32 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Before I begin, I want to make something clear.
This is not me saying that Black Ops 2 is necessarily a better game or has a better story than Bioware RPGs, that's not the point of this thread. The point is to examine what it did in terms of  Choices & Consequences (C&C), and to give credit where credit is due. Also, I propose that RPG developpers have something to learn from this and that I would hope they spend more effort on C&C in the future. 

Now I am not known around these parts to be a fan of DA2, ME2 and ME3. But I don't want to get into a fight that would detract the thread from its intended purpose. So I have only compared Black Ops 2 to games I love, namely Dragon Age: Origins /  Awakening, Mass Effect 1 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution, as its C&C was better handled.

Now I want to also emphasize this: This is about C&C, not about choices and how interesting and complex they are. In that area, while Black Ops 2 did provide a dilemna or two and interesting situations, it does not surpass choices in Origins or Deus Ex.  This is rather about the effects of actions in-game in term of gameplay and main story.

I know threads came up in DA3 section that caused flamewars. That's not my intent. 
Please be open minded, I know it's very tempting to dismiss a CoD game, I still can't believe I played it in the first place. And please keep the flaming to a minimum.

So after all this, here's the article

[Cyberarmy]

And this is supposed to be a simple FPS game. Damn you Tyearch for such good choices and outcomes!

[mr_afk]

I don't know if 'choices & consequences' to this extent would be a good thing. I haven't played Black Ops 2, so I wouldn't personally know whether this holds true for this game, but sets of branching choices/situations eventually resulting in 'good' or 'bad' endings tend to result in lots of metagaming.

While it would definitely add replay value and immersion (since it's different each time, with events seeming to flow from one to another), I can hardly imagine anyone willingly doing something if they knew that it was going to result in bad consequences.

Given the chain-reaction of consequences that seem to occur, I personally would be a bit peeved if I found out that something I did several missions ago (and several hours of gameplay ago) is preventing me from a happy ending/or is forcing certain events to happen. I mean, gameplay-based changes (more enemies/type of enemies etc) could be nice and immersive, but random cutscene-events that may or may not be arbitrarily related to previous events would just be annoying, imo.


Although it's hard to say just based off your list, I think that the type of choices are possibly more important for RPGs, rather than their eventual consequence on the ending. Ethical dilemmas, choices where there is no 'right' answer - those are the type of choices that can really push you into your character's situation and drive immersion.

Obviously you do still want to see some kind of consequences for your actions, and a continuous, evolving set of consequences leading to the eventual outcome would be ideal. So I suppose RPGs could work towards creating the right mix of ethical dilemmas with no real visible consequences, minor choices with instantaneous results, and larger (main quest related) choices that cause a flow-down effect throughout the rest of the game.

[CHALET]

That awkward moment you realise BO2's choices effect the ending far more than in ME3's.

What I liked about BO2 was how many of the choices were subtle, even after the ending. Yes, there's a few clear cut "KILL THIS GUY, OR KILL THIS GUY" moments but I counted maybe two of those in total that were major.

Most of them were very subtle, but they were there, having you make choices and have to react without taking control away from the player. When you chase down a certain henchmen it wasn't just "follow them until a cutscene appears" like with Mars or in other games, no if you didn't kill that guy during the action or let him get too far he was gone.

Oh, you didn't kill him? Tough.

Modifié par CHALET, 20 novembre 2012 - 05:01 .

[Zeroth Angel]

That was actually an interesting and enjoyable article to read.
And overall i agree with you.

It's quite sad but i'm actually considering buying BO2 because of this (not for full price though). Among other reasons of course.

[KnightofPhoenix]

mr_afk wrote...

I don't know if 'choices & consequences' to this extent would be a good thing. I haven't played Black Ops 2, so I wouldn't personally know whether this holds true for this game, but sets of branching choices/situations eventually resulting in 'good' or 'bad' endings tend to result in lots of metagaming.

They don't have to necessarily be about negative vs positive outcomes (though I'd love a few of those). It can be two consequences with their positive and negative aspects, or both can be positive depending on perspective (like Alpha Protocol).

What Black Ops 2 does have is the ability to replay any mission after you finish it, and restart the story from there. So if you want to have a differet ending, you don't have to replay the whole thing. But of course RPGs can't have that because they are not based around levels (except Alpha Protocol kinda).

Although it's hard to say just based off your list, I think that the type of choices are possibly more important for RPGs, rather than their eventual consequence on the ending. Ethical dilemmas, choices where there is no 'right' answer - those are the type of choices that can really push you into your character's situation and drive immersion.

Sure, I absolutely agree. However, for me, a moral dilemna is best executed when the choice is tough and the consequences are stronlgy felt (more often then not, a dilemna is so in part because of its consequences). Not only does it provide more immersion, varied content and all that, but it adds mroe gravitas to the choice.
For me a choice that has little to no consequence, while it can be interesting, lacks that impact, that unf.

I do agree that RPGs, considering their different nature, can have a mix of micro-choices and macro ones.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 novembre 2012 - 05:31 .

[The Hierophant]

This is crazy. First it's SOTL with a drastically improved narrative along with it's scathing criticism of the tps genre. Now COD:BO2 has choices with immediate consequences that leads to different scenarios. COD:BO2 would have been a rental but with that article along with some comments over here it's a purchasable now.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 20 novembre 2012 - 05:53 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

This game must be a great experience. I should get it soon.

[mr_afk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

They don't have to necessarily be about negative vs positive outcomes (though I'd love a few of those). It can be two consequences with their positive and negative aspects, or both can be positive depending on perspective (like Alpha Protocol). 

What Black Ops 2 does have is the ability to replay any mission after you finish it, and restart the story from there. So if you want to have a differet ending, you don't have to replay the whole thing. But of course RPGs can't have that because they are not based around levels (except Alpha Protocol kinda).

Ah, I think I get what you mean. Basically having consequences/outcomes to an action that carry future significance and affect future choices, regardless of what those outcomes might be particularly. Kinda like how the choices in a choose-your-own-adventure book make for completely different stories. And yeah, the main trouble with translating that sort of approach to RPGs would be the non-linearity that RPGs (typically) have, meaning that it could start getting a little complicated (and they would have spend a lot of resources on things people might never see).

Although it definitely does add a lot to the game when you encounter extra details such as options that you didn't think available (e.g. killing then resurrecting a key character in Dragon's Dogma leading to a different outcome than simply killing or sparing him; and I think I read that in Arcanum, after finishing a quest and setting a spirit to rest, you can ressurect the spirit to laugh at it).

 Sure, I absolutely agree. However, for me, a moral dilemna is best executed when the choice is tough and the consequences are stronlgy felt (more often then not, a dilemna is so in part because of its consequences). Not only does it provide more immersion, varied content and all that, but it adds mroe gravitas to the choice.
For me a choice that has little to no consequence, while it can be interesting, lacks that impact, that unf.

I do agree that RPGs, considering their different nature, can have a mix of micro-choices and macro ones.

Yeah I'm the same in some regards. When the moral choice is between something obviously wrong and something right - but the unethical option holds the greater rewards - strong, lasting consequences make the decision a lot more meaningful. You either feel good about yourself or like a giant dick.. (Oh well, I'm sure Feynriel enjoyed getting his soul sacrificed to a demon haha).

But imo, certain things where there is no real right or wrong such as the 'genophage cure' in me1 don't really need much of a visible consequence other than your party-member's reactions - since the implications/ramifications are more distant and are already apparent in your decision making. It would be nice if it came back to haunt you or lead to different complications, but I don't really feel that it's necessary to feel a considerable impact.


But yeah, hopefully they figure out a way to get an RPG with multiple branching storylines, where choices create complexity and replayability.

[Sebby]

J. Reezy wrote...

So is Treyarch the better CoD developer?

After MW2 that's for sure.

[Lazengan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Before I begin, I want to make something clear.
This is not me saying that Black Ops 2 is necessarily a better game or has a better story than Bioware RPGs, 

But it's true

the world renowned call of doots Franchise, known for it's cash grabbing schemes, scumbag developpers, rampant idiotic community, and degradation of the shooter franchise from it's humble origins

has in fact made a better game than Bioware's Finale to the mass effect trilogy. 

I was biased at first too. It had the "call of duty" nametag on it and I automatically assumed it would be another poor product. 

But it really wasn't. It was a far superior game to mass effect 3

You actually made choices through gameplay, not by selecting from a dialogue wheel. Bioware hasn't done this sort of choice since ME1, the mission on Feros where you can decide to kill colonists or not

Modifié par Lazengan, 20 novembre 2012 - 09:13 .

[Fast Jimmy]

The reason a FPS now has better branching choices and more variability in its consequences than Bioware games?

The Save Import. [drops the mike and walks out]

[Fast Jimmy]

^

It's a simple matter of quantity over quality. A single game can have lots of choices and follow up on them really well. Games with save imports that try and respect every previous choice PLUS offer new ones (large quantity) are inevitably going to start suffering huge cuts to their quality, all things equal. The only way this cannot be true is if more resources are spent each successive games on managing choices, alone.

[Lazengan]

Modifié par Lazengan, 20 novembre 2012 - 09:35 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Seboist wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

So is Treyarch the better CoD developer?

After MW2 that's for sure.

Pretty much this.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far myself, at least not until this most recent entry.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

RPG are trying to be more cinematic and action-y and action/fps are trying to be more rpg. Seriously, is no one happy with the genre of their games?

[Fast Jimmy]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

RPG are trying to be more cinematic and action-y and action/fps are trying to be more rpg. Seriously, is no one happy with the genre of their games?

“I hate turkeys. If you stand in the meat section at the grocery store long enough, you start to get mad at turkeys. There's turkey ham, turkey bologna, turkey pastromi... Some one needs to tell the turkey, man, just be yourself.” -Mitch Hedberg



This doesn't really apply in any way, shape or form, but... its Mitch Hedberg.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 novembre 2012 - 10:45 .

[Arcadian Legend]

J. Reezy wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

RPG are trying to be more cinematic and action-y and action/fps are trying to be more rpg. Seriously, is no one happy with the genre of their games?

Intentionally limiting yourself because of some arbitrary classifcation is retarded. No developer should do that.

Indeed, lets take the Metroid Prime Trilogy as an example, of which the games are widely considered First-Person Adventures. The first two are two of the best games I've ever played.

The industry needs more FPA's.

Anyway, BLOPS2. My brother got it recently, and while CoD, like most people here isn't my kind of game this thread and the article has made me willing to give it a shot.

[Straw Nihilist]

The zombies map "TranZit" is orgasmic...