42 réponses à ce sujet

[FaWa]

 Organic plot event example: Go through the majority of "Nature of the Beast" pledging to the Dalish you will help them. Learn the true story of the werewolves, confront the Dalish leader. The Dalish Leader refuses to compromise, kill the Dalish. Instead of the Dalish, Werewolves help you during the final battle. 

Not organic example: Choose Mages or Templars. Both camps face opposition from the other camp, and both camps face a fight against the other camp leaders. The other leader loses their mind, goes crazy, epic boss fight, both "options" Result in the same outcome. The Mages of Thedas either all rebel thanks to Hawke, or all rebel in retaliation to Hawke. 

Example one was minor compared to some of the other choices in DAO. Example 2 was the only major decision in the whole game. My question to Bioware is how do you plan to avoid this illusion of choice in DA3.

[Fredward]

I'm just spit balling here but by giving the player choices that matter? Yes? No? Maybe?

[PsychoBlonde]

FaWa wrote... Example 2 wasthe only major decision in the whole game. 

So, whether you took your sibling into the Deep Roads or not, and whether you sent them with the Grey Wardens or not, whether you killed the Arishok or not, these weren't major decisions?

They have to balance how much leeway they give you with the needs of future games.  And as far as complaining about the illusion of choice--you had NO choice other than to kill the Archdemon at the end of Origins, and nobody has complained about that.

Oh, I wasn't thrilled with how many options were implemented in DA2.  But I try not to overindulge in selective memory.

[Wulfram]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

So, whether you took your sibling into the Deep Roads or not, and whether you sent them with the Grey Wardens or not, whether you killed the Arishok or not, these weren't major decisions?

Sibling choice is kind of dubious about being major.  I mean, did all the various ways you could affect the fate of a single companion in DA:O count as "major", or is it just that much of a bigger deal just because they're family?

Arishok, well it should be a major choice.  But since Isabela escapes with the book anyway and it has no effect on anything later, it doesn't feel all that big.  Maybe if a living Arishok has some real influence on future games, but that doesn't seem likely to me.  Not to mention there's a fairly decent chance you'll end up not having that choice if you don't suck up to Isabela.

[unbentbuzzkill]

choice is just a illusion especially in a bioware game

[Shevy]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

FaWa wrote... Example 2 wasthe only major decision in the whole game. 

So, whether you took your sibling into the Deep Roads or not, and whether you sent them with the Grey Wardens or not, whether you killed the Arishok or not, these weren't major decisions?

They have to balance how much leeway they give you with the needs of future games.  And as far as complaining about the illusion of choice--you had NO choice other than to kill the Archdemon at the end of Origins, and nobody has complained about that.

Oh, I wasn't thrilled with how many options were implemented in DA2.  But I try not to overindulge in selective memory.

Because he was the enemy, whatever which decisions you made during your journey. There wasn't a choice to side with the Darkspawn.
In DA II you were forced to side with either the Templers or the mages, but it results in the same two boss fights. I sided with the mages in my first playthrough and seeing Orsino going mad I was just like "Why? what are you doing?" *imagine Cpt. Picard "Wtf is this ****" picture.*

Next time I sided with the Templers and Meredith went mad and I had enough of DA II.

Modifié par Shevy_001, 11 novembre 2012 - 10:30 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

FaWa wrote... Example 2 wasthe only major decision in the whole game. 

So, whether you took your sibling into the Deep Roads or not, and whether you sent them with the Grey Wardens or not,

Either way, I still loose my Bethany. 

PsychoBlonde wrote...

whether you killed the Arishok or not,

Whether I killed the Arishok or not, is not going to change the fact the Qunari loose the war, leave Kirkwall and open path to templars and mages to raze the city once more.

PsychoBlonde wrote...

these weren't major decisions?

No. Nothing change the story arc.

PsychoBlonde wrote...

They have to balance how much leeway they give you with the needs of future games.

What future games? As far as I concern every future games will start with new protagonist and new story. 

PsychoBlonde wrote...


And as far as complaining about the illusion of choice--you had NO choice other than to kill the Archdemon at the end of Origins, and nobody has complained about that.

Killing the Archdemon is not a choice. It's the ultimate goal for every warden. DA 2 and Hawke don't have this. In no way the game provide you the goal to kill every mages and templars in the end. Nor does the games inform,  you have to stop the war. The end goal was left open but they leave the choices with no meaning and purpose other than to watch "the world is already at the brink of war" as told by Varric in the opening screen.  

[Archyyy]

Thats the illusion of choice bioware games so often have. They all have a very similar outcome. There should be real choices with different outcomes as well as bad ones that end up in you failing your goals. For example the side you didnt support winning in DA2 or darkspawn winning in Origins wouldve given some impact to the story. Knowing all along I'll win makes things rather boring regarding the main storyline.

Wish I couldve sided with the Arishok in DA2 by the way. Much better than Kirkwall. Having to slaughter the qunari instead of the chantry and the templars made me sad.

Modifié par Archyyy, 12 novembre 2012 - 12:29 .

[schalafi]

The biggest lack of choice in these games was that WE didn't design and develop them. If we had I can't imagine what chaos would have resulted. When I buy a game I put my trust in the developers, the artists, the writers and everyone involved. So does everyone else who ever buys a game. I don't think there's a game ever made that had 100% approval, so you have to judge for yourselves what kind of record Bioware has in making good/bad games. I would say that one disappointment isn't the end of the world for Bioware.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Archyyy wrote...

Thats the illusion of choice bioware games so often have. They all have a very similar outcome. There should be real choices with different outcomes as well as bad ones that end up in you failing your goals. For example the side you didnt support winning in DA2 or darkspawn winning in Origins wouldve given some impact to the story.

The Reapers win in ME 3. And it didn't received well.

Archyyy wrote...

Knowing all along I'll win makes things rather boring regarding the main storyline.

DAO is about saving the world from the blight. DA 3 is about saving the world from itself. ME is about saving the galaxy. If you are not going to save the world or the galaxy but merely want to see it is destroyed then why bother gathering the armies and completing all the primary mission?

In DA 2, you are not going to stop the war. It doesn't matter wheter you are neutral or pro templars or pro mages. You are only there to witness how the war started as told by Varric. So what the point of playing Hawke character? DA 2 may as well be a pure animation movie than a video game where you can simply watch all you want with no interactivy.  It's a good thing DA 3 will be about saving the world from itself and focus on external forces rather than the mage-templars war. At least it provide a clear goal and motivation. Unlike DA 2.

   

[Archyyy]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

The Reapers win in ME 3. And it didn't received well.

A, B and C all allowed the world to survive and the cycle to be stopped. So in the end Shepard stopped the reapers no matter what.

DAO is about saving the world from the blight. DA 3 is about saving the
world from itself. ME is about saving the galaxy. If you are not going
to save the world or the galaxy but merely want to see it is destroyed
then why bother gathering the armies and completing all the primary
mission?

In DA 2, you are not going to stop the war. It doesn't
matter wheter you are neutral or pro templars or pro mages. You are only
there to witness how the war started as told by Varric. So what the
point of playing Hawke character? DA 2 may as well be a pure animation
movie than a video game where you can simply watch all you want with no
interactivy.  It's a good thing DA 3 will be about saving the world from
itself and focus on external forces rather than the mage-templars war.
At least it provide a clear goal and motivation. Unlike DA 2.

I'm not saying I want to let the world be destroyed. I want the game to give me challenge trying to save it. The option of the ultimate goal failing must be there to give challenge and urgency to the story. Its boring if I know all along that i'm unstoppable and the antagonist cannot wint. Failing is not something the player willingly chooses but what happens if the player doesnt play smart.

Its true that DA2 was more about watching or causing events than shaping them. Thats very bad. I loved the political themes though. Much more interesting than the tired old ancient evil. Civil war and more politics sound very good though so regarding the story im cautiosly optimistic about DA3. If they give us plenty of dialogue and varied choices the game might end up very good. Im skeptical though due to what bioware has been doing lately.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

DAO is about saving the world from the blight. DA 3 is about saving the world from itself. ME is about saving the galaxy. If you are not going to save the world or the galaxy but merely want to see it is destroyed then why bother gathering the armies and completing all the primary mission?

In DA 2, you are not going to stop the war. It doesn't matter wheter you are neutral or pro templars or pro mages. You are only there to witness how the war started as told by Varric. So what the point of playing Hawke character? DA 2 may as well be a pure animation movie than a video game where you can simply watch all you want with no interactivy.  It's a good thing DA 3 will be about saving the world from itself and focus on external forces rather than the mage-templars war. At least it provide a clear goal and motivation. Unlike DA 2.

By your own reasoning, since in DAO the Warden is always going to stop the Blight, what's the point in playing the Warden?

Failure should be possible.  Failure should not be mandatory.

[Battlebloodmage]

It's kind of a wasted opportunity that we have to fight both Orsino and Meredith regardless of which side we were on. It would have been awesome if the final boss changes depend on who we side with. Either Orsino or Meredith would get killed by the other which in turn becomes the final boss. In DA3, if we could side with one or the other, I hope we fight the actual boss of each faction rather than the same final boss every time.

Modifié par Battlebloodmage, 12 novembre 2012 - 01:30 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

DAO is about saving the world from the blight. DA 3 is about saving the world from itself. ME is about saving the galaxy. If you are not going to save the world or the galaxy but merely want to see it is destroyed then why bother gathering the armies and completing all the primary mission?

In DA 2, you are not going to stop the war. It doesn't matter wheter you are neutral or pro templars or pro mages. You are only there to witness how the war started as told by Varric. So what the point of playing Hawke character? DA 2 may as well be a pure animation movie than a video game where you can simply watch all you want with no interactivy.  It's a good thing DA 3 will be about saving the world from itself and focus on external forces rather than the mage-templars war. At least it provide a clear goal and motivation. Unlike DA 2.

By your own reasoning, since in DAO the Warden is always going to stop the Blight, what's the point in playing the Warden?

The point is to figure out how to stop the blight. By playing as the Grey Warden, you discover that killing the archdemon is the only solution. If you fail, you wasted all those hours playing as the Grey Warden. And you accomplish nothing.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Failure should be possible.  Failure should not be mandatory.

I agree but only very few people will choose to fail. Most people will simply reload and try different choices just to win. Winning is what most gamers want in their games. I would accept failure only if the game show me that the odd is impossible to overcome and that my character has done everything he can. However, giving my character super power ability is a sure way to ruin those expectation. Let me play  a true average character with no super power who challenge a god, then and only then, I could accept such failure with open mind.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 12 novembre 2012 - 02:57 .

[Archyyy]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I agree but only very few people will choose to fail. Most people will simply reload and try different choices just to win. Winning is what most gamers want in their games. I would accept failure only if the game show me that the odd is impossible to overcome and that my character has done everything he can. However, giving my character super power ability is a sure way to ruin those expectation. Let me play  a true average character with no super power who challenge a god, then and only then, I could accept such failure with open mind.

Winning has no value if thats the only option. If theres no chance of failure then whats the reward in winning? Games shouldnt automatically grant you victory by just playing them to the end. It needs to be a challenge to reach your goals. Then I'd actually feel that what I'm doing is important and the steps to reaching it will feel like they have real purpose.

Modifié par Archyyy, 12 novembre 2012 - 06:44 .

[Josielyn]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

It's kind of a wasted opportunity that we have to fight both Orsino and Meredith regardless of which side we were on. It would have been awesome if the final boss changes depend on who we side with. Either Orsino or Meredith would get killed by the other which in turn becomes the final boss. In DA3, if we could side with one or the other, I hope we fight the actual boss of each faction rather than the same final boss every time.

- I totally agree with this!!!!! I hated fighting against the side I was supposed to be on. For this reason, I have not played past act 2 in DA2 in any of my subsequent playthroughs.  Once was enough.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

The point is to figure out how to stop the blight. By playing as the Grey Warden, you discover that killing the archdemon is the only solution. If you fail, you wasted all those hours playing as the Grey Warden. And you accomplish nothing.

The hours aren't wasted if you enjoyed them.

I agree but only very few people will choose to fail. Most people will simply reload and try different choices just to win.

So?  That people will reload doesn't make the presence of the possibility any less valuable.  In fact, that it's something they want to avoid makes it more valuable.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Archyyy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I agree but only very few people will choose to fail. Most people will simply reload and try different choices just to win. Winning is what most gamers want in their games. I would accept failure only if the game show me that the odd is impossible to overcome and that my character has done everything he can. However, giving my character super power ability is a sure way to ruin those expectation. Let me play  a true average character with no super power who challenge a god, then and only then, I could accept such failure with open mind.

Winning has no value if thats the only option. If theres no chance of failure then whats the reward in winning? Games shouldnt automatically grant you victory by just playing them to the end. It needs to be a challenge to reach your goals. Then I'd actually feel that what I'm doing is important and the steps to reaching it will feel like they have real purpose.

Failure has no value if the chance of failure is not reasonable explained either through gameplay mechanics or narrative. Failure has no value if the consequences of such failure meant little to move the plot forward. Failure has no value if players reload their saves to find a better solution.

Winning reward you with the sense of accomplishment. Failure, on the other hand, yield the sense of disappointment. 

 In any case, games shouldn't grant you instant victory. They shouldn't grant you instant failure either. Like I said, If I want to tolerate failure then show me why such faliure is worth my time of hours playing the game. I would like to see how this impossible odds can be reasonable and satisfactory explained in my game.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 12 novembre 2012 - 04:30 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

The point is to figure out how to stop the blight. By playing as the Grey Warden, you discover that killing the archdemon is the only solution. If you fail, you wasted all those hours playing as the Grey Warden. And you accomplish nothing.

The hours aren't wasted if you enjoyed them.

I do not enjoyed being a failure. So yes the hours are wasted.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I agree but only very few people will choose to fail. Most people will simply reload and try different choices just to win.

So?  That people will reload doesn't make the presence of the possibility any less valuable.  In fact, that it's something they want to avoid makes it more valuable.

Valuable in term of what? People avoiding such possibility isnt a positive result.

[BanksHector]

I do not care much for how the Nature of the Beast quest was done. You could side with the Dalish, the werewolves, or pick the 3rd option where you save both. I think the anvil is a much better case in showing what DAO did right in choice over DA2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I do not enjoyed being a failure. So yes the hours are wasted.

Wait, so in the dozens of hours of gameplay leading up to the ultimate outcome, you're not having fun?  Why are you playing the game if it isn't fun?

Valuable in term of what? People avoiding such possibility isnt a positive result.

1. Not everyone will reload.
2. Simply having he opportunity for failure available makes success more meaningful.  Again, if anyone can succeed, why are you playing the game?  And if any character can succeed, why do you care about yours?

Exploration follows the same principle - you don't need to go everywhere in the game to feel like the game world is big - you just have to have the opportunity to go places.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I do not enjoyed being a failure. So yes the hours are wasted.

Wait, so in the dozens of hours of gameplay leading up to the ultimate outcome, you're not having fun?  Why are you playing the game if it isn't fun?

I don't.

In DAO, I knew my warden would succed eventually. So I played the game time after time.
In DA 2, Hawke's failure in almost every major plot is untolerateble. I didn't completed the game on several ocassions. The only reason I manage to complete  the game is because I would like to understand why Hawke is such a failure. I never get the answer and it's not fun. So the game ended in dustbin. There goes my $60... in dustbin. 

 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
1. Not everyone will reload.

I would. It's my game.


 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

2. Simply having he opportunity for failure available makes success more meaningful.  Again, if anyone can succeed, why are you playing the game?  And if any character can succeed, why do you care about yours?

1. It's a single player game.  There is no such thing as "anyone can succed" in my game. There is only me playing my game in my own way.

2. There is no other characters beside my own that can succed ( except for Anders in DA 2 ). If there is any other characters,  then those character better be the protagonist. 

3. Hawke's failure at every oppurtunity in DA 2 doesn't makes success more meaningful. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Exploration follows the same principle - you don't need to go everywhere in the game to feel like the game world is big - you just have to have the opportunity to go places.

Exploration serve different purpose. It make sense there are some places that are too far to explore. Winning a game isn't about discovering new plot and feeling the vastness of game world . It's about completing a mission as intended. It's what drives you to progress to the end. Knowing you will loose eventually is poor reason to play the game. Therefore, failure to reach your end objective is not a favorable option.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 12 novembre 2012 - 09:40 .

[philippe willaume]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Archyyy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I agree but only very few people will choose to fail. Most people will simply reload and try different choices just to win. Winning is what most gamers want in their games. I would accept failure only if the game show me that the odd is impossible to overcome and that my character has done everything he can. However, giving my character super power ability is a sure way to ruin those expectation. Let me play  a true average character with no super power who challenge a god, then and only then, I could accept such failure with open mind.

Winning has no value if thats the only option. If theres no chance of failure then whats the reward in winning? Games shouldnt automatically grant you victory by just playing them to the end. It needs to be a challenge to reach your goals. Then I'd actually feel that what I'm doing is important and the steps to reaching it will feel like they have real purpose.

Failure has no value if the chance of failure is not reasonable explained either through gameplay mechanics or narrative. Failure has no value if the consequences of such failure meant little to move the plot forward. Failure has no value if players reload their saves to find a better solution.

Winning reward you with the sense of accomplishment. Failure, on the other hand, yield the sense of disappointment. 

 In any case, games shouldn't grant you instant victory. They shouldn't grant you instant failure either. Like I said, If I want to tolerate failure then show me why such faliure is worth my time of hours playing the game. I would like to see how this impossible odds can be reasonable and satisfactory explained in my game.

well the Sod off, Star Brat" option is a good exemple of faillure being worth your time.
ie you fail to stop the reapers and the cyle, but according to you playthrough that can be the appropriate ending

I am not sure if there is such a thing as faillure in a RPG or beating the game.  it is more a matter of having a fitting ending to the story you have been told.

phil