245 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'll be honest, I don't remember most of these. But sure. These things, story choices, would put it into the "lite RPG" category.

The reason why is because these are incredibly broad-sweeping choices. You saving Paarthurnax could be one of a dozen different reasons.

I'd say that's a strength of the game, not a weakness.  If the game forces you to do something for a specific reason, then the game is going to break a great many character designs.

I've complained extensively about a moment in DA2 where I tried to let some slavers go (because we'd completed our deal, they'd been very professional about it, and I thought they were actually quite nice people), and Hawke sneered at them as if they were the very personification of evil.  What?

Constraining the PC's motives for doing anything at all is an unequivocally bad thing.

Same for any one of the things you mentioned. But what really negates Skyrim's value as an RPG, for me, is the lack of dialog. Dialog is what defines the character, largely, not whether I choce the Stormcloaks or Imperials--because there's a whole myriad of reasons to do either. It's not very confining. Too broad, again.

My character is already fully defined from the moment I have to make even one decision regarding him.  Be it character creation, or how to interpret a line of NPC dialogue, none of that can happen without me having a full and perfect understanding of his mind: how he thinks, what he wants, what he likes, what his biases are, how he feels about literally any group I can imagine.  Everything about how his mind works is something I already know at the start of the game.

[Vaeliorin]

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.

I still argue that an intelligent Warden would have left at least a good chunk of his party behind to watch over Connor/Redcliffe while taking only himself (or a regular party of four, if perhaps you haven't done the Tower yet, though I usually have) off to the Tower.  The game, however, doesn't model this, and I find it very frustrating.  When there are obvious intelligent choices to resolve a situation but I am instead forced into acting stupidly or picking one of two "grey" choices without even the option to attempt a better option, I feel like the game has let me down.  Obviously DA supported the ability to have a split party (it happened during the final battle) so there's no reason you couldn't have had a split party in Redcliffe, and made those you left behind have to deal with a resurgence of the demon and her minions.

Anyway, on the topic at hand, I honestly don't care that much about consequences.  What's important is that I'm able to make choices that are in character, and even if those choices don't lead to different outcomes, while I'd be somewhat disappointed, I wouldn't feel that the game had failed.  Basically, different consequences for choices are, to me, a bonus, since the choice itself is what really matters.

[Celene II]

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.

So lets get this straight, i ask that they not include respec ability and people screamed at me for making them play my way

But when i say lets have ways to avoid negative consquences - no thats horrible story telling.

So which is it, you can or you cant demand that people play your way?

You can take your choices and make some bad, some good, some grey, but dont tell me that every decision has to be some shade of grey horror show so that the game is dark

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I still argue that an intelligent Warden would have left at least a good chunk of his party behind to watch over Connor/Redcliffe while taking only himself (or a regular party of four, if perhaps you haven't done the Tower yet, though I usually have) off to the Tower.

That's a good point.  Heading off to the tower, leaving Zevran behind to assassinate Connor should the need arise.

Clever.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
I still argue that an intelligent Warden would have left at least a good chunk of his party behind to watch over Connor/Redcliffe while taking only himself (or a regular party of four, if perhaps you haven't done the Tower yet, though I usually have) off to the Tower.

That's a good point.  Heading off to the tower, leaving Zevran behind to assassinate Connor should the need arise.

Clever.

I was thinking more leaving everyone except Alistair, Morrigan and Leliana behind to take care of any undead and keep Connor from causing trouble so that we'd have time to get to the tower and back without anyone else dying, but...sure, leaving Zevran behind to assassinate him works too, if you're playing a Warden who would do that.

It's like Virmire in ME...there's no reason you couldn't have whoever you didn't take with you to get Ash/Kaidan go get the other one, except people seem to magically disappear if they're not in your party.  It's a forced choice that makes no sense except for that fact they wanted to force you to make a choice for story reasons.

I'm almost tempted to make a thread asking them not to do that in DA3.

[Viktoria Landers]

leslie2233 wrote...

This is one of DA:O's weak points, there are too many variations and choices in the game with little difference in the consequences.

I still prefer it over DA2 where you have no meaningful choices over nothing that was happening all around you.

So if we want to put them in a row I would like them like this:

Bad: No meaningful choices
Average: Several meaningful choices but no real consequences about them
Good: Several meaningful choices with real consequences about them

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I see your point. But the problem there is a lack of PC definition within the setting (the game). A well designed RPG, in my opinion is one where, if someone watched you play the entire thing, could understand your character within the setting of the game, without you needing to explain things to them.

I don't see how that could work.  To me, most of the gameplay in an RPG is the decision-making process, and a third-party observer never gets to see that.

Simply watching the character act without knowing why he's doing what he's doing doesn't strike me as entertaining.  This is also a great description of what I thought playing DA2 was like - I saw Hawke do a lot of things, but I had no insight into why he was doing those things.

And, as an aside, I actually DON'T completely know my protagonist. I set a few base attributes, like their general demeanor and response to things, but that is very subject to change based on the events of a game--one character's demeanor completely changed over the course of DA:O.

Character growth is certainly possible.  People change.  I had one Warden who was both an abject coward and cripplingly shy.  He never made decisions on his own - always deferring to those around him.  He also never engaged in combat, instead hiding at the back.  But in the Fade, those options weren't available.  After several hours spend huddling in denial, he was forced to act outside his comfort zone, and this experience taught him that he can make decisions on his own.  Upon escaping the Fade, he took it upon himself to make decisions on his own and (childishly) reject criticism.  Lacking the relevant life experiences to do this well, however, he promptly got himself killed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

It works through dialog. Things like Varric asking, "So Hawke, when you fought that Ogre, what were you thinking?"

And if Hawke lies to Varric, what then?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 janvier 2013 - 11:51 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Character growth is certainly possible.  People change.  I had one Warden who was both an abject coward and cripplingly shy.  He never made decisions on his own - always deferring to those around him.  He also never engaged in combat, instead hiding at the back.  But in the Fade, those options weren't available.  After several hours spend huddling in denial, he was forced to act outside his comfort zone, and this experience taught him that he can make decisions on his own.  Upon escaping the Fade, he took it upon himself to make decisions on his own and (childishly) reject criticism.  Lacking the relevant life experiences to do this well, however, he promptly got himself killed.

Was this your character that was killed by Sten?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Was this your character that was killed by Sten?

Yep.

He was probably my most favourite character in DAO.

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'll be honest, I don't remember most of these. But sure. These things, story choices, would put it into the "lite RPG" category.

The reason why is because these are incredibly broad-sweeping choices. You saving Paarthurnax could be one of a dozen different reasons. Same for any one of the things you mentioned. But what really negates Skyrim's value as an RPG, for me, is the lack of dialog. Dialog is what defines the character, largely, not whether I choose the Stormcloaks or Imperials--because there's a whole myriad of reasons to do either. It's not very confining. Too broad, again.

I'm not following you when you say that the reasoning behind the Dragonborn's motives could be unknown to the player as they're basically the player's avatar in the verse. The reasoning behind your motives are wholly up to you.

Plus, even though there's few branching text options depending on the npc, Skyrim isn't lacking dialogue. 

[n2nw]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...
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.

I don't understand how any character
could pick it, actually--if they've not done the Tower's quest first,
that is. It's too much of a stretch.

My character picked it.   But I'm also the girl, knowing how much her DM brother loves Monty Python, still didn't want to attack the cute little rabbit (far under the ground, all alone, in a dungeon filled with monsters) because he might be friendly.

Some of us are just that hopelessly naive.  Good thing we're tough.

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's a good point.  Heading off to the tower, leaving Zevran behind to assassinate Connor should the need arise.

Clever.

The nonlogical (that is, emotional) side of you is showing again, Sylvius.

*snorts*  As if.

[esper]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And if Hawke lies to Varric, what then?

Then we assume some thing about the character that is not true. But no one lies all the time, and if they're telling some truth, it may conflict with the lie. Or, if they only tell lies, then (hopefully) at some point or another they will conflict with things in the game-world. And we learn that the character is a liar, either over a specific issue, or...ah, I can't remember the worl, the word for someone who lies all the time without being able to help it.

Isn't it compulsive liar or something like that?

But of course, there is also trying to break the game on purpose bioware can't predict all.

Modifié par esper, 26 janvier 2013 - 05:11 .

[esper]

EntropicAngel wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

I hate this thought process. Every choice has meaning, because the whole point is within the *choice* not the consequence. Of course, it's required at some point that consequence happens, it's only natural that by doing X, Y will occur. But Y doesn't *have* to occur for it to be meaningful. The only purpose consequences have for role-playing is a follow-up of more choices for further development.

Let me ask you this. What says more about your character? That you chose to kill an NPC, or that by killing that NPC, his shop closed down.

Exactly what i said.

It depens on what kind of choice it is, doesn't it?

I definitly don't think that every choice need a big branching content for every choice, if I spare someone I don't need to know their every life detail thereafter, nor do I need them to play an important role in later plot. Espically if they were just some mook. I simply saved them because killing them is out of character.

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I never said they were unknown to the player. I said they were too broad to be parsed down to a single, or one of a few, reasons by a watcher.

Who's the watcher?

Skyrim is definitely, definitely lacking in PC dialog.

More like the PC is lacking in expanded dialogue options, but the pc is still able to hold a convo despite it being bare bones.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 26 janvier 2013 - 10:35 .