245 réponses à ce sujet

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Ukki wrote...

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".

It was a difficult choice for me the first time. Most other playthroughs I picked Ashley because I found myself liking Kaidan less and less with subsequent playthroughs. He's a dullard of the same class as Carth Onasi, which is oddly appropriate considering the voice-actor those characters have in common; Kaidan is only slightly more interesting than Jacob Taylor.

I don't think it's always as easy as picking the one you're romancing. I have a female Shepard I am currently playing in ME1 that is romancing Liara. I'm literally going to leave the decision down to the flip of a coin.

What I'm trying to say is that I like Live and Die decisions like the one I mentioned or like the ones presented to players in the Walking Dead. Now I'll just wait for someone to disagree with me about those choices in the Walking Dead and to go on about how they're shallow because we don't really get to know the characters...

Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 23 janvier 2013 - 10:36 .

[Fast Jimmy]

For what its worth, I think game length has a huge impact on player choice. Let me explain.

Old Pen and Paper games (PnP for us old timers) were always viewed as one of the pinnacles of this, where a DM could change their plans or the possibilities on the fly, tailoring the experience to the whims of the player. This is, obviously, not possible for video games. But one portion of PnP games is often overlooked - the time between sessions.

A DM did not (well, usually) have dozens or even hundreds of hours of material at the ready. Usually, a session would last a few hours and then the session was over, where the DM had time to set up for the next campaign, based on events that happened in the previous session.

A game developer has, in the past, developed content for a 50+ hour game and sold it, having to navigate through possible choices like a mine field in the game itself. This means that the time for feedback and changes between when the player makes a choice and then the developer gets a hole of it is pretty large.

Lets take a look at TWD games now, which many have mentioned in this thread. These games are episodic content, where the developer gives the player about 10 hours (sometimes more, sometimes less) that have very difficult choices. As others have pointed out, these choices wind up meeting in the middle in future episodes, but color reactions and outcomes in different ways.

Now, imagine instead that TellTale hadn't released the games as episodic, but instead as one large game. Would the fact that choices in the first few hours get totally nullified in the next few seem like a good representation of choice? Or would it have been called railroading? And, without the fan feedback between choices and the chance to assess fan reaction, would the team be able to craft content in relation as well or as effectively?

My point being that, just like with PnP games, where the DM has to take inventory and reset the stage to follow events that happened in the most recent (short) session, game makers that have episodic content may have a significant advantage over developers who try to make huge, far reaching, epic, long games.

That being said, I don't think (or want) DA3 to be episodic, nor do I want choices stymied. Maybe all I am saying is that I would be very interested in a Bioware developed IP sold as episodic content and which was driven by choices, choices that would be followed up on in deep detail.

[Dragoonlordz]

EntropicAngel wrote...

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. 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).

I apologize, I had to go to a class.

No, they are not. Now, please note my profile picture--I don't hate them. But they are not true RPGs in my opinion.

I disagree that any choice inherently implies an outcome. I think we connect dots where the dots might not actually lead. I think we think up consequences when there likely is not one set in stone, in response to a choice.

The choice has nothing to do with the consequence. It has nothing to do with the outcomes. What I say is hyperbole, but I believe it is fairly accurate: I don't choose something based on the outcome. I choose something because I believe in the choice.

Now, even if I DID choose something because of the outcome--I don't know the outcome. If I knew beforehand, I might change, but I don't. Your character is in this position every time you play Redcliffe. Your character has NO idea that they can run to the Circle without the demon continuing its rampage. It doesn't matter what outcome there actually is, because the outcome that your character believes will happen, as I mentioned is projected in our minds, is what causes them to make their choice.


And I disagree on Skyrim, unless you're talking about a specific instance. I don't recall any particularly famous point of choice, where they gave you the other one you couldn't get. I recall the Companions, the Dark Brotherhood, the Thieves' Guild, the Mages' Guild--more specifically, being able to be in charge of every one of them at the same time.

I will admit I exaggerate when I say Skyrim is "not an RPG." If you ever see me say that, know I'm engaging in hyperbole for the sake of making a point. There are a few instances, like in the DB when you can [SPOILERS] kill Cicero or kill your family. [END] But by and large it can only be considered a "lite" RPG.

It does not matter whether you choose because believe has an outcome. All choices in games have outcomes also known as consequence even if do not believe it. Choosing a skill has an outcome of change to skills, choice of equipment has outcome of new appearence or stats. Choosing a dialogue option has an outcome even if reply remains same you said something different based on your choice. Choosing direction take also has outcome of different path taken meaning different appearence of where you are along way even if end up same place.

No game gives you a choice without consequence outside of broken mechanics like faulty programming of the logic gates. When a game does not give you a choice like FF if does not have a dialogue choice system then no choice was made so no consequence for choosing (a consequence occurs as canon instead) but all choices have consequences whether minor or major. Everything else is just headcanon or canon. You might not chose it based on knowing the consequence but you do have a consequence regardless of if knew about it prior to making that choice.

So if like canon consequences then FF seems fun. If don't then it is less enjoyable. No game ever offers the player choice without consequence therefore will never matter whether you chose it because knew the outcome or did not, the fact you were offered a choice at all is because it has a consequence outside of canon and headcanon. The exception as mentioned is when a programming error has occured in which the logic gate fails due to poor programming. You are not offered a choice to give you alternative headcanon, you are being offered a choice because there is a consequence "in game" of that choice whether realise it or not and regardless of whether you like it or not.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 janvier 2013 - 10:27 .

[Beerfish]

There is a fine line between skillfully giving the player Grey choices and fooling them into doing something they did not intend to do and then doing a Nelson Muntz HA! HA! after they have been duped.

[Dutchess]

I agree that choices that promise to have certain consequences should indeed have those consequences. I think the best example would be the side quest "A magistrate's orders". When opting if I should kill Kelder or not, my doubt was mainly caused by the threat of having an angry magistrate as my enemy. Eventually I killed Kelder, returned to the magistrate, magistrate stomps off: "you'lll regret this". And nothing. Then I feel like my minute of pausing and thinking was wasted and that I've been duped.

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I will admit I exaggerate when I say Skyrim is "not an RPG." If you ever see me say that, know I'm engaging in hyperbole for the sake of making a point. There are a few instances, like in the DB when you can [SPOILERS] kill Cicero or kill your family. [END] But by and large it can only be considered a "lite" RPG.

Skyrim has more choices, and consequences then you let on. There's Paarthurnax fate vs The Blades, Barbas's fate, Sinding's fate, Silus's life vs acquiring Mehrune's razor, Erandur's life vs aquiring The Skull of Corruption, cleansing Azura's Star vs keeping the corrupted version for yourself, who you choose to kill to power up the Ebony Blade or start Boethiah's Calling, Muiri's revenge vs Nilsine, Your choice in suspects during the quest "Blood on the Ice", following Hadvar vs following Ralof, Stormcloaks vs Imperials effect on who's an Jarl, siding with Harkon vs Dawnguard,  Saadia's story vs Kematu's story, etc.

Then there's subtle ones like consequences of stealing in plain sight vs being hidden. There's also the skills you choose to level and where to allocate points, level grinding vs casual play, racial choices, being chaotic vs neutral vs lawful, stealth vs direct combat, marriage, your choice in joining or avoiding a guild, and to enter newly discovered locations vs avoiding them. 

Even though i didn't post all the examples in the game this clearly shows me that the labeling of  Skyrim as rpg lite is reaching.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 23 janvier 2013 - 10:23 .

[Celene II]

Oh please dont make this game's story mechanics anything similar to the walking dead.

Yes, i know 8 million episodes were purchased and it got a 8 to 9  out of 10 rating but  it was a lucky strike, a bolt that will never be repeated.

Its odd structure and episodic content plus its television roots created a perfect storm that wont work for DAI


Choice without conseuqences is meaningless, that does not mean that ever choice has to have a dark consquence.

Maybe every choice can have multiple consequences and you can avoid some of that darkness

[DarthPig]

zsom wrote...

I think the freedom to have our character act as we like even without constant feedback from the game world is much more important.

This

[Dave of Canada]

Celene II wrote...

Choice without conseuqences is meaningless, that does not mean that ever choice has to have a dark consquence.

Every choice has to have some negative to it. Any choice which has "win" or "lose" written all over it means it's not much of a choice.

There's plenty of games which serve the whole role of the hero triumphing over the odds, we need more story-telling which confronts the player and forces them to make a choice. They might learn something about themselves.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 24 janvier 2013 - 07:48 .

[AlexanderCousland]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...


It was a difficult choice for me the first time. Most other playthroughs I picked Ashley because I found myself liking Kaidan less and less with subsequent playthroughs. He's a dullard of the same class as Carth Onasi, which is oddly appropriate considering the voice-actor those characters have in common; Kaidan is only slightly more interesting than Jacob Taylor.

My guy Jake had moxy, Kasumi' s a cool chick and she wanted him. 

He' s better then companions like Zev or Aveline 

but i agree, the choice mattered to me.

[Xilizhra]

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

Gold doesn't tarnish, it's one of its defining characteristics.

[AlexanderCousland]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Every choice has to have some negative to it. Any choice which has "win" or "lose" written all over it means it's not much of a choice.

There's plenty of games which serve the whole role of the hero triumphing over the odds, we need more story-telling which confronts the player and forces them to make a choice. They might learn something about themselves.

There should be choices that result in Failure, There shouldn' t be choice' s that end in Failure regardless of what you choose. 

[74 Wrex]

It would be great if the choices actually impact the game better than DA 2 and ME 3
I would also love if the game had many good and bad outcomes because of your choices

[Dave of Canada]

FreshIstay wrote...

There should be choices that result in Failure, There shouldn' t be choice' s that end in Failure regardless of what you choose. 

Failure states shouldn't be the result of one choice but the result of your previous choices. Refusing to resort to blood magic, refusing to enslave mages to serve the dwarves in exchange for lyrium and refusing to raise the dead should leave your mage fighting force ill-equipped for battle and you'd lose the battle.

[AlexanderCousland]

Dave of Canada wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

There should be choices that result in Failure, There shouldn' t be choice' s that end in Failure regardless of what you choose. 

Failure states shouldn't be the result of one choice but the result of your previous choices. Refusing to resort to blood magic, refusing to enslave mages to serve the dwarves in exchange for lyrium and refusing to raise the dead should leave your mage fighting force ill-equipped for battle and you'd lose the battle.

I can  agree, to an extent. In terms of grand scheme yes, interpersonal character choices (companions etc.) no.

[In Exile]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Failure states shouldn't be the result of one choice but the result of your previous choices. Refusing to resort to blood magic, refusing to enslave mages to serve the dwarves in exchange for lyrium and refusing to raise the dead should leave your mage fighting force ill-equipped for battle and you'd lose the battle.

It's hard for games to do that without segregating gameplay/story. In ME3 it makes sense in that the power gap between Shepard and an actual reaper is obvious. But if it's just a large army, well, it's hard to be convincing about it. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Every choice has to have some negative to it. Any choice which has "win" or "lose" written all over it means it's not much of a choice.

I'll agree that choices where the outcome is obvious aren't very interesting, but I wouldn't suggest this means that all outcomes need to have downside.

I still think the third option in Redcliffe was brilliant, not because it was an unmitigated win, but because it was an unexpected result.  No one but an absurdly blind optimist would look at that situation and think that going to the tower to find help, leaving the possessed boy behind, was a good idea.  But it worked out.  That's terrific.

I'd also enjoy it if one outcome looks like an obvious win-win, alongside other options with clear downsides, but the supposed win-win option actually turned out horribly.

Outcomes shouldn't always be predictable from an in-character perspective.

There's plenty of games which serve the whole role of the hero triumphing over the odds, we need more story-telling which confronts the player and forces them to make a choice. They might learn something about themselves.

Unless they're making the choices in-character, in which case their own feelings are irrelevant.

[Pzykozis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Every choice has to have some negative to it. Any choice which has "win" or "lose" written all over it means it's not much of a choice.

I'll agree that choices where the outcome is obvious aren't very interesting, but I wouldn't suggest this means that all outcomes need to have downside.

I still think the third option in Redcliffe was brilliant, not because it was an unmitigated win, but because it was an unexpected result.  No one but an absurdly blind optimist would look at that situation and think that going to the tower to find help, leaving the possessed boy behind, was a good idea.  But it worked out.  That's terrific.
.

Really? I thought that was the obvious outcome from that, mostly because it was the obvious get out of jail free card choice, and I'm too cynical to believe it was actually going to bite you in the ass.

Besides the demon had showed little control when it came to direct confrontation and you'd already killed and burned all the dead stuff so there was little in the way of obvious danger anyway.

Then again I picked that choice the first time I was there since it just seemed like the win state and haven't really looked back sure the forcing lass to kill her son is hilarious and all but it's still the goofball choice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pzykozis wrote...

Really? I thought that was the obvious outcome from that, mostly because it was the obvious get out of jail free card choice, and I'm too cynical to believe it was actually going to bite you in the ass.

Because you didn't make an in-character decision.  Your character doesn't have your genre-savvy.  Your character doesn't know he's a character in a game.

Because I always play in-character, it never even crossed my mind to choose the third option in Redcliffe.  It just seemed like a terrible idea.  Also, some of my characters specifically wanted to punish Isolde, or teach her a lesson about consequences, rather than simply "win" (whatever that means).

Some of my characters would argue vehemently that saving Redcliffe at all was a waste of time, or a senseless risk that put all of Ferelden in danger.

[Wulfram]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Every choice has to have some negative to it. Any choice which has "win" or "lose" written all over it means it's not much of a choice.

If all choices have win written all over them in different ways, then that's still an interesting choice.

[Pzykozis]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]Pzykozis wrote...

Really? I thought that was the obvious outcome from that, mostly because it was the obvious get out of jail free card choice, and I'm too cynical to believe it was actually going to bite you in the ass.[/quote]
Because you didn't make an in-character decision.  Your character doesn't have your genre-savvy.  Your character doesn't know he's a character in a game.

Because I always play in-character, it never even crossed my mind to choose the third option in Redcliffe.  It just seemed like a terrible idea.  Also, some of my characters specifically wanted to punish Isolde, or teach her a lesson about consequences, rather than simply "win" (whatever that means).

Some of my characters would argue vehemently that saving Redcliffe at all was a waste of time, or a senseless risk that put all of Ferelden in danger.[/quote

Fair enough I did miss the in-character bit, but even from that standpoint as I said the demon doesn't seem to be all about the confrontation 'cause Connor just kind of has a mard on and all his zombie minions have been burnt and the like.