233 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Valadras21 wrote...
Furthermore DA:O had that lovely situation with Ser Cauthrien, where you could actually beat the NPCs and avoid capture.

It took me forever to understand that this was a boss I would get extra content by losing to. I had no idea she was designed to be lost to. If a game does this, there's no way it can be done within the rules without making it lame (e.g. infinite HP).

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...

Zobo wrote...

Does the Warden counts as a Mary Sue?

Yes, pretty much.  At least with a stereotypically "good" playthrough.

You're just a Jerkass Stu on an "evil" one.

[Wulfram]

In Exile wrote...

ME3 tried that. It failed. Quite badly.

I don't think it failed in that aspect.  Aside from the ending, and the ending failed for other reasons.

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
I don't think it failed in that aspect.  Aside from the ending, and the ending failed for other reasons.

If you play paragon, and save basically everyone, Shepard's suddenly really haunted by that kid. Which really doesn't make sense. Especially a Colonist Shepard, who endured (and say) way way way worse things. The kind of things that actually give you PTSD.

[DarkSpiral]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Second sibling becomes a Warden/leaves: "It's your fault! How could you let this happen?!"

That never gets said, nor implied.

These moments would've been much better if the Warden Hawke blamed his/herself or if it was just even implied.

That DOES happen.  You can take all the blame on yourself before Leandra actually dies.  The dialogue option is "I failed you." if I recall correctly.

And it still didn't help the scene feel more personal.  It was just nice the option was there.

[DarkSpiral]

Rubios wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

In Exile wrote...

ME3 tried that. It failed. Quite badly.

I don't think it failed in that aspect.  Aside from the ending, and the ending failed for other reasons.

So you liked Shepard and squadmates suddenly acting like retards once Kai Leng appears on the screen? Thane running towards a guy with a ****ing sword to punch him (seriously, wtf)? The freaking kid that was more hilarious than sad? OMG ALL TEH FEELS... no.

I actually thought Thane's scene with Kai Leng to be fairly swesome.  Let us not forge tthat Thane is dying already, and has accepted the inevitability of his own death.  He doesn't really have much to fear anymore.  The other two, I agree with you.

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I disagree with this concept. I won't begrudge anyone that feels that Leandra's death didn't resonate with them (I think that's perfectly fair, and I'd say that BioWare is likely not the only entity that has failed to make an emotional event click), but for there to be a get out of jail free card doesn't make it more interesting IMO.

*snip*

As such, I think there's a different element that is important rather than simply the idea that it's forced.

I agree with this.  Leandra's death didn't particularly resonate with me for a number of reasons.  Meaning, IT'S NUMBERED LIST TIME!!!!!

1.  The way the serial killer plot developed and was telegraphed just didn't work for me.  I won't say it was BAD, per se, I think it just didn't work with the way the rest of the game was structured, and that caused a serious disconnect.  The lead-up quests were too far apart, the apparent importance and connection of the events didn't match up with them being labeled as Mandatory Main Plot Quests, they all just abruptly dead-ended for no apparent reason . . . the game structure crashed this story for me.  If it had ALL taken place in Act III and Leandra being a central player had been hinted at from the first moment, it would have worked much, much better.  Also, calling the first quest "The First Sacrifice" was AWFUL.  NEVER EVER DO THAT AGAIN.  If you're trying to write a suspenseful story, don't give the damn thing away in the title of the first chapter.  Yeesh.

2.  It was way too obvious that there was no chance to save Leandra.  I think this is why some people think it would have worked if there HAD been a chance to save her, because this would have subverted the monstrously bad telegraphing job and thus would have been a much more emotionally satisfying result given the other events.  Given the horrendous over-telegraphed buildup, though, it was pretty difficult for the result that you'd been expecting for 10 minutes or more to actually generate an emotional connection.  Now, this may be subjective, but I think it's a fair chance that it was at least a large part of the problem because I'm one of those people who NEVER sees twists coming--if I pick up on the telegraphing AT ALL, this usually means there was WAYYYYYYY too much of it and it was handled with no panache whatsoever.

3.  Hawke's reaction before and after just didn't work for me.  This one is entirely subjective, though, I'm sure some people found Hawke's reactions to be appropriate and even well done.  At that point of the game, though, I was ITCHING to tell people how STUPIDLY they were behaving, and poor Hawke just wasn't set up to be the type of person who could notice or articulate those stupidities.  I had this same problem with Shepard at a few moments in Mass Effect.  And with the Warden in Origins, for that matter.  Not sure there's anything to be done about it.

4.  The writers had an ulterior motive in killing off Leandra that wasn't actually satisfied by the WAY they killed her off, and, in fact, it undercut other parts of the plot.  The idea was to show that the templars have a point about Mages Being Dangerous.  Okay, but here's the thing--dude who killed Leandra wasn't just a mage.  He was INSANE over the loss of his beloved, and ANYONE could have that same motivation.  The only difference him being a mage made was that he was actually able to animate the reconstructed body, so it was a bit more gruesome.  Yet the entire course of events was piled on top of templars first ignoring and then discounting the abductions, and, heck, even apologizing to a blood mage for inconveniencing him when they searched his estate.  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!  With a zealot like Meredith in charge, they didn't TURN THE CITY UPSIDE DOWN in an effort to find out what was going on?  They didn't track down du Puis' history?  SOMEBODY had to know he was a mage.  Of course, this kind of ties back into the whole "these templars have a hard time identifying mages" problem that saturated the entire game.  The end result was less "Mages are dangerous!" and more "Templars are idiots!" 

[Navasha]

Don't most stories generally have a low point for the character? I would say in most cases its often at the beginning of the story though and used as the reason that the character would set out on his or her journey.

DA:O had tragedies for the PC in each of the origin stories that led them to become a grey warden. Star Wars had Lukes foster parents killed, etc. Many stories follow the formula of starting the character off on a low point and have them rise back to become great(er).

I would think it would have to handled carefully though if it is to happen mid to late game. There needs to be time to rebound and recover.

[burning salaradile]

So from what I've gathered from reading through this thread is that cutscene incompetence is the biggest offender when these kinds of scenes are done badly, and that having a forced situation is not bad when it makes sense. Best is when player choice is involved somehow (but not with an "I win" button).

[StElmo]

Can we not have characters that imitate other villains? It's juvenile.

[Wynne]

DarkSpiral wrote...

Wynne wrote...

Eh, maybe you overestimate his fangirls. I mean, sure, I'd cry, but then I'd be like, "at least I got to hit that and he didn't have to die a virgin." Unless he resisted my advances, in which case, "you should've let me hit it while it was still warm, boy! Then you would've died a happy man!" 

Do I?

Parmida wrote...

NOOOOOOOO! HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT!?

I had seen that already, and yes, you still do. Look closely at Parmida's signature. 

Cullen x M!Bloodmage.

You cannot say that person represents the average Cullen fan. Well, you could, but you'd be wrong. 

Although, there is the possibility that Parmida (who is not necessarily a fangirl) only said that for the lolz, and not out of seriousness anyway. 

Either way, being allowed to try to hit that would/will be awesome even if he ends up like my love interest in ME3. 

Allan Schumacher wrote...

For her death to have really meant something, there had to have been a way to save her.

I disagree with this concept. I won't begrudge anyone that feels that Leandra's death didn't resonate with them (I think that's perfectly fair, and I'd say that BioWare is likely not the only entity that has failed to make an emotional event click), but for there to be a get out of jail free card doesn't make it more interesting IMO.

The problem is, for there not to be a get out of jail free card doesn't make it more interesting either, and on top of that, it takes our choice away. 

Allan Schumacher wrote...

All it does is turn Leandra's death into a failure metric for the player. You could have saved her, but since you choose poorly, you couldn't. This is somewhat mitigated if done in a way that saving Leandra requires the death of someone else (or some other entity), but ultimately that still means the player is forced to make some sort of unwanted choice.

I'd rather be forced to make a choice than forced to watch a cutscene. If there's some version of forcing in there anyway--why not let the player decide whether it's too saccharine to be able to save her?

Some form of choice, as long as the player cares about whether they get to choose, is pretty much always better.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Player agency does NOT have to mean "the player can drive the narrative in whatever way the player wishes." Even the examples you use, Virmire and Rannoch, are still situations that are forced (although Rannoch does allow a get out of jail free card. Virmire does not). One of Ashley or Kaiden are forced to die. For people like me (that preferred Ashley and Kaiden over the other party members), it's a great choice. If anyone finds one of Ashley or Kaiden annoying, it's a trivial choice with no real impact.

The thing about Rannoch which I wonder if you're missing: it still has impact despite the get out of jail free card. Regardless, both outcomes allow the player to have a form of input. Character connections are important, but they are no matter what. Either way, giving the player a choice lets them at least say, "I care about this character" or "I don't" with their actions, and that is nice. If the player reloads, it means they cared--the sadness of seeing the bad outcome doesn't instantly disappear. Their emotions are involved.

As to Leandra, I think encouraging her to either find a lover or not do so would've been a better trigger for her death. Then you're either a jerk who doesn't want your mom to be happy, or you care and want her to be happy, and the consequences of that are excruciating. Either way, it's triggered way too far back to reload easily.  But I think it would've meant more if there were two ways to encourage her: either, "Sure, but be careful, dad's a hard man to follow and there are some real nutcases out there" or "Go for the gusto! You'll never be happy if you don't get out there, take chances." This both invites roleplay and makes the player feel responsible if it goes bad (while not feeling like a jerk, because you were only trying to push her towards risks for happy reasons.) 

If you've seen The Killing through to its conclusion, I have to be careful how I say this... but Rosie Larsen's death could've been avoided if only one or two people had made a single pivotal choice to be unselfish and let go of something they wanted really badly. That's the kind of thing that really works--tempt the player to grasp for something they desperately desire, and have it turn out well a few times, then bait them again and have it turn out badly. Identify what the player wants via the variables they choose or don't choose, and then have their choices come back to haunt them. 

Your bad choices haunting you is more meaningful than a sad twist of fate in which you had no input. The latter is passive, the former is not. Though the latter can be powerful, the former is more so, and when it's done right, the "GOoJF card" is not so appealing. 

I want the game to make me want to see where my bad choices take me. If that happens, I won't reload the consequences away. 

Maybe it would be interesting if I absolutely couldn't, for that matter. If getting a good outcome one time means that your card has been used and there's no way to stop something else bad from happening later, whereas taking the hit means that future thing never happens. Like the Ser Cauthrien choice, this may even be invisible to players.

Well, I'm going to play TWD pretty soon, so I'll comment on that later. I'm interested, definitely.

Modifié par Wynne, 10 décembre 2012 - 02:17 .

[Realmzmaster]

I beleive that Bioware missed a good opportunity in the Ser Cauthrien fight in the Arl of Denerim's estate. There should have been a possibility of accidentally killing Anora in the battle. The warden would then be accursed of murder of the Queen.

The warden's task was to rescue and protect the queen not engage in an all out battle with Ser Cauthrien.

Bioware allowed the party to be able to defeat Ser Cauthrien and party so as not to appear lame. The forces unleashed to kill Ser Cauthrien and party should have left the queen in a very dangerous situation. You hear of party mages casting Blizzard and Tempest to create Storm of the Century. Where is the queen in all this devastation?

Many on the forum railed at not being able to save Hawke's mother. By the time all that remains occurs it is impossible to save Hawke's mother from her fate. The operation has already been performed and the only thing keeping her alive is Quentin's magic.

No one in your party knew anything about Quentin's research so did not have the ability to keep her alive. If Hawke has Anders in the party he will say there is nothing he can do because Quentin's magic was keeping her alive.

Some say that Hawke could have warned his/her mother about the danger which is fine. It still does not stop her from making her visit to her brother as she has done many times before. Do you really believe that a grown women is going to let her child tell what she can or cannot do? Or would it make gamers feel better that they tried to warn her?

What makes a hero? If in the Anora situation the queen dies does that make the PC a hero? The only reason that the warden can be a hero is because Bioware gave Anora plot shield. She could not die.

The only way true angst can hit the PC is if it is based on decisions made say in Act 1 that come to roost in Act 2 or 3 so there is no way of undoing the decisions unless the gamer wishes to replay many hours. That would also probably ****** off a great many players. This could be mitigated by dropping clues or hints that the PC made a choice that he/she will regret along the way.

[TheRealJayDee]

MichaelStuart wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Wouldn't work.
I can't feel sorry for stuff that happens to a fictional character.

Please try playing The Walking Dead game and tell me if your statement stands.

OK

[Zardoc]

Meh, seeing how you are gonna be an all powerful character, I don't think that's gonna happen.

[David7204]

Shepard is absolutely not a Mary Sue. And since Shepard is much more of a hero than the Warden or Hawke, I am incredibly doubtful that they are either.

'Lose-lose' outcomes in video games overwhelmingly happen for one of several reasons:

#1. Characters are stupid, selfish, or petty. The 'Blades vs. Greybards' choice in Skyrim is a prime example of this. This really cripples a lot of the drama for me because I stop caring about what happens to such characters. Why I should care about a world full corrupt, incompetent, and unlikeable characters?

#2. The protagonist is helpless. This is something Mass Effect does an outstanding job of averting. There are plenty of other games where there's a very obvious argument that the player can't bring up, or a course of action the game doesn't allow. This can sometimes work if the story makes it clear the protagonist is in over his head. But if the narrative treats the protagonist as a hero and his actions and the story point otherwise...that's not good.

3. Choices are not meaningful. Choices are one thing. Meaningful Choices are another. If a choice has an outcome that wasn't foreshadowed and the player could never have reasonably expected at the time, it's not even really a choice. It's just a dice roll. Why even bother to think and consider your options when the outcomes have no tie to the choice? Having one or two of these in a game is fine, such as the Tenpenny Tower quest in Fallout 3. But any more then that is seriously pushing it. It's not fun. It's not mature. It's not 'more realistic.' It's frustrating. And it's poor writing.

Modifié par David7204, 10 décembre 2012 - 02:53 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Wynne wrote...

The problem is, for there not to be a get out of jail free card doesn't make it more interesting either, and on top of that, it takes our choice away.

Then we agree that whether it is meaningful and interesting is less affected by whether or not there is a choice involved?


It's one thing to say you want more choice (more content is typically never considered bad) in how you respond, or things that lead up to it, or even the ability to go to people and say this is a concern. You can provide all those options and choices whether or not Leandra could be saved.

Frankly, though, I like the idea that not everything works out the way that I would like it to. For some that isn't acceptable (the type that feel if they put in the effort to prevent it, it should be preventable, or they wasted their time), but as a gamer I am perfectly okay with that.

For me, choice lies with what I intend the character to do. That the realities of the world presented in front of me don't allow that to happen is still okay for me.

[Direwolf0294]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

For her death to have really meant something, there had to have been a way to save her.

I disagree with this concept. I won't begrudge anyone that feels that Leandra's death didn't resonate with them (I think that's perfectly fair, and I'd say that BioWare is likely not the only entity that has failed to make an emotional event click), but for there to be a get out of jail free card doesn't make it more interesting IMO.

All it does is turn Leandra's death into a failure metric for the player. You could have saved her, but since you choose poorly, you couldn't. This is somewhat mitigated if done in a way that saving Leandra requires the death of someone else (or some other entity), but ultimately that still means the player is forced to make some sort of unwanted choice.

Player agency does NOT have to mean "the player can drive the narrative in whatever way the player wishes." Even the examples you use, Virmire and Rannoch, are still situations that are forced (although Rannoch does allow a get out of jail free card. Virmire does not). One of Ashley or Kaiden are forced to die. For people like me (that preferred Ashley and Kaiden over the other party members), it's a great choice. If anyone finds one of Ashley or Kaiden annoying, it's a trivial choice with no real impact.


I don't want to indicate any spoilers, but The Walking Dead is the only game that has ever successfully made me cry, and it involves a plot point that ultimately forces the player down a particular path. No amount of metagaming or hindsight knowledge can have the player avoid it. Despite this, it's probably one of the most emotionally engaging (and I suppose overwhelmingly so) endings I have ever experienced.

As such, I think there's a different element that is important rather than simply the idea that it's forced.

I'm glad you brought The Walking Dead because I was going to bring it up in response to your post. What The Walking Dead does exceptionally is the illusion of choice, and this comes off best when it comes to certain characters deaths. There's always the feeling that you could have saved someone if you made a different choice. If you had of argued harder, if you hadn't of lied that one time, if you went left instead of right. Whether the game would actually let you save them or not doesn't matter, the idea that you could have saved them is what makes their deaths so meaningful and emotional. 

Now sure, with meta gaming you might go through a game making perfect choices, never losing anyone. That could be because you read about it before hand, are replaying the game or you simple reload a save after a bad choice. That's all fine, but a narrative should never be written around meta gaming. You should never write a situation involving a character death thinking, "oh, I have to write this in a certain way because someone may replay the game or otherwise know the possible outcomes of this situation. I can't make it possible to save this character, because someone may know it's possible to save this character when they reach this point". Some gamers are going to meta game and that's their right, but a lot aren't, and you have to realise that you're going to be able to craft a much deeper and more emotional story if you don't write with meta gaming in mind.

Mass Effect 2 is a good example of this. One of, if not the, most emotional scenes for me in Mass Effect was when my Shepard arrived at the Collectors base to find that her crew had already been killed, that she'd go their too late. This was crushing for me. I had no idea whether it was possible to save them or not, I had no meta knowledge of the situation, but the game made me believe I could save them and that I failed to was crushing. Of course I later learned why I failed and that I could save them, and on a replay through the game I did save them all because I wanted a perfect playthrough, but that doesn't change just how emotional that first playthrough was. ME2 was written without meta gaming in mind and as such it was the best Mass Effect in the series. Going by BioWare's new philosophy of writing with meta gaming in mind and no happy endings, ME2's ending would have been Shepard arriving at the Collectors base and being forced to make an A, B, C decision over which team mate died with no way to save them all. It would have felt forced and it would have lacked the same level of emotional impact as the way it was originally written.

[FaWa]

Lenimph wrote...

Did that not happen in DA2 with Leandra's death? It certainly worked for me...

That was more a fun moment tbh. It was sadistic, crazy, and entertaining, but not sad. 

Sad deaths would be Virmire, Warden doing ultimate sacrifice, etc

[BlueMagitek]

From my experience as a DM, one of the best way to crush a party is to give them an interesting, helpful NPC character (or, in some cases, a Kingdom; basically give them something that they will invest themselves in) and, because of their actions, break that character, or thing, or place. Force them to hold to their morals or break alignment to try and fix something.

Now, a game cannot really make those calls as according to each player that joins the game, and there's the pesky metagaming aspect we need to deal with. So, do we have equally sucky options? No, people would whine about it, regardless of how much sense they would make. Well, having a good/bad choice option tied to a morality system would also make people complain and doesn't really fit Dragon Age, regardless of how much sense it would make (Jade Empire >.> ).

Who are we going to target? Well, hopefully something of the PCs. So that includes:
Companions
Belongings
Friendly NPC with some connection to the PC

Well, the easiest target would be the companions, but we can't really make it static, or else the players will metagame to avoid that character. And if we just have it set up on relationship values, they may just romance someone they don't like and leave them in an awful state as they move on. Players can be monsters to fit their own views, after all. Alright, in that case, we should attempt to target the PC's confidant. We can set up special convo choices that locks one in (cannot be replaced) and have that character tortured in order to extract info about/on/surrounding the PC. Give him back with a butchered family and a shell of himself. The attitude of the player doesn't really matter when it comes to our own AI.

Belongings.... ugh,nothing gets players more annoyed than breaking the treasure. But then they don't show up next game. And it usually feels forced in a game... how about we offer some sadistic choice between an NPC or location important to the player and his belongings? No "let's attack the bandits" to get out of it, have some bloodmages involved, who have thralled the NPCs and won't release it unless the PC submits. Otherwise, the PC keeps his stuff and then the NPCs are forced to kill themselves in front of him. Sure, some sadistic players won't care, but it should hurt most of them.

As for friendly NPCs... really, betrayal gets old, especially from female characters. However, what is used not as often is to have the NPC attempt to help the PC. Let them succeed at this. It'll be a worry at first, having the player rush to the mission to see the NPC actually accomplished his goal. And then have the backlash from the mission kill the NPC. The NPC took on a mission to clear out some bandits? Well, the bandit chief put out a hit on him and unlike you, he doesn't automatically wake up combat ready when a hostile creature comes by.

Such is life~

[JamieCOTC]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Wynne wrote...

The problem is, for there not to be a get out of jail free card doesn't make it more interesting either, and on top of that, it takes our choice away.

Then we agree that whether it is meaningful and interesting is less affected by whether or not there is a choice involved?


It's one thing to say you want more choice (more content is typically never considered bad) in how you respond, or things that lead up to it, or even the ability to go to people and say this is a concern. You can provide all those options and choices whether or not Leandra could be saved.

Frankly, though, I like the idea that not everything works out the way that I would like it to. For some that isn't acceptable (the type that feel if they put in the effort to prevent it, it should be preventable, or they wasted their time), but as a gamer I am perfectly okay with that.

For me, choice lies with what I intend the character to do. That the realities of the world presented in front of me don't allow that to happen is still okay for me.

I do too and that’s why Thessia in ME3 should have been great, but it wasn’t because we had little to no impact on that mission. Back to Leandra, I understand what you are saying, but had there been some choice, save the mother or save a sibling, save the mother or get the killer, etc I think I would have been more engaged in the story. I understand we are dealing w/ two forced choices, but they are still choices. Say it is a choice between Leandra and Bethany, the one who is saved is going to hate Hawke guts for that. So ultimately it’s kind of a lose/lose situation or could be. The point is there is a choice that engages the player. It’s not just leading the player down the garden path and then bam.  I can get that from a movie. I would rather not have that in a game.

I understand why you (BW) killed Leandra and drove off the sibling, to get the Champion alone. They have (depending on your choice) friends and maybe even lovers who feel like a new family, but ultimately, like all heroes, the champion is alone. One of the things I love doing at the beginning of the third act is to go kill the dragon alone. Maybe bring the dog. But killing the dragon solo drives home that fact that Hawke is alone more than anything else in the game. Then at the end, Hawke does reconnect w/ brother or sister, say her goodbyes, etc to her friends and it then brings the game full circle. Hawke started w/ a family and she ended w/ a family. 

Anyway, thanks for the reply. I do appreciate you taking the time to post here very much.

[Solmanian]

I don't like it. Half way through the game, everything you worked for is erased? It means that you just wasted atleast 5-10 hours for no good reason. For some people it would be "break the player" not he "break the PC", and they'll just abandon the game.

I much rather a game where you're the underdog, facing insurmantable odds, going from one unwinnable scenario to the next (like ME3's leaving earth, and visiting the devestated palavan and thessia). That makes the few times that you do win, that much more precious and importent.

[Solmanian]

In the murder of Hawke's mom, I don't think the player should've been allowed to stop it. What's more interesting: The time batman stopped the joker for the Nth time, or how batman reactswhen the joker killed robin? We define ourselves by our failures, our regrets, because they cut the deepest.