245 réponses à ce sujet

[AppealToReason]

Jayne126 wrote...

AppealToReason wrote...

But then people will complain that every choice that isn't butterflies and rainbows isn't legitimate and was a waste of time.

So they make choices like that. 2+2=4 and so does 1+3=4.

Then if they make a choice where one side is red with positives+negatives and the other is blue with negatives+positives like the boards cry for right meow, when they are presented with that decision they want the purple one where its all positives and no negatives because Biower sucks all the butts for not including that.

[zsom]

Funny thing is, I agree with your post, but not with the title. I would not mind some grey choices as long as it's not too cheesy like save your companion or save a random NPC who will be very important to the overall plot. However I don't think that every choice needs to have a very visible consequence.
If you look at older RPGs like BG or PST you will find tons of minor choices which didn't really result in much. You either saved one minor NPC or killed him, you sided with one faction or the other, but the outcome didn't affect the rest of the game. You got +1 in reputation or you received a different item, but the rest was essentially the same. And this is fine because it lets you set the tone of the game, which can be different if you play a paladin or an assassin. People seem to think that unless you get a branching story line for every major choice, or unless is at least referenced later on in the game, you choice becomes invalid. I think the freedom to have are character act as we like even without constant feedback from the game world is much more important.

[Dutchess]

I believe DA2 was Bioware's attempt at grey, and unfortunately they didn't pull it off very well. So I'd say Bioware can better stick with the easier "black and white" and let grey be done by CDPR.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Grey choices are too complex for many people and I don't intend to sound condescending, most people were raised on the "good guy vs bad guy" complex and don't understand than an antagonist can be something more than just evil or that sometimes the positives outweigh the negatives.

Is that supposed to be a shot at those who arent taken in by the "omg Loghain is so deep" crap? Personally I find it hard to believe that the masses are too stupid to understand the concept of "morally grey" and if we are indeed talking about Loghain here (even if you arent I am using Loghain as an example) the problem isnt people not understanding that sometimes bad things need to be done for the greater good but more Loghain's actions are completely illogical for someone who claims to be fighting for the greater good or doing what is in the best interests of his country.

Personally it isnt the intelligence of the masses I question but more the intelligence of those who make the claim that liking certain things is supposed to be an indication of their own intelligence.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

I like it when I'm presented with difficult choices, like deciding who lives and dies between two companions (Kaidan or Ashley in Mass Effect). I like being presented with a choice which is noble and selfless but may not have a long-lasting effect versus a choice which is ruthless but will put an end to the same problem while having a devastating immediate effect.

I'm fine with good vs evil choices in the right context. It makes sense in a Star Wars game like the first KOTOR. However, I did like the fact that Obsidian challenged our sense of traditional, simplistic Star Wars morality in KOTOR II by showing that acts of kindness can lead to suffering for those receiving the charity. So yes, I also like seeing unforeseen negative consequences for good acts and vice versa.

I am hoping that Inquisition is a rollicking good time. An epic and fun adventure that saves room for a good helping of darker elements. I don't want to be completely bummed out a la The Walking Dead, since Dragon Age, while having dark moments is still basically high fantasy with some bits of grimness thrown in for good measure; it doesn't have the pessimistic, cynical outlook of Michael Moorcock's Elric books, for example. Dragon Age has its moments of silly humour and whimsy, and I would never want to play a DA game completely lacking those touches.

[Wulfram]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...
However, I did like the fact that Obsidian challenged our sense of traditional, simplistic Star Wars morality in KOTOR II by showing that acts of kindness can lead to suffering for those receiving the charity.

I found that extremely contrived and annoying.

But I reckon it was probably Kreia screwing with peoples minds.

[xAmilli0n]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I VEHEMENTLY disagree with this.

Consequence is almost nothing.

Choice is an expression of your character. Choice is role-playing.

Consequence is...not. Consequence is not an expression of anything your character did, it is merely an expression of the game world reacting to your character. Not roleplaying.

While I am for consequences regardless of choice (and against golden choices in most cases), I agree.  Choice is a HUGE part of the role play experience.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Wulfram wrote...

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...
However, I did like the fact that Obsidian challenged our sense of traditional, simplistic Star Wars morality in KOTOR II by showing that acts of kindness can lead to suffering for those receiving the charity.

I found that extremely contrived and annoying.

But I reckon it was probably Kreia screwing with peoples minds.

Your entitled to your own head-canon, as we all are. She is a master manipulator, so you might be right.

She could have been screwing with peoples' minds, but she's still trying to illustrate a point.

I honestly thought Kreia, apart from being a great villain, was showing us that the philosophies of the Jedi and the Sith were both simplistic and short-sighted. The Jedi were fools for being overally moralistic and selfless and the Sith equally foolish for being immoral and selfish. The point she's trying to make, I believe, is that the will of the Force is not always clear and the universe is a complex and often cruel place. Up until the end, Kreia is truly a "Gray Jedi".

Your opinion is based on a valid view point, I just didn't find that aspect of KOTOR II annoying or contrived. I thought it added a depth to Star Wars that the series very rarely has.

Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 22 janvier 2013 - 07:18 .

[Sidney]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I VEHEMENTLY disagree with this.

Consequence is almost nothing.

Choice is an expression of your character. Choice is role-playing.

Consequence is...not. Consequence is not an expression of anything your character did, it is merely an expression of the game world reacting to your character. Not roleplaying.

I do tend to agree with this. I don't need every choice to change the driection of the game and merely making a choice is what role playing is about.

When choices do have consequences in game (and not all do) I would like that choice to matter some and not just be a "anything you pick is ok" thing. Nothing, in game, mattered in DAO unless you had a deep feelings about what form of mage or templar cannon fodder you had at the end. It would be nice if the chaos caused by the Behlen choice meant you got no dwarves for example. It too often feels like the designers are busy trying to validate everyone's choices by not having anything go "wrong" with any choice.

[Uccio]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

I like it when I'm presented with difficult choices, like deciding who lives and dies between two companions (Kaidan or Ashley in Mass Effect).

Thats not much of a choise, nor a difficult one. People always pic the one they are going to romance anyway. And I rather have some more complex choises such as after three separate decision through out the game someone may or may not die. I hated how ME went for the "one way, two styles to do it" style (paragon/renegade) and DA2 aped it, "one way, three styles to do it".

Modifié par Ukki, 22 janvier 2013 - 08:59 .

[Faust1979]

Sidney wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

I VEHEMENTLY disagree with this.

Consequence is almost nothing.

Choice is an expression of your character. Choice is role-playing.

Consequence is...not. Consequence is not an expression of anything your character did, it is merely an expression of the game world reacting to your character. Not roleplaying.

I do tend to agree with this. I don't need every choice to change the driection of the game and merely making a choice is what role playing is about.

When choices do have consequences in game (and not all do) I would like that choice to matter some and not just be a "anything you pick is ok" thing. Nothing, in game, mattered in DAO unless you had a deep feelings about what form of mage or templar cannon fodder you had at the end. It would be nice if the chaos caused by the Behlen choice meant you got no dwarves for example. It too often feels like the designers are busy trying to validate everyone's choices by not having anything go "wrong" with any choice.

yeah I know that was annoying about Dragon Age, your choices didn't matter much and they are afraid of punishing the player for the choices they make.  What's the point of killing Conner or letting the wife give her life to save the kid when it leads to the same result? there is a short scene then it acts as if nothing happened.  Taking the easy route shouldn't always end up being the best thing to do

[AlexanderCousland]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

yeah I know that was annoying about Dragon Age, your choices didn't matter much and they are afraid of punishing the player for the choices they make.  What's the point of killing Conner or letting the wife give her life to save the kid when it leads to the same result? there is a short scene then it acts as if nothing happened.  Taking the easy route shouldn't always end up being the best thing to do

But the point is, none of that matters to your character.

At Redcliffe, your character has no clue what each choice will entail. S/He has no clue that you can run to the Circle, do that whole quest, and thus save "Teeeegan whoo eeees theees!"

None of that matters for role-playing purposes. Thus, consequence is (nearly) meaningless.

Try reprashing "None of that matter' s to your character" to "none of that matter' s to me".

It certainly matter' s to alot of people for RP purposes, It' s one of the many choices you make that have in game results, The fact that epilogue slides arent playable or cinematic doesnt mean there wasnt any consequences.

Id rather make a choice that has some sort of consequence, rather than simply make a choice, I could watch a movie for that.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Consequences ought to reflect the gravity and importance of the choice. In this sense, the aim of the game is simulation and internal consistency. You cheapen the choice if you present a choice, then afterwards, don't offer adequate and appropriate consequences to their choice in a way that makes the lack of divergence apparent.

IMO, it's a matter of keeping the right scope for the choices and quests you give the player in order to manage the scope of the consequences so that it doesn't break the overarching narrative if you don't intend on pulling a Witcher 2 type divergence. It's one thing (amongst many others) that the Fallout, Arcanum type games get right.

But giving the player big, world altering choices on a constant basis is something a lot of games do to make the player feel super duper awesome.

Surprised to see your opinion on this subject though, EA. I mean, isn't that Skyrim's approach? Let "roleplaying" and imagination define the experience rather than defining it with the consequences of the choices we're given.

i.e Skyrim's approach is to joining the guilds/factions as opposed to say, how Morrowind or Daggerfall approached it.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Out of curiosity, are JRPGs not RPGs to you, then?

I agree that limitations help frame and define roleplaying, but think - how else are limitations applied? By the consequences of the choices you're given whether that's a dialog choice, or through a gameplay mechanic. By providing a choice that implies different outcomes, then failing to provide it, you provide a non-choice.

You are given a choice between a Sword of Awesomeness and a Mace of Epicness. You choose the Sword, but then you're handed the Mace later anyway - the game wanted you to have both weapons. Dulls the choice since you know it doesn't matter. It's exactly what Skyrim does, which made me curious as to why you support this approach (consequence is not importance, the choice is).

Modifié par CrustyBot, 23 janvier 2013 - 04:22 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

CrustyBot wrote...

Out of curiosity, are JRPGs not RPGs to you, then?

(I agree that limitations help frame and define roleplaying, but think - how else are limitations applied? By the consequences of the choices you're given whether that's a dialog choice, or through a gameplay mechanic.)

JRPGs are Action-Adventure games with RPG elements. Eh, what's their difference with Mass Effect franchise then?! 

A masterpiece RPG offers two or three different paths after the prelude till the middle of the game then there will be different consequences onward and different appropriate endings at the end.

Modifié par Legatus Arianus, 23 janvier 2013 - 04:26 .

[Dragoonlordz]

There are different choice systems whether thats choice in skills, stats, dialogue or actions.

The different systems using different levels of consequence but they all have a consequence.

Even when pick a dialogue option with two different VO speaches even though end up with same reply, that is stilla consequence of the choice. How you spoke was the consequence in that situation. A very minimal consequence compared to a consequence resulting in action instead of words. People buy certain games based on what sort of system they have and Biowares games all have many systems such as that of which without it many people probably would not be so eager to buy them. All choices lead to a consequence whether minimal or major even if you do not realise it does not mean does not happen. The only time such does happen is when there is programming error or glitch in which the logic gate is broken. Some games do not have certain choice systems such as FF does not have dialogue system in place while DA does but FF does have other choice/consequence systems such as skills and equipment.

Again (imho) there is no such thing as an RPG genre in reality, just RPG elements that are attached to other genres which predominantly tend to be the action/adventure genre but lately has been happening more and more having RPG elements attached to other genres for example sports titles. Some people prefer to think is a genre but cannot define it because outside of "your are playing a role" you just end up with requiring the use of such RPG elements to back it up how it would be different to other genres in which play a role too. What difference between Super Mario Bros and Super Mario RPG is just the inclusion of some RPG systems aka elements. Without which both are merely playing the role of Mario.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 janvier 2013 - 04:54 .

[wright1978]

Choice is what matters most in terms of my roleplaying but it isn't the only factor. Choice has to have different consequences, whether that's simply a difference in characterisation you get by being able to express your character through dialogue choice that doesn't effect the plot or a different quest result as a consequence of a choice. Bioware have generally done quite a good job of balancing depth of content, choice and consequences of choice imo.

[b09boy]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Instead of making every choice completely grey, it might be better to eliminate any "golden" choice (such as forcing the demon out of Connor by using the Circle's lyrium) and have choices which make sense in that situation and have some form of downside to each of them. It doesn't need to be morally grey, just have a consequence. It's still mostly happy. Tarnished gold, maybe? ;P

Pretty much this.  Bioware too often falls into the trap where the morally good choice has no negative repurcussions, making doing anything else downright evil for the sake of being evil.  This was a big problem throughout the Redcliffe questlines.  Sticking around to help Redcliffe doesn't have any negative effect, same as taking weeks of travel to fetch the mages, or refusing the Reavers.  I have certain characters who might make these choices, but they are also completely morally bankrupt.

I will say that things would have felt much better put together in the end if you got to act as something of a general during the final battle and actually determined what role your gathered troops would play instead of calling in a stream of reinforcements from one of four armies.  That would've added a much more interesting dynamic to your choices throughout.  But I suppose I shouldn't get into the what-if game too much else it becomes difficult to stop.

[beank]

As long as they get rid of the color x=good and color y=bad system, ill be fine. When you remove the label of good and bad, options become just that, options.

More consequences for actions is always a plus too. Not every option can have them, but the more you add the more though that people (i) put into the game.