42 réponses à ce sujet

[Archyyy]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...


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.

The chance of failure is always reasonably explained in any narrative. Its an important part of the premise. If theres no chance for failure whats the point of trying so hard to reach your goals? Failure shouldnt something forced upon you but something you try to avoid by making good decisions and advancing your goal.

Winning doesnt reward me with any accomplishment if I cant fail. If winning is granted automatically then whats the point of trying to win so hard? Failure yields disappointment only if you fail. If you win despite the chance of failing theres real accomplishment.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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.

So you just play games to get to the end? Isnt that kind of pointless? You only enjoy the last minutes of the game. Getting to the end of a game is always a disappointment for me. Playing the game is whats fun. But even if you only enjoy the endings wouldnt it be better if it wasnt taken for granted that you always reach the ending? Challenge is good. If its not so easy to reach your goals the reward is bigger.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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.

1. There are others. Every one of my other characters. All of them always succeed no matter how I play.

2. That makes no sense. There are other characters that succeed in their goals besides the PC.

3. Hawke's failures made his story much more interesting. I cant recall much failures though. Its boring being invincible. Not automatically succeeding in every turn makes a story so much more interesting.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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. 

Winning a game is about reaching your goals, yes, but that shouldnt be automatic. A good goal drives a character to do things but why should that goal always be reached with no hardships? Failure shouldnt be mandatory but the chance should always be looming in the background if youre not good at doing things to further your goal.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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.

We're clearly just speaking different languages.

I don't think the concept of "winning" applies to roleplaying games at all.  There's no way to win.  There's no way to lose.  You can succeed or fail on your own terms, but what constitutes success or failure is up to you.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Archyyy wrote...
The chance of failure is always reasonably explained in any narrative.

No it isn't. DA 2 didn't narrate why Hawke fail to stop the templars from taking Bethany away when he could kill anyone, everyone and any dragons in the end. DA 2 didn't narrate why Hawke fail to catch the series killers when he could solve the mayor's son disappearnces without having to wait for 3 years. DA 2 didn't narrate why Hawke fail to forsee the danger in staying at Kirkwall.

Archyyy wrote...
Its an important part of the premise.

No it isn't. Not when you have a goal to reach.

Archyyy wrote...
If theres no chance for failure whats the point of trying so hard to reach your goals?
Winning doesnt reward me with any accomplishment if I cant fail.

 
You can fail yourself by not completing the game or do you wish to see the ocassional "Game Over" screen pop up in front you and boot you out of the game prematurely? I know I'd get annoyed quite easily if the game ended permaturely with the flashy "Game Over" screen, everytime you fail a mission.

Archyyy wrote...
If winning is granted automatically then whats the point of trying to win so hard?

Because winning itself is a reward for your hardwork. Failure, deny you the satisfaction of trying to win so hard.  What's the point of trying so hard only to fail? What's the point of trying to prevent a war in DA 2 when Varric already told you the world is already at the brink of war? What is the point of staying in Kirkwall when you know something bad is about to happen and there is nothing you could do to stop it? Why bother to fight the Reapers only to become one of them in the end? Why bother caring the Geths when they're about to be destroyed due to your choices in the end?  Now I asked you the opposite question.

Archyyy wrote..
Failure yields disappointment only if you fail. If you win despite the chance of failing theres real accomplishment.

After hours of playing, messing through tons of combat and dialogue options, I do not need to know my chance of failure. The only matter is to reach that end goal as quickly as possible then restart and try new character with different motive and goal to discover new plots, characters etc.

Archyyy wrote..
So you just play games to get to the end?

In story driven or mission oriented game yes. In sandbox games, no.

Archyyy wrote..
Isnt that kind of pointless? You only enjoy the last minutes of the game. Getting to the end of a game is always a disappointment for me. Playing the game is whats fun.

Playing the game is fun if I have so much freedom to do whatever I like, be ever I want to, go wherever I want to and create whatever I want to ( The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, GTA. Paradox's Europa Universalis Grand Strategy, The Guilds series, The Sims, etc ) In story driven games, there isn't much to do and freedom of playing meant nothing. Especially with BioWare's linear game.  Since you are driven in straight line or railroaded or hand held to the end, you may as well as just enjoy the last minutes of the games with satisfactory ending - which is wining. It's pointless to having fun by simplying playing without any intention to reach the end. You can't do anything else, anyway, You can't roam freely. You can't do this and that. You can only move, talk,  combat and interact with certain objects as deem by the story. So what's the point?

Archyyy wrote..
But even if you only enjoy the endings wouldnt it be better if it wasnt taken for granted that you always reach the ending? Challenge is good. If its not so easy to reach your goals the reward is bigger.

There is no shortcut  or take victory for granted in every games. Every RPG I've played since the classic TSR/SSI D&D provide sufficient challenge to me. My character used to die a lot due to poor character build up, bad choices etc.. Even in DAO you have to gather the army, choose sides, attend the landsmeet, solve the puzzle.. I hate Sacred Ashes bridge puzzle. I stuck there for hours trying to figure out the correct combination and sequence just to brigde over the chasm. It's a challenge to me and I do not need to be challenged another several hours just to fail in the end.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 13 novembre 2012 - 06:43 .

[Plaintiff]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
What's the point of trying to prevent a war in DA 2 when Varric already told you the world is already at the brink of war? What is the point of staying in Kirkwall when you know something bad is about to happen and there is nothing you could do to stop it? Why bother to fight the Reapers only to become one of them in the end? Why bother caring the Geths when they're about to be destroyed due to your choices in the end?  Now I asked you the opposite question.

"What's the point in experiencing the narrative of a story if the ending isn't exactly the way I want it to be?"

The goal of a narrative-driven game is to get to the end of the narrative, which you yourself admit. There is no "failure". If you reached the end of the narrative, then you won the game. Whether the conclusion is positive or negative has no bearing on that fact.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
What's the point of trying to prevent a war in DA 2 when Varric already told you the world is already at the brink of war? What is the point of staying in Kirkwall when you know something bad is about to happen and there is nothing you could do to stop it? Why bother to fight the Reapers only to become one of them in the end? Why bother caring the Geths when they're about to be destroyed due to your choices in the end?  Now I asked you the opposite question.

"What's the point in experiencing the narrative of a story if the ending isn't exactly the way I want it to be?"

The goal of a narrative-driven game is to get to the end of the narrative, which you yourself admit. There is no "failure". If you reached the end of the narrative, then you won the game. Whether the conclusion is positive or negative has no bearing on that fact.

The only reason why I have reached to the end of the narrative is to understand why Hawke is such a failure. It's my own personal reasoning and nothing to do with it's narrative. I've quit it's narrative-driven goal after several fail attempts. And once I knew the conclusion, the game is pretty much useless to me. And No. I do not buy and play ME 3. It's a useless game too, as far as I concern.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 13 novembre 2012 - 08:28 .

[Plaintiff]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
What's the point of trying to prevent a war in DA 2 when Varric already told you the world is already at the brink of war? What is the point of staying in Kirkwall when you know something bad is about to happen and there is nothing you could do to stop it? Why bother to fight the Reapers only to become one of them in the end? Why bother caring the Geths when they're about to be destroyed due to your choices in the end?  Now I asked you the opposite question.

"What's the point in experiencing the narrative of a story if the ending isn't exactly the way I want it to be?"

The goal of a narrative-driven game is to get to the end of the narrative, which you yourself admit. There is no "failure". If you reached the end of the narrative, then you won the game. Whether the conclusion is positive or negative has no bearing on that fact.

The only reason why I have reached to the end of the narrative is to understand why Hawke is such a failure. It's my own personal and nothing to do with it's narrative. And once I knew the conclusion, the game is pretty much useless to me.

And the same doesn't apply to games with "happy" endings where you "win"?

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
What's the point of trying to prevent a war in DA 2 when Varric already told you the world is already at the brink of war? What is the point of staying in Kirkwall when you know something bad is about to happen and there is nothing you could do to stop it? Why bother to fight the Reapers only to become one of them in the end? Why bother caring the Geths when they're about to be destroyed due to your choices in the end?  Now I asked you the opposite question.

"What's the point in experiencing the narrative of a story if the ending isn't exactly the way I want it to be?"

The goal of a narrative-driven game is to get to the end of the narrative, which you yourself admit. There is no "failure". If you reached the end of the narrative, then you won the game. Whether the conclusion is positive or negative has no bearing on that fact.

The only reason why I have reached to the end of the narrative is to understand why Hawke is such a failure. It's my own personal and nothing to do with it's narrative. And once I knew the conclusion, the game is pretty much useless to me.

And the same doesn't apply to games with "happy" endings where you "win"?

I'm not the one who set the objective of the game. It's BioWare themselves. It's them who promoted ME is about saving the galaxy from reapers. I did exactly as the narrative deem Shepard to. To destroy the reaper in ME 2. So why change that in ME 3? Destroy ending doesn't stop the reapers. It's merely postpone the inevitable circle.

I'm not the one who set the story of Hawke, who is suppose to be personal story. It's BioWare themselves. I just did what a reasonable character would do. That is to protect the family ( since I do not care for friends and companions ). So why took take that away half way through the narrative by taking away the last remaning of family members? 

BioWare set the objective to save the world from the blight in DAO. My warden just did what it's set for him. That is to save the world from the blight. That's how it suppose to be and that is how suppose to end.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 13 novembre 2012 - 08:52 .

[Blight Nug]

Rojahar wrote...

Do people think there should be more choices like the OP's first example, or more choices like the OP's second example? Regardless of which game you thought had more or less of each type of choice.

I thought the two examples OP raised are really the same, only one wasn't implemented too well. Defeating the Archdemon and being a part of the mage rebellion were both inevitable. You could choose who you had on your side, or whose side you were on and that was it. 
-------------


Unless we expect unlimited time and resources poured into the game, there will always be choices that turn out to be illusions. It's not about where we end up, but how we get there. And many of us do understand this.

And so when we complain and demand choices that have consequences, I hope Bioware understands we're not asking for a divergent main plot that is unrealistically demanding of them. I don't care if my decisions don't impact the grand scheme of things, I just need to be shown the effects of my decisions play out in the game. For example, in DAO, we could give the sister and brother in Redcliff some money to send them to Denerim; it would've meant a lot to me if I actually saw them there afterwards. 

No matter how trivial a decision may seem in regards to grand progression of events, as long as we're shown enough of the effects, it will be satisfying. An example that failed to do this was ME3's first ending. In the DLC version, we got to see slideshows regarding our decisions on the genophage, geth...etc, and that was an improvement. Although it still wasn't good enough IMO.

What would be best is to have our decisions effect the gameplay, such as having assists during battles from the factions that we sided with. Or seeing the family that we rescued walk around town and thank us whenver we run into them.
We  want to see our environments change if we donated money to the ghettos, i mean darktown lol.
We want to see cutscences of the effects of our decisions, such as seeing live dwarves that we've seen and talked to be turned into stone cold golems. 

Modifié par Blight Nug, 13 novembre 2012 - 09:54 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I'm not the one who set the objective of the game.

Yes you are.  Your gameplay objectives can be whatever you would like them to be.

Mine almost never conform to BioWare's presumed expectation.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I'm not the one who set the objective of the game.

Yes you are.  Your gameplay objectives can be whatever you would like them to be.

Mine almost never conform to BioWare's presumed expectation.

With Silent protagonist and blank slate character, yes. I would love to do that. Still I wouldn't deviate from primary objective set by BioWare. In Sandbox games, however, I set my own objective all the time.

With Cinematic - who never act,express tone and emote properly - Actor, it's pointless. The clash between my headcanon character and BioWare's cinematic Shepard and Hawke characters make any attempt to set my own objective futile. You can't set any gameplay objectives if you aren't roleplaying the character.  

[kinna]

I like the way they did choice in Witcher 2. There was no simple "good" path, and all choices had some good outcomes and bad ones. Bioware rarely does this. Usually there is an option to save everyone and kill the bad guy.

[Plaintiff]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
I'm not the one who set the objective of the game. It's BioWare themselves.

Sure, but just because Bioware established a goal for the character doesn't mean that's how the game is going to end. The character might fail, or their goals might change. That's always a possibility in stories.

It's them who promoted ME is about saving the galaxy from reapers. I did exactly as the narrative deem Shepard to. To destroy the reaper in ME 2. So why change that in ME 3? Destroy ending doesn't stop the reapers. It's merely postpone the inevitable circle.

I'm not the one who set the story of Hawke, who is suppose to be personal story. It's BioWare themselves. I just did what a reasonable character would do. That is to protect the family ( since I do not care for friends and companions ). So why took take that away half way through the narrative by taking away the last remaning of family members?

Because that's the story they wanted to tell? I don't understand how this is a problem. You don't have to like the stories, but there's nothing inherently wrong with writing a story where the "hero" loses.

[Bernhardtbr]

kinna wrote...

I like the way they did choice in Witcher 2. There was no simple "good" path, and all choices had some good outcomes and bad ones. Bioware rarely does this. Usually there is an option to save everyone and kill the bad guy.

Well, considering there was that huge thread about some people complaining about bittersweet endings as well as wanting omnipotent protagonists that never fail, I dunno many people in the audience here would enjoy such paths. I personally liked Witcher 2 a lot.

Modifié par Bernhardtbr, 13 novembre 2012 - 03:12 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

With Cinematic - who never act,express tone and emote properly - Actor, it's pointless. The clash between my headcanon character and BioWare's cinematic Shepard and Hawke characters make any attempt to set my own objective futile. You can't set any gameplay objectives if you aren't roleplaying the character.  

I certainly won't dispute that.

But I refuse not to roleplay.  The day I accept that I can't roleplay in these games is the day I stop playing them.

[Iosev]

For me, as long as choice is affecting my experience of the story (even if it is something minor, like a NPC acknowledging your humor), then I'm satisfied. For example, I like it when NPCs react immediately to a sarcastic comment, because it gives you the perception that you are affecting the "journey".

From a role-playing perspective, the first playthrough is always the most important to me (because I'm experiencing the game for the first time), so I try to avoid reloading as much as possible, because I think learning all of the possible outcomes of a situation ruins the role-playing experience.  Thus, I often don't know whether or not a choice led to different outcomes.

For example, when I played the first episode of The Walking Dead video game, I immediately replayed it with different choices to see how the story would turn out.  While there were some changes, I also noticed some of the limitations that were placed to make the story continue in a particular manner.  Ultimately, I decided against replaying the later episodes, at least until I finished the entire series, because I felt that awareness of the "seams" of the story hurt my experience of it.

I think that choices that lead to dramatically different outcomes are important for subsequent playthroughs (and I love replay value), but my experience during my first playthrough is probably still more important to me.

Modifié par arcelonious, 13 novembre 2012 - 06:52 .