245 réponses à ce sujet

[Dutchess]

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.

I disagree, to an extent. I take the example of Kelder again. My doubts about killing him were mainly caused by my fear of retribution from his father the magistrate. When it turns out that that whole factor does not exist in the game, even when the game tried to make me believe it did when initiating the quest, I feel like my choice has fallen flat and loses its importance. 

[LinksOcarina]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Thankfully, The Walking Dead was evidence enough that a game doesn't have to be happy-happy to be successful. Perhaps this will mean the writers won't be afraid to punish the idealists and happy-go-lucky players.

See, thats the ironic thing, The Walking Dead is as much of a slave to the plot as any other game is, as the plot is fixed and the choices really don't matter much in the end of the season.

But the narrative changes regardless of the choices. So really it is a balance of stating when the narrative can slightly deviate, but when the plot has to bottleneck everything. Its a fine balance that, in my opinion no one has done right yet, but that doesn't stop games like Dragon Age, or Walking Dead, or Witcher to be sucessful. 

[vanom66]

mcsupersport wrote...

Having a 'Grey" game just because you think it plays better, Stinks and reeks of snobbish, I am better because I understand a more complex ideas than you, mentality. I play games for FUN, not for a statement on the Earth, or any real "Moral" issue associated with it or on it. If you want to play a "grey" game with all sorts of middle choices and social issues, fine, more power to you, but to sit here a demand that the Devs make it that way and it is somehow better is taking a bit on yourself. Personally I am all for MORE choices not less, so people get their "Grey", Light and Dark as they want. If you want to play a social deviant and mass murderer, then fine, it should be an option, just like me being able to play a moral upstanding "good" guy should also be an option.

And the idea that a game is more "powerful" or meaningful because it is dark or "grey" is stupid and old by now. How good or powerful writing is has more to do with the writing of the story and NOT how depressing or morally murky some one makes it. I personally am sick and tired of game and movie makers pumping out dark dismal stories just because they think it has more "statement" than something with a happier tone. Quite frankly it is a sign of laziness of writing and thought that prompts the hey...lets go dark and murky it is dramatic!!! instead of putting the effort into actually writing a decent story and let it tell the tale it's own way.


Now as far as choices go, sure make them mean something, but no reason to just make it bad to not let some one get a good ending just because.

this

[adam32867]

there should be some choices that are grey when they are presented but have an unforeseeable positive or negative effect down the road. so you could do something you perceive as good but it actual has terrible repercussions

[Fast Jimmy]

renjility 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.

I disagree, to an extent. I take the example of Kelder again. My doubts about killing him were mainly caused by my fear of retribution from his father the magistrate. When it turns out that that whole factor does not exist in the game, even when the game tried to make me believe it did when initiating the quest, I feel like my choice has fallen flat and loses its importance.

This is a good example and one that sticks out as one of the times that DA2 really failed to deliver the goods for me. A choice where, literally, everyone and everything is begging you to kill a dangerous psychopath (including said psychopath) except for one powerful official. And there is no effect either way to the game if you do make the choice of ending this danger and offending the noble or saving his life and earning the noble's gratitude (and the elves ire).

The consequence of killing was nothing other than an NPC shaking his fist at you. The consequence of sparing the killer was no further innocents hurt, or the revenge of the victim's family on our character, but just a 'life goes on."

I understand the concept of not every choice has to play out in a big way. But just like a choice shouldn't in most cases have a consequence that wasn't explained or anticipated, a choice should also not threaten consequence and then skirt over it without any sense of gravitas. It sets the stage for further development and does not execute.

[slimgrin]

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.

Hell, the writers themselves have difficulty understand why players would do certain decisions. I'm not holding out much hope for grey morality, just a thinly-veiled social commentary with little resolution.

Thankfully, The Walking Dead was evidence enough that a game doesn't have to be happy-happy to be successful. Perhaps this will mean the writers won't be afraid to punish the idealists and happy-go-lucky players.

The thread ends here. I can't see an argument beyond this.

...sorry Sylvius.

[Medhia Nox]

There weren't really any "deep" choices in The Walking Dead.

The very premise of it - is no different than: "You MUST defeat the Archdemon."

You are not given any choice to deviate.

What choices in particular made you question Lee's demeanor toward Clementine or anyone in the group? At what point did you say: "I may not know this guy as well as I think?"

Note: I am not saying this is bad - I believe grey morality is used to justify bad decisions by weak people.

[New Display Name]

I liked how grey the walking dead choices were, but I wished they made more of a difference.

[Dutchess]

I see your point, but the problem is that choices can't be made in a vacuum. Certain decisions should evoke a reaction from the world in which you made that decision. Trying to look past the action itself to the consequences it might have is also an important part of roleplaying, but when you never get that feedback, that part of roleplaying pretty much disappears. At least that is how I feel. I understand that a large part of roleplaying can be based on your own fantasy, but there is a limit to that. When only my mind is keeping track of all the choices I've and the game is ignoring it and happily carrying on, it starts to feel... meaningless. It's easy to be who you are when nobody knows you and nobody cares about what you do, but normally that isn't the case, so roleplaying should consist of choices made based on the character's morality, but also on the world's reaction to the character. Otherwise it's not complete.

EntropicAngel wrote...

You feel like it has fallen flat, metagaming. That doesn't matter to your character.

As far as I understand it, metagaming is playing with the knowledge of a previous playthrough. I'm talking about my experience within one playthrough, so I don't see how that is metagaming? Of course it matters to my character. My character made a decision and expected the consequences of that decision, but nothing happens. In a later playthrough I spared Kelder and handed him over to the guards and his loving father, this time expecting the benefits of a magistrate's gratitude, and again nothing happened after completing the quest.

[freche]

You didn't feel the decision was flat until you had metagaming knowledge.

[Fast Jimmy]

This is why Epilogue Slides which are considered non-canon are great. They can add impact and consequence and not need to be worried about in future games. If there was even a disclaimer when the endings are done stating "these epilogue slides are not considered true outcomes and will not be neccessarily imported to future games" then they can add all the consequence they want. At little expense, I might add.

In regards to the entire argument, I can understand the importance of choice in role playing a character, but I put more emphasis on more content/variability. If I make a choice, I love being able to go back in a future playthrough and see how a different choice changes how things play out if I made a different one. In fact, what I often do is figure out what choices I want to make on a subsequent playthrough and then create a specific character who would be the type to make those choices.

If the exact same content is offered for a choice, then that doesn't really do much for my enjoyment of variable content (which is to say, NO variable content).

So while choice can be used to explore a character, I like to go through that exploration on my first run through, but then plan ahead and craft a character who would do all the things (or at least some of the things) my first character would not. I don't meta game outcomes, but I do meta game my character's mindset so that they make certain choices. Which offers me a unique opportunity to create a character that is not conventional or something I would have come up with on my own (say, someone who is racist against elves, but is passionate about ending slavery for all races).

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 janvier 2013 - 03:53 .

[Fast Jimmy]

freche wrote...

You didn't feel the decision was flat until you had metagaming knowledge.

I disagree. I thought the choice was flat when the magister threatened me after I killed his son and then nothing ever came of it. The meta game knowledge that helping the magister and him promising me his aid which, in turn, didn't amount to anything either just cemented the already flat feeling. 

Again, as I said earlier, don't hint at impact and consequence if there is not going to be any. It's an anti-Chekov's Gun. The player waits for it right up until the end and when nothing materializes, it makes the end seem hollow. I would say all the lore in DA2 did this for me. I was hoping for a tie-in with the Band of Three lore, along with how much the game focused on Sundermount being a unique, powerful and strange place. I was waiting for some big reveal on these things, like little breadcrumbs leading to a piece in a large puzzle... but no, it was just Mage/Templar, which the game had beaten over your head time and time and time again with zero subtlety. 

Instead, Gaider said in an interview that the lore around Sundermount and the Engima of Kirkwall were nothing more than MacGuffins to explain all the blood Mages and demons. 

Again, it's anti-Chekov's Gun that makes things feel hollow when you see how the ending doesn't address things. It has nothing to do with choice and consequence. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 janvier 2013 - 04:03 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I despise "Chekov's Gun."

I despise "and out of nowhere, THIS is the point of the whole series!" <cough> <cough> ME3 <cough> <cough>

Good use of Chekov's Gun results in the player going "Whoa! How did I not see that coming earlier?" The way that DA2 did the Mage/Templar conflict, it made it seem like to me that it was TOO obvious, that they couldn't possibly be building up to that, because it was the focus of over the majority of side quests (and the fact that nearly evey quest felt like a side quest didn't help, either). 

Regardless, I think we are getting a little off track. Point being that choice does not require consequence, but on the other hand, many consider quality and replay value tied to divergent/variable content. So if this is not done via choices and their consequences, then how else should it be done?

[Fast Jimmy]

^

True. Although, aside from the Origins in DA:O, there wasn't much content based on your race/class/Origin (DA:O had more than DA2, but both were rather threadbare).

I'm a selfish role player. I want the most amount of flexibility possible when making and playing my characters, but also want lots of custom content that can change the experience (not just the viewpoint) of my character. If you can create THAT, then you reach a near infinite number of options, where the possible roleplaying viewpoints of a certain class (say, happy-go-lucky, heart-of-gold rapscallions rogue, or brutal, cold blooded assassin killer rogue) are coupled with lots of choices which can have very different experiences.

That way, you can not only change how you view certain events, but can change which events you see altogether. The same character with the same viewpoint can make two different decisions and then view the consequences through the same viewpoint. For instance, my above mentioned racist against elves but anti-slaver character could have just lost someone he loved recently. When offered a choice to help a slave "knife ear," the exact same character could be torn between compassion after feeling recent heartache, or a complete lack of empathy after the devastating event they just experienced. Same character, same believable reaction, but different events, events which could have consequences down the line.

When you couple the freedom of role playing opportunities with widely variable content, it creates a narrative (and replay value) shmorgasborg (sp?).

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 janvier 2013 - 04:32 .

[freche]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

freche wrote...

You didn't feel the decision was flat until you had metagaming knowledge.

I disagree. I thought the choice was flat when the magister threatened me after I killed his son and then nothing ever came of it. The meta game knowledge that helping the magister and him promising me his aid which, in turn, didn't amount to anything either just cemented the already flat feeling. 

My point was that the moment you knew nothing came out of it it turned into meta knowledge.
But I agree on that particular quest that I too would like to have seen some consequence depending on choice.

I don't think everything needs to have a consequence though. Not everything needs to be explaind and sometimes you get away with things you do.

But with that said I think there could be more consequences in BW games.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

shmorgasborg (sp?).

smörgåsbord or in english, smorgasbord.

[Fast Jimmy]

smörgåsbord or in english, smorgasbord.

Huh. Learn something new every day.

[esper]

freche wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

freche wrote...

You didn't feel the decision was flat until you had metagaming knowledge.

I disagree. I thought the choice was flat when the magister threatened me after I killed his son and then nothing ever came of it. The meta game knowledge that helping the magister and him promising me his aid which, in turn, didn't amount to anything either just cemented the already flat feeling. 

My point was that the moment you knew nothing came out of it it turned into meta knowledge.
But I agree on that particular quest that I too would like to have seen some consequence depending on choice.

I don't think everything needs to have a consequence though. Not everything needs to be explaind and sometimes you get away with things you do.

But with that said I think there could be more consequences in BW games.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

shmorgasborg (sp?).

smörgåsbord or in english, smorgasbord.

There IS a consequence, you get the first elven city guard ever which is pretty significant in its own non-significant way.
That only happens if Kelder is killed though.
Simply speaking the magistrate wasn't as meaning full as he would like to have us believe.

(Shrugs, but I wouldn't have minded it if they had made him send assassin after the party or something like that).