175 réponses à ce sujet

[Firky]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Firky wrote...

I agree with what you're saying, generally, but I was surprised to find myself having the opposite experience of the Rock Wraith. They way it moved gave me cues. Like, it starts whirling around and (to me) that signalled to run/hide because it looked like it was doing a pull maneuver. And, if it goes into a ball, it's totally trying to bowl you over.

I really enjoyed this one because I could anticipate it.

And it required meta-gaming on your party.

I don't have any objection to meta-gaming when players do it.  They're free to play the game however they like.  But the game should not require or force metagaming.  You used your genre-savvy to navigate that encounter, and in-character that's not an available option.

Fair points. I dunno if it's genre (like aRPGs) so much as knowing that whirly things mess with gravity (?) and rolly things roll on you. But, Hawke may not have any experience with, like, physics. (?) I haven't, in particular. But I think those animations heralded what was coming to the 21st century brain, at least.

[Shadow Fox]

draken-heart wrote...

Here is what Metagaming is for Role-playing games:

In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics, or the statistics of a creature that the player is familiar with but the character has never encountered. In general, it refers to any gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge which the player acts upon.

This is negative because it is the player using their knowledge from past runs through a game or from information gathered from outside the game being played to create the best run. We are guilty of it from time to time.

I'd say everyone that builds they're characters are guilty of it.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Mary Kirby wrote...

JasonPogo wrote...

Like In DA2 supposedly you were supposed to be able to save your mom but because all the play testers just reset to an early save if she died they took the option out.  

The ending we might have chosen to add would have been a blood magic sacrifice to keep Leandra around as an undead.

How is that a choice? Sacrificing another to bring Leandra back would have been a choice worth mulling over. Using blood magic to keep her in her zombified, no-longer-herself state wouldn't be an option for any body.

[thats1evildude]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

How is that a choice? Sacrificing another to bring Leandra back would have been a choice worth mulling over. Using blood magic to keep her in her zombified, no-longer-herself state wouldn't be an option for any body.

Well, I guess it comes down to Leandra's own wishes and the quality of her life afterwards. If she tearfully begged Hawke to keep her alive and it came down to knifing Gascard as a sacrifice, I might do it.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 11 novembre 2012 - 08:56 .

[esper]

thats1evildude wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

How is that a choice? Sacrificing another to bring Leandra back would have been a choice worth mulling over. Using blood magic to keep her in her zombified, no-longer-herself state wouldn't be an option for any body.

Well, I guess it comes down to Leandra's own wishes and the quality of her life afterwards. If she tearfully begged Hawke to keep her alive and it came down to knifing Gascard as a sacrifice, I might do it.

As neither Hawke nor Merill did that kind og blood magic, the chances are that it was Gasgard who needed to be alive to do the ritual.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Mary Kirby wrote...

JasonPogo wrote...

Like In DA2 supposedly you were supposed to be able to save your mom but because all the play testers just reset to an early save if she died they took the option out.  

The ending we might have chosen to add would have been a blood magic sacrifice to keep Leandra around as an undead.

How is that a choice? Sacrificing another to bring Leandra back would have been a choice worth mulling over. Using blood magic to keep her in her zombified, no-longer-herself state wouldn't be an option for any body.

Sure it would.  It might have even been the ideal outcome, depending on Hawke's personality.

[Fishy]

Meta-gaming is bad when the game failed  to make your choice clear.

Companion : hey what's up man ? Do you want to drink Ale with me ?
Hero : Nah not today
Companion : I hate you ... I'm leaving this group!

suprez : Time to reload. .... sight.

if you want the perfect ending .. That a playstyle. More power to you. I do it also. If you meta-game when you never wanted to do it.. The dev messed something up.

Modifié par Suprez30, 11 novembre 2012 - 09:32 .

[Orian Tabris]

From my very first game, I play like I'm playing my last playthrough. I do my best to make the characters and stories make sense to me, and to play my own character in the way I think they would (including choices in quests, combat tactics,etc.). I generally make my way through areas in that same way, whilst avoiding what I think or know to be points of no return. If that means I "meta-game", so be it.

I let the game limit me, not my thoughts. If I have to avoid certain parts of a game so that I may get the full experience of events, quests/missions and items, that aren't required to progress, then I'm gonna do it. I won't make choices blindly, if it means I miss out on those other things, that the game can offer me.

If people want to make mistakes and end up at level 18 at the end of Origins, then let them, but I want to do the best that I can do, and reach 25 or near there.

[Wulfram]

The problem with metagaming is that it pushes you out of character.

[Orian Tabris]

Plaintiff wrote...

If people don't like the way I play, I say nuts to them.

Exactly! It's your game. You have no obligation to play a single player role-playing game the way the developers feel you should, they can't do anything if you don't conform.

BioWare has said that they want us to play their games the way that we want to play them! So if we meta-game, they can't say "aw, don't meta-game, it ruins the story" or some such. Whatever the problem they have with meta-gaming, it doesn't matter, because we're playing it the way we want, not the way they or any other person thinks we should.

Besides, why make a role-playing game, if you don't like how people play them? It's like in art. Why make a painting and put it on display, if you don't want people to interpret it in a different way?

Making games accessible to others, is a two-way street. The same goes with practically anything. If it's only going to be seen by only a set of like-minded people, then you can care if things don't pan out the way you want them to. Only then is it your right/obligation.

[h0neanias]

Your opinion on metagaming will inevitably follow from what you think the purpose of a roleplaying game is, that is what gives you the greatest gaming pleasure. If you strictly limit yourself to what your character might know and accept even their failures, good for you, do so. But if you intend to create a certain story, build a character through their actions, then using meta-game knowledge is fine. in other words, once again we skate on personal preferences. It is pointless to say metagaming is "wrong" or you "shouldn't" do it. What "should" do you speak of here? If someone plays this or that way, it's their perfectly valid preference.

Modifié par h0neanias, 11 novembre 2012 - 04:11 .

[Icinix]

I've never understood that either - the way I see it - is meta gaming is making the story you want told.

I think the thing BioWare has never got down pat though - is there are very clear cut choices that are 'better'.

There are other games that blur those lines and have a more even spread of player choices.

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Firky wrote...

I agree with what you're saying, generally, but I was surprised to find myself having the opposite experience of the Rock Wraith. They way it moved gave me cues. Like, it starts whirling around and (to me) that signalled to run/hide because it looked like it was doing a pull maneuver. And, if it goes into a ball, it's totally trying to bowl you over.

I really enjoyed this one because I could anticipate it.

And it required meta-gaming on your party.

I don't have any objection to meta-gaming when players do it.  They're free to play the game however they like.  But the game should not require or force metagaming.  You used your genre-savvy to navigate that encounter, and in-character that's not an available option.

I don't think that's meta-gaming at all.  If I saw a massive thing start spinning on the spot, I'd sure as heck run and hide. Same if it curled up into a massive ball. I roleplay my characters to have self-preservation instincts. Conversely, my character didn't expect a High Dragon to retreat onto a platform and let its offspring deal with me while it just sat back and tossed fireballs, then periodically fly back down for another round.

For my money, meta-gaming works both ways. If a developer states that they consider meta-gaming bad, then they had better have any people (and enemies) behave in a way that makes logical sense.

That said, I find a small amount of meta-gaming is practically unavoidable for seasoned gamers, especially those familiar with BioWare's style. The intelligent player knows when they are making a choice, just like the character knows that they are making a tough decision, and they know there will be consequences. So the player, as the character, picks the choice that they think will give them the outcome they desire.

Take, for example, the expedition to the Deep Roads in DA2. I had the choice to take Bethany, or not, and kept getting hassled about it. This told me as a player "if I take her, something bad is going to happen." I didn't want to take her because I wanted her to be safe, but wanted to find out what would happen. So, I saved my game, and played through with her in my party.  When I saw the consequence, I was impressed. Then I loaded my save, made the other choice, and played through the rest of the game. I *wanted* to see the alternative, so chose it and went back and made my "real" choice.  

I did the same thing in DAO with Redcliffe and the Mage Tower. I expected something horrible to happen while I was away, but thought I might be able to get away with it, so did it anyway (and I did want to see how it would go pear shaped). Then nothing came of it and I was a little disappointed.

That said, to me, meta-gaming is a player choice. If a player wants to meta-game and save and reload and see different outcomes, or possiblities, I don't see why other gamers or the developers should denigrate them for that. It is their choice to play the game how they want. A lot of people bandied about the term "entitlement" when people complained about ME3's ending. As a counterpoint, I'd contend that if a developer tries to tell the gamer exactly how it should be played, then that's a far worse case of "entitlement".

I don't imagine anyone from Looking Glass imagined people would play the first two thief games in "Ghost" mode, which is an entirely gamer driven set of restrictions, but that level of challenge and characterisation is a perfect example of why developers should not dictate how a game should be played.

If people want to meta-game, why should anyone else care how they choose to play the game they have purchased? They certainly shouldn't be judged because of it.

[henkez3]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...


Thats what we were supposed to get out of that scene? I totally did not get that vibe at all.

No. Nothing in the scene is supposed to convey, "BE AFRAID OF BAD MAGES!" But the purpose of the plot in the overall story is to have the player experience a personal loss due to the abuse of power by a mage. Not everyone is going to play that plot and say, "Maleficarum are jerks!" And that's fine. But the game in general is heavily weighted toward "Templars are jerks!" and we wanted at least one chance for a reasonable player to feel they had been personally wronged by mages.

Really? I did not get that impression on my first playthrough, where I sided with the templars because most of the mages you met in the game were absolutely crazy blood mages. The templars definitively felt like the lesser evil in my first playthrough.

[The Elder King]

henkez3 wrote...

Mary Kirby wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...


Thats what we were supposed to get out of that scene? I totally did not get that vibe at all.

No. Nothing in the scene is supposed to convey, "BE AFRAID OF BAD MAGES!" But the purpose of the plot in the overall story is to have the player experience a personal loss due to the abuse of power by a mage. Not everyone is going to play that plot and say, "Maleficarum are jerks!" And that's fine. But the game in general is heavily weighted toward "Templars are jerks!" and we wanted at least one chance for a reasonable player to feel they had been personally wronged by mages.

Really? I did not get that impression on my first playthrough, where I sided with the templars because most of the mages you met in the game were absolutely crazy blood mages. The templars definitively felt like the lesser evil in my first playthrough.

I felt both groups were rapresented in a way that wouldn't let me side with them in my canon playthrough (the one in which the PC reflects my opinions about the factions and events in the game). The only reason I could complete a canon playthrough in DA2 is because the Circle wasn't involved with Anders. Heck, Varric, Hawke and the templars are more responsible than the Circle of what happened to the Chantry. The first two protected Anders during the Acts, and the the templars failed to find him in Act1-2, and then decided to not take him in the Gallows because he was under the Champion's protection.

[TheRealJayDee]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...


Thats what we were supposed to get out of that scene? I totally did not get that vibe at all.

No. Nothing in the scene is supposed to convey, "BE AFRAID OF BAD MAGES!" But the purpose of the plot in the overall story is to have the player experience a personal loss due to the abuse of power by a mage. Not everyone is going to play that plot and say, "Maleficarum are jerks!" And that's fine. But the game in general is heavily weighted toward "Templars are jerks!"  and we wanted at least one chance for a reasonable player to feel they had been personally wronged by mages.

So I'm not a 'reasonable' player because I'm one of those who didn't think about the involvment of magic in this very much? That is, my character didn't feel he was personally wronged by mages, and I, the player, didn't either. My charcter was devasteted that he lost the last member of his family, whom to protect was the only goal he ever had. I as the player was frustrated when I realized that nothing I had done before had any kind of influence on the outcome. 

Then I thought about it some more and wanted to give Quentin some kind of award for 'Outstanding (if sick) Achievement in the Magic Arts'. I mean, he made himself a bride out of women he murdered over the years, killed Leandra, put her head/face on the thing and brought it to 'life' - and it still could access memories and emotions of the head part. That's amazing somehow. Completely aick and twisted, but really fascinating, because it's something I hadn't thought possible.

Mary Kirby wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

So why was there never a quest to give Hawke a "personal reason" to fear the misuse of power by the templars?

Because they already had one. Hawke's father was an apostate, their family lived in hiding from the Templars all Hawke's life. Either Hawke was an apostate, or had an apostate sister. The Templars were a constant, looming personal threat.

Which is why I had an extremely hard time justifying why my Hawke would ever give in to his stubborn mother not only insisting to take the family (including his beloved apostate sister) into The World Capital of Oppressive Templarism in the first place, but to go out of their way to stay there after it becomes clear that there's nothing there for them. Sorry, but why? (no DA2 otherwise, okay, but...)

I like myself a tragic story as much as the next guy, but everything just feels a lot less tragic -in a satisfying way, if you know what I mean- if all the bad things that happen happen because characters including the player character are forced to act stupidly or not at all in certain parts. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...


Thats what we were supposed to get out of that scene? I totally did not get that vibe at all.

No. Nothing in the scene is supposed to convey, "BE AFRAID OF BAD MAGES!" But the purpose of the plot in the overall story is to have the player experience a personal loss due to the abuse of power by a mage. Not everyone is going to play that plot and say, "Maleficarum are jerks!" And that's fine. But the game in general is heavily weighted toward "Templars are jerks!" and we wanted at least one chance for a reasonable player to feel they had been personally wronged by mages.

The player experience a personal loss due to abuse of a mage?

You did not allow the players to establish their connection with the "family" properly. You did not bother to build up the players relationship with Leandra and the siblings. You created a protagonist background heavily influenced by mages. And you expected the players to experience a personal loss due to the abuse of power by a mage? Your Hawke could feel personal loss about Leandra's death. Not me, the player. I couldn't care less with any of your characters including the companions. Not with the way you presented your characters and story.

I'm sorry Mary. You need to do better than that. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 11 novembre 2012 - 12:49 .

[Navasha]

My first playthrough is making whatever choices I feel my character would make. I almost always play the personality of the "good" person on every first playthrough of a game.

My second playthrough is usually the exact opposite.

Subsequent playthroughs are heavily meta-gamed, because I am a completionist at heart. For games that I love very much, I will want to experience every possible choice and conversation that there is to be had. This means romancing all possible characters and seeing how different choices might play out.

[ritsukiyo]

I meta-game and i don't care how people look at me for it. I hate sad endings, so if i want to metagame in order to get happy or moral endings to quests and the over-all story, and if you think that makes me a bad person then you need to dump a bucket of water over yourself and rethink your reasoning.

I'm not saying people who don't like metagaming are in the wrong, I'm saying that if you don't like metagaming, then don't do it, and leave those of us who do like it in peace.

[Knight of Dane]

FaWa wrote...

I never metagame. I purposely didn't care what I chose in ME2 because I wanted people to die, just for the sake of the story. Metagaming is just not a fun experience, ESPECIALLY on the first play through, where I like to have everything be unpredictable

Isn't it metagaming when you don't care about yur characters because you "know" they can die?

That's using knowledge outside the game.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

After the first playthrough, I meta-game through all of the others. I don't see it as a negative at all.

[Sejborg]

Mary Kirby wrote...
We considered adding an alternate ending because of our QA feedback. But we decided against it because the purpose the quest serves in the story is to give Hawke (regardless of their own class) a personal reason to fear the misuse of magic.

I didn't get that point. I just thought it was a random psycho. Sister Hawke was also a mage, but she wasn't psycho. I don't see how I should have picked up upon the dude being a psycho because of magic. He could have killed people just the same, without using magic. 

Mary Kirby wrote...

And actually, we never seriously considered any ending where Leandra survived. The ending we might have chosen to add would have been a blood magic sacrifice to keep Leandra around as an undead.

Haha. That would have been silly. 

Mary Kirby wrote...
No. Nothing in the scene is supposed to convey, "BE AFRAID OF BAD MAGES!" But the purpose of the plot in the overall story is to have the player experience a personal loss due to the abuse of power by a mage. Not everyone is going to play that plot and say, "Maleficarum are jerks!" And that's fine. But the game in general is heavily weighted toward "Templars are jerks!" and we wanted at least one chance for a reasonable player to feel they had been personally wronged by mages.

If the point was to show the abuse of power by a mage, I think it would have worked better if the mage used his power for a more relateable kind of power. If the mage used his magic for political power and social status, instead of gaining some perverse necrophilia power, I think your message would have come better across. You could still have the mother being killed. The mage could have used the mother for some leverage against Hawke, in an attempt to insure his own status or acquiring a higher social standing, while trying to keep Hawke at bay. 

Using magic for necrophilia is too extreme. Making the mage use his magical powers to take shortcuts in gaining political power is on the other hand an interesting dilemma. 

[Sainna]

I think they did quiet okey with the mother dying due to a insane man and his blood magic.

...At least it was better when at the last act suddenly everyone and their mother got taken over by demons. I mean damn I can accept that desprete mages can take desprete measures but really some what was done was just silly.

Also I would be more concerned over rumours like a certain mage tower boss in DA2 turned into a big monster because otherwise templar siders get two bosses and mage siders only one -.- Though not really ...sure just how much truth there is in that? Just few DAsuperfans told me that at first he was supposed to fight Meredith with Hawke.