245 réponses à ce sujet

[mickey111]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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?

Arkham Asylum was another good example. You're basically outright TOLD that there was a double by Quinn, and Batman fell for the dummy joker real early in the story so I totally did not expect to see something similar happen at the very ending.

[draken-heart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

He isn't here now, relax. I'm certain he'll answer you.

Say my name three times in the mirror and I will always appear!

draken-heart wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Not for my personal tastes, no, but again... that is a result.

I am talking more about consequences directly resulting from the Decisions themselves.

Alistair as King of Ferelden: The kingdom is more leaning on the diplomatic side of war
whereas
Anora rules: The kingdom is preparing for war with Orslais

More like: There are rumors that Ferelden might be preparing for war with Orlais and the Inquisitor has to cinvince Ferelden's ruler not to war, then you meet a steward who gives you a bunch of quests to help Ferelden's citizens and afterwards he talks to the king/queen and then you decided whether or not Ferelden need to go to war.

That's the long and short of it.

That wouldn't be bad. Not as good, detailed or impactful as setting canon, but it could make it feel like the decision of who you put on the throne wouldn't be that trivial.But that's more than we got at all (different NPCs who express different views based on a previous choice) in DA2, so its not like you are setting the bar low or anything. In DA2, it was either "you made this choice, so you get this fetch quest" or in the case of the queen/king, it resulted in an NPC arrive and say practically the exact same thing.

Regardless, I didn't want to get into another Save Import discussion (SHOCK! HORROR!). This thread has not mentioned Imported choices and consequences yet, so I'll not drag it into my personal agenda. I've already done that plenty last week.

I was talking about the more like part. Remove the NPC himself/herself, and then you get the consequences you want.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

More fidelity in terms of game economics would certainly be welcome. If a modder can make Skyrim's economy have a set value and amount of currency, I can't imagine it would be prohibitively difficult to have certain resource limits for money in a DA game. At least not a glitch in every game that can net thousands of sovereigns on command.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I know, I know... it was a violation of the USFEO (2013).

[Fast Jimmy]

I was talking about the more like part. Remove the NPC himself/herself, and then you get the consequences you want.

But I assume the steward would reflect the differing opinions? Or that the quests being done would vary depending on the ruler the steward was serving? If the rulers have (in theory) different goals and viewpoints, I would only assume they would have different problems to solve.

Having the same dialogue with the steward, the same tasks to carry out and only having the ruler be mentioned briefly or appear as a thirty second cameo would still be shallow.

Thinking of elaborate ways to create a small cameo doesn't make it better. But if you suggesting differing dialogue, different quests and comments to the effect that the world does actually feel different - read as custom content for our imported choices - then, yes, that sounds good. I'm just not holding my breath for custom content.

But this is all way off topic. If you want to fire up the Import discussion, just click the thread in my sig and make a post there. I'll be happy to hop on that merry-go-round again. As is, I won't be replying to Import comments in this thread.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This is different than the Connor/Isolde choice, where the third perfect choice required no work at all, but rather something you can work towards and sacrifice for.

That made the Connor choice less predictable.  I'd say that's a huge point in its favour.

[Dave of Canada]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dave, this would be a little more meaningful if it weren't coming from a renegade--one of the ones who seems to complain a lot about his way being "punished."

There's a difference between choices being punished and an entire playstyle being punished. The Mass Effect series was juvenile in the way is managed choices and consequences, they'd constantly praise the idealist who'd achieve everything while the pragmatic player was "punished" with less content and constant references of how their decision was the wrong one ("Oh, wouldn't things be better if X was still alive, right Shepard?").

Equality of consequences has always been a goal which I wanted prior to even Mass Effect 2. The player chooses what they wish to live with, they don't sit there and hope everything will work out just fine.

Thankfully, Dragon Age's sole problem with morality is throwing in third choices with invalidate the original choice.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This is different than the Connor/Isolde choice, where the third perfect choice required no work at all, but rather something you can work towards and sacrifice for.

That made the Connor choice less predictable.  I'd say that's a huge point in its favour.

I agree, it does seem like a huge gamble. I would have liked it more if there was some variability attached to it, where things could disastrously wrong if you went for the Circle, but other times things turned out great. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I would have liked it more if there was some variability attached to it, where things could disastrously wrong if you went for the Circle, but other times things turned out great.

I'm of two minds about that.  On the one hand, I love randomness in the outcomes.  It would have a big impact on how the writers write the game, since they would need to allow for far more diversity in terms of how things can work out.

On the other hand, I don't like the idea of adding a feature simply to placate metagamers.  If you're not metagaming, the randomness literally doesn't matter (except, as mentioned above, in how it alters the writing process).

But, since I've previously opposed features designed solely to punish metagamers (because it's not BioWare's job to protect players from themselves), I must therefore support your call for randomness.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I would have liked it more if there was some variability attached to it, where things could disastrously wrong if you went for the Circle, but other times things turned out great.

I'm of two minds about that. On the one hand, I love randomness in the outcomes. It would have a big impact on how the writers write the game, since they would need to allow for far more diversity in terms of how things can work out.

On the other hand, I don't like the idea of adding a feature simply to placate metagamers. If you're not metagaming, the randomness literally doesn't matter (except, as mentioned above, in how it alters the writing process).

But, since I've previously opposed features designed solely to punish metagamers (because it's not BioWare's job to protect players from themselves), I must therefore support your call for randomness.

I'm not sure it would placate metagamers, honestly. It may rile them up. After all, if meta gamers can't look up in a guide online how to get the best possible endings, then what kind of stupid game is Bioware making, anyway?

But then again... maybe I'm crossing meta-gamers with power gamers.

I don't replay games often to get the rosiest outcomes. I replay to see different content, "good" or "bad." And within that search for content, I create some very unique and interesting characters to roleplay in pursuit of that content.

So, in light of that search, I'd feel kind of cheated if I "wasted" a playthrough and couldn't get to see the content I wanted due to a RNG scenario.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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>

Luckily, we're not limited to one or the other.

Chekov's Gun does not require that we foreshadow the ending.  Chekov's Gun requires that we not foreshadow things that don't occur (which, of course, means we're not foreshadoing them, but I speak of things that would entail foreshadowing should the eventual outcome have been different).

We can still avoid pulling a rabbit out of a hat without necessarily abiding by Chekov's Gun.  We can foreshadow multiple possible endings, and then have only one of them arise.  That's a blatant violation of Chekov's Gun (because we've foreshadowed false outcomes), but it still foreshadows the actual outcome.

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dave, this would be a little more meaningful if it weren't coming from a renegade--one of the ones who seems to complain a lot about his way being "punished."

There's a difference between choices being punished and an entire playstyle being punished. The Mass Effect series was juvenile in the way is managed choices and consequences, they'd constantly praise the idealist who'd achieve everything while the pragmatic player was "punished" with less content and constant references of how their decision was the wrong one ("Oh, wouldn't things be better if X was still alive, right Shepard?").

Equality of consequences has always been a goal which I wanted prior to even Mass Effect 2. The player chooses what they wish to live with, they don't sit there and hope everything will work out just fine.

Thankfully, Dragon Age's sole problem with morality is throwing in third choices with invalidate the original choice.

Idealism and pragmatism aren't necessarily opposed, and Renegade frequently runs off of idealism (generally speciesist and vindictive idealism, but idealism nonetheles). It's very possible for someone to be both an idealist and a pragmatist. Such is the essence of utilitarianism.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 29 janvier 2013 - 05:42 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

What would you (or Jimmy) say if I felt the same, except the opposite: I don't like the idea of removing a feature to placate metagamers?

That would absolutely not be acceptable.  That's the argument for save points, or limited resting.  Taking a feature away simply because some people abuse it (thus harming only themselves) is never okay.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That would absolutely not be acceptable. That's the argument for save points, or limited resting. Taking a feature away simply because some people abuse it (thus harming only themselves) is never okay.

I was actually talking about save imports.

Burn them all!


Wait, what are we talking about? Oh, right.

I don't think that removing the Save Import, as a feature, would be to placate anyone. If anything, it will cause way more rage than anything else. That being said, removing it isn't about placating my personal preferences, but to untie the hands of Bioware to deal with the consequences or outcomes of a prior game's story and even take them to a deeper level. Discussing how preserving the Anvil caused all kinds of interesting things for the dwarves, both good and bad, could make for a great plot to explore in a future game. But it's too resource intensive to be optional content for those who made that choice.

So it's a catch-22... the import lets everyone's choices carry over, but it lets none of these choices to be explored in depth. By respecting everyone's choices, we give an ocean's worth of coverage with only a kiddie pool's worth of depth. That, to me, isn't about meta gaming or about player choice, but about deeper story telling and exploring plot concepts we've already become invested in as players.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I have no objection to save imports, in and of themselves. I don't see their value at all, but nor am I harmed by others' use of them.

However, the existence of save imports constrains game design considerably. Developers are vilified for choices that are supported in one game, but not reflected in subsequent games or expansions (dead Warden in Awakening). As such, there are costs to the save imports that reach much farther than simple metagaming.

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

@Entropic Angel - 

You know I'm right.

<_<

[Arppis]

I hope they will make the choices more morally grey.

[Arppis]

Dave of Canada wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dave, this would be a little more meaningful if it weren't coming from a renegade--one of the ones who seems to complain a lot about his way being "punished."

There's a difference between choices being punished and an entire playstyle being punished. The Mass Effect series was juvenile in the way is managed choices and consequences, they'd constantly praise the idealist who'd achieve everything while the pragmatic player was "punished" with less content and constant references of how their decision was the wrong one ("Oh, wouldn't things be better if X was still alive, right Shepard?").

Equality of consequences has always been a goal which I wanted prior to even Mass Effect 2. The player chooses what they wish to live with, they don't sit there and hope everything will work out just fine.

Thankfully, Dragon Age's sole problem with morality is throwing in third choices with invalidate the original choice.

Well I agree with the moral choices being a bit too punishing for Renegades. But hey, they SHOULD have seen the effects of the choices miles away. I always picked up the option that seemed to drive my goal of unifying the galaxy under my banner vs the Reapers. And Paragon was usualy this path.

Wish some of the renegade options could have given more allies a bit more often thou. And I think the game shouldn't have punished the player for sticking to one of the sides.

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

<_<

Hey, as I said before, far more RPing going on in branch'ed dialog and story choices.

I wouldn't state that as an absolute as the Mass Effect series, and DA2 have what you mentioned to an extant, but the pcs are partially set characters which limits most of the rping involved with them. 

Modifié par The Hierophant, 30 janvier 2013 - 01:10 .

[Dave of Canada]

Basically, here's how I'd ideally like things.
The Protagonist--who in this case shall support the mages--is confronted with the fact that Templar are planning to invade the ill-equipped camp and slaughtering all the mages within. You're provided with ample time to prepare the camp and you can find nearby allies, influencing how prepare you are for the battle against the Templar.

Perhaps you're one of those who believes in mage freedom at any cost, you order the mages to commune with demons and summon them for the battle. Those civilians which were harassing the mage camp while it was under construction? They'd make good hosts, powerful soldiers if kept under control.

Maybe mage freedom is a priority but one which you don't necessairly believe has to be achieved at all costs, perhaps you try and trade with dwarves for lyrium and do their odd-jobs to empower your abilites rather than using blood sacrifices.

When the battle occurs, your preperation would stack up and influence how the battle goes. The pragmatist who empowered his mages with demons might be surprised when a few of them turn on their own, causing him to deal with them--despite how useful they were prior. The idealist might be woefully underprepared and deal with the Templar assault on multiple fronts as no-one can hold their own.

Perhaps the one who allowed the demons into the commoners as soldiers wins the battle but loses the trust of the commonfolk, causing him troubles down the line when he's trying to earn their trust. Maybe the idealist suffers many losses now but gains the sympathy of the people who see how far the mages will go to not prove the Templar right.

Would the player--upon hearing the horrorfied words of their love-interest and companions--begin to doubt their course of action and perhaps consider changing themselves? Could the idealist--who's confronted by their lover who doubts they'll ever be free--take a hard-stance to ensure freedom? Could the hardass--who's confronted by their lover who fears they'll never be at peace as they're proving the Templar right--show a gentler hand?

Personally, I feel the player must never feel comfort in their choice, always doubt. What if I had done X? What if Y was different? Could Z have been saved? It doesn't even have to be rubbed in your face either, a few throw-away lines by random mages mentioning the state of the war effort could go a long-way to make the player feel horrible ("Saw my mother the other day, she wanted to believe I wasn't with >Protagonist<. She tried to pretend otherwise after hearing the things he's done."). Mass Effect 3 should've done this.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 janvier 2013 - 01:31 .