - or a choice that had a less than desirable outcome, therefore there were (negative) consequences for it.

Yep.  There were also a number of times in both games where I didn't consider any of the available choices to be a "right" choice.

Sheesh.  What do you want to have happen?  There are hard limits to how much they can branch some aspects of the storyline in the game.  And some of us (me!) like to play with ONE SAVE FILE, so if they implemented something like this would result in horrible "gotcha!" moments where you're basically screwed and would have to restart the game in order to finish it--and that's assuming that picking the "wrong" option wouldn't just result in instant death for you and everyone in the party.

And, if you CAN fail or make the "wrong" choice and still complete the game, then why the heck are you going to all this trouble anyway?  The already-tenuous justification that sends you off to recruit the elves falls to bits if you can fail completely to get any recruits and still kill the archdemon and save Ferelden.  

Stories are inherently about people *doing* things.  That's what a plot IS. They may be horrible things, but it is no longer a story if nothing happens, and that is what "wrong" choices and failure entail.  Things NOT happening.  The end or lack of action.  You can't get somewhere by NOT getting somewhere.  You are asking the impossible.

And before you charge off claiming this isn't what you actually meant, it clearly is because Hawke "fails" (as in, fails to accomplish his/her nominal "goals") many times.  Leandra dies.  Bethany or Carver leave the family one way or another.  The Qunari delegates die.  Marethari dies.  Anders blows up the Chantry.  So clearly this kind of nominal failure (where you get an undesired outcome) is not what you're talking about.  You're talking about scattering moments throughout the story where things just randomly terminate and boot you out.

Might as well just put in code that randomly crashes your computer.  It'd accomplish the same thing and be less annoying.

[CrazyBirdman]

Well, ME3 did it in many ways much better than I expected. They obviously were not able to make whole new games based on your decsisions but often times I felt the impact of events occured in prior games/missions within the dialogue. Sometimes there even were some choices missing/added.
If Dragon Age 2 expands on that and offers new narrations based on actions of the players I would very happy. (The Witcher 2 tried it with chapter 2 but it felt weird to me and I felt the quality of said chapter suffered a bit compared to the first one)
Real meaningful choices(permantly altering the story in key parts, for example destroying the collector base or not greatly influencing ME3 or being able to "win" on Thessia or even already stopping Leng on the Citadel) would be great but honestly I can't think of any developer who would be able to pull that of in a reasonable timeframe. I imagine it being stupidly expensive and time consuming to make it actually good. So for the time being I happy with an well created illusion.

[MichaelStuart]

I support choices that get you killed

[megamacka]

I have no trouble with choices that ends with your or a companions death. I think it adds a lot to the tension. The Witcher 2 did this, and it was great.

Modifié par megamacka, 10 novembre 2012 - 10:37 .

[vortex216]

no choices are wrong in either dragon age game. to make choices wrong  would be eliminating the grey area that makes players think and weigh their choices. and THAT would be wrong.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Every choices in DA 2 is the "wrong" choice. None of those choices could alter the story. All of them are just a waste of time. Even the dialogue are "bad" choices themselves. Nothing played as I wish.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

So what people are saying is that they want BioWare to do what they already did in ME 2, namely

*spoiler alert*
pursuing a suicidal romance which can only end in death or going into the final mission criminally underprepared and potentially have Shepard die and/or potentially lose squadmates, permanent-like.
*end spoilers*

Sure why not, but let's not pretend that Witcher wrote the book on making foolish decisions with often fatal consequences.

[Plaintiff]

From my perspective, there are plenty of "wrong" choices in both Dragon Age games.

Sparing Loghain, crowning Anora, siding with Branka, turning Feynriel over to the Circle, allowing Keran to lose his job, executing Anders, siding with the Templars... those are just some highlights.

Of course, plenty of people disagree with me. The potential for discussion and debate on these issues is one of the best things about the series.

[Deputy Secretary of Awesome]

Yes, please! I would love for there to be choices that backfire; especially ostensibly paragon choices that come with a surprise heavy cost later on.

I'm encouraged that they did emphasize that choices you make will come back to bite you in the behind in DA3. I'm very much looking forward to seeing what happens.

[philippe willaume]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I support choices that get you killed

+1

[Rune-Chan]

I think the issue is not so much that choices need to be "wrong" (most are somewhat grey anyway), but there need to be choices that do not have an obvious outcome, or end up having the same result happen no matter what side you chose.

A good example of the former done correctly is helping Anders in Act 3 on his personal mission. I sincerely doubt many people who chose to do so expected him to do what he did. It was a fantastic moment to see myself playing a good player and unwittingly help commit such a huge catastrophe.

With the latter, Dragon Age 2 is full of situations where it doesn't matter which side you choose.

Shepherding Wolves, the Sarebaas will always die, and the Qunari will always attack you. It doesn't matter if you hand him over or 'free' him.

If you pick the Templars you fight Orsino, and still fight Meredith despite helping her. Pick Mages? Same thing, just a couple of lines of different dialogue.

Are you an apostate mage? Are you siding with the mages in all quests? Well the mages rebelling will still see you as an enemy, and the Templars witnessing you use blood magic still see you as an ally.

Those are the kind of choices that need to be taken into account.

Modifié par Machines Are Us, 11 novembre 2012 - 03:06 .

[TJPags]

Machines Are Us wrote...

I think the issue is not so much that choices need to be "wrong" (most are somewhat grey anyway), but there need to be choices that do not have an obvious outcome, or end up having the same result happen no matter what side you chose.

A good example of the former done correctly is helping Anders in Act 3 on his personal mission. I sincerely doubt many people who chose to do so expected him to do what he did. It was a fantastic moment to see myself playing a good player and unwittingly help commit such a huge catastrophe.

With the latter, Dragon Age 2 is full of situations where it doesn't matter which side you choose.

Shepherding Wolves, the Sarebaas will always die, and the Qunari will always attack you. It doesn't matter if you hand him over or 'free' him.

If you pick the Templars you fight Orsino, and still fight Meredith despite helping her. Pick Mages? Same thing, just a couple of lines of different dialogue.

Are you an apostate mage? Are you siding with the mages in all quests? Well the mages rebelling will still see you as an enemy, and the Templars witnessing you use blood magic still see you as an ally.

Those are the kind of choices that need to be taken into account.

The problem here is that, if you DON'T help Anders, the same thing happens.  So was it even a 'choice' in any real sense of the word?  Maybe, but certainly it had no consequences.

There should absolutely be choices which result in different outcomes.  Yes, you should permanently lose a companion, a weapon, lose the option for a significant quest, have a new enemy hunting you, etc.  It should be more than just "do this or not?", and the result should NOT be the same either way.

As example, defiling the Ashes with Leliana present makes her attack you.  You lose her as a party member from there forward.  This is a change, but I don't really think it's all that significant - how does it really affect your party in DA:O from that point on?

Sparing Loghain and making him a Warden - you lose Alistair.  But again, does it actually do anything to your game, chances of success, etc?

And if you make such a 'wrong' choice, and it makes your game that much harder, or you hate it?  That's what replays are for.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think Harrowmont could very much be viewed as a 'wrong' choice that is not obvious. He seems to be the lesser of two evils (especially if you are a Dwarven noble who was betrayed by Bhelen) but he turns out to be bad overall for Orzammar.

There weren't a -ton- of these options in the past, though (Harrowmont is the only one that comes to mind). I'd be afraid if they tried to make EVERY situation like this, it would dissuade players from choosing the option that may appear the most logical just because it would seem TOO obvious. Which is a little silly.

[Nilbog79]

Are we talking about choices that are 'wrong' for the player, or the character? Different characters may have very different views of whether a particular choice worked out well in the end, or not. For example one character may see the annulment of the Circle as a good thing, while another may not, regardless, this is a choice with very significant, far-reaching consequences.
I don't see the point of having a choice that leads to an instant game over, If a choice has only one answer that lets you continue the game, it's not really a choice, it may as well be replaced with auto-dialogue. I'd be ok with choices that lead to a 'bad' ending though, like a victory for the antagonist of the game.

[saintjimmy43]

"I won't write long about this topic, but..."

WALL OF TEXT


lolno

[thebigbad1013]

I dislike the terms of "right" and "wrong" choices--they should just be choices. I like the idea of having choices that produce less than desirable results for our character though and I would definitely like to see more of them included in the game. In the end what it comes down to is actually having our choices matter and make a difference which, from what I have read, they will in DA3.

[ImperatorMortis]

I support wrong choices. Mostly so I can gloat at the people who made obviously stupid choices.

Like having sex with a alien vampire when its been explicitly mentioned that doing so will kill you.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Deputy Secretary of Awesome wrote...

Yes, please! I would love for there to be choices that backfire; especially ostensibly paragon choices that come with a surprise heavy cost later on.

No problem with that. Dragon Age is not bound by the same sort of simplistic morality as say, the Fable games.

I would say the flipside of what you're describing, DPoA, would also be cool: doing something ruthless, cruel, selfish, mean-spirited, or just quite frankly evil :devil:having unforseen positive consequences :innocent: would be awesome!

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

bigbad1013 wrote...

I dislike the terms of "right" and "wrong" choices--they should just be choices. I like the idea of having choices that produce less than desirable results for our character though and I would definitely like to see more of them included in the game. In the end what it comes down to is actually having our choices matter and make a difference which, from what I have read, they will in DA3.

I'm all in favour of choices that are morally shady or just downright nasty by implication having unforseen positive implications. I don't think we should have one type of consequence and not the other.

[Potato Cat]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

bigbad1013 wrote...

I dislike the terms of "right" and "wrong" choices--they should just be choices. I like the idea of having choices that produce less than desirable results for our character though and I would definitely like to see more of them included in the game. In the end what it comes down to is actually having our choices matter and make a difference which, from what I have read, they will in DA3.

I'm all in favour of choices that are morally shady or just downright nasty by implication having unforseen positive implications. I don't think we should have one type of consequence and not the other.

I think making Bhelen King is a good example of this. He does a lot of morally questionable things to claw his way to the top from forging evidence against Harrowmont to fratricide, but he's arguably a much better King than Harrowmont, if a bit tyrant-y.

But what I'd prefer for DA3 would be a choice that sounds like the "correct" and "good" option, but actually is the worst choice you could have made. Like if you let Brother Genitivi go and spread the word of the Urn, and this caught the attention of some really powerful and nasty Tevinter Magisters who were able to take the healing powers of the ashes for themselves or something.