168 réponses à ce sujet

[legbamel]

While I love the idea of knowing that any given quest might go horribly awry, the completionist in me begs that the random roll be set far, far lower than 50%. I want to see every single quest when I play. I might miss something! [glances around in horror]

I also like the idea of having a quest-giver with hidden motives that fools you into taking on something much deeper and murkier. Petrice was simply too sinister, to me, and her Templar guard gave away her devious nature too quickly. My Hawkes were never taken in by her but none of them could tell her where to stick her leash.

[SeptimusMagistos]

I'll answer this like I answer every other effort to make a game more irritating for the sake of realism:

No.

[schalafi]

The Merril mirror quest really had me fooled the first time I did it. I played through the whole thing, and was horrified at the ending. I see no value in a quest like that, especially since there was a bug in my game so I couldn't even talk to Merril at the end.
So I used the old adage "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." I never even gave Merril a chance to talk about the mirror in subsequent games.

[Fast Jimmy]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I'll answer this like I answer every other effort to make a game more irritating for the sake of realism:

No.

This isn't inherently a request for more realism. It certainly plays a small part in it, but it is more to explore the possibilities of quest design and to also break up the monotony of quests that make the player swoop in and save the day 60+ different times in a game. 

There's only so many quests you can dream up that involve "stranger needs help/asks hero/hero saves the day/ gets reward" and not have the story and syntax all start to blur into the same thing. 

[Dave of Canada]

I'd like to see it implemented if only to test the waters and realize how many people meta-game to make themselves feel comfortable with what transpires.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 09 février 2013 - 08:06 .

[Shya]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i wonder how many people went this way...

I've never seen that...wow

[Conduit0]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In Exile wrote...

It seems that the problem with that is that you're designing content to actively screw the players over, and essentially encouraging players to not play part of your game. Besides annoying players because the game is going "LOLZ! GOT U!!!!", if you actually get a sequel off the ground then you'll have players actively suspicious about which part of your games are traps.

And I know that's what you're going for - but you'll find a lot of players don't want a feature that's the equivalent of opening a cereal box and finding excrement inside.

I agree, it would have to be handled carefully. But isn't that the nature of the world? If you're not careful with what you get yoruself involved in, you may wind up doing something that is either more work than its worth, something that compromises your ethics or that you wind up paying for through the nose in the long run.

I'm not saying any game should be LITTERED with these types of quests. Nor should they always be not properly detectable (a mustache-twirling guy in a cape may not be a good quest giver... although if occassionaly the game did make it so would be fun as well). But the very existence of a quest that you may regret taking seems intriguing to me. 

I can't really agree with your idea, I believe there is one all important rule of game design, anything that makes the game stop being fun is a bad idea, and frankly a quest designed purely for the purpose of screwing over the player isn't fun, not even remotely. I would even go so far as to say such sidequests would be disasterous for a game. If the sidequests don't offer a sufficient reward for the effort, players will just stop doing them and then ofcourse complain about the crappy sidequests online. The first response most players would have to a quest that just flat out screws you, would be to reload from a previous save and figure out what they did wrong, by the time they figure out there is no right way to do the quest, they'll be so angry that they'll just quit the game in disgust.

At best your idea would simply result in most players using guides to cherry pick sidequests and at worst it would result in gamers simply avoiding your game altogether.

[nightscrawl]

schalafi wrote...

The Merril mirror quest really had me fooled the first time I did it. I played through the whole thing, and was horrified at the ending. I see no value in a quest like that, especially since there was a bug in my game so I couldn't even talk to Merril at the end.
So I used the old adage "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." I never even gave Merril a chance to talk about the mirror in subsequent games.

That post-quest bug has been fixed in subsequent patches.




Btw people, it's P-E-T-R-I-C-E, not PAtrice.

[The Hierophant]

nightscrawl wrote...
Btw people, it's P-E-T-R-I-C-E, not PAtrice.

She's a douchemiser so misspelling her name is ok.

[H. Birdman]

I really like this idea. Done properly, it would add an appropriate feeling of risk and danger. Dealing with criminals, demons, hooded strangers, etc. loses a lot of its intrigue if the worst case scenario is always "I'll get ambushed later, defeat the ambushers, and end up unambiguously better off." I'd love to agonize over whether I am (perhaps literally) making a deal with the devil.

That said, the implementation would be tough. Even if you randomly flagged quests with good and bad outcomes, multiple saves means many players will just back up and not do the quest. Some will just see it as an annoyance: "Yeah, I did X's quest, but I drew the bad ending so I couldn't get Y item. I guess I'll just have to start a new character if I want Y."

It all sort of comes back to the inherent tension between drama and player wish fulfillment.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm keen on betrayal type of stuff, but I am not sure if most are.

Depending on the level of emotional investment one ends up putting onto the particular story section, knowing it ultimately turns to betrayal and or really bad things down the line, can make people feel very, very, very jaded.

For instance, I'm totally up for the idea of having a romance (or two) character end up actually using the character and outright betraying the character. In mentioning these ideas, I have had people directly respond saying they would hate stuff like that. Even the idea of one of the romances in ME3 leading down this way was complete utter outrage for some people.

I think Sid Meier put it best, in that in his opinion gamers tend to be paranoid. They like to accept the positive consequences as being a result of their strong game playing, but when bad things happen, especially unpredictably and unexpectedly, they tend to feel the game is being unfair and is out to get them (he had a ton of fantastic examples involving Civilization that showed how gamers do not behave rationally).

By default, the "fail" quest pretty much *must* be able to be recovered in some way I think (I think denying retribution would not be well received), and there'd be considerations for whether or not metaknowledge should allow a player to alter the outcome.

Leandra's death is something unavoidable, and arguably a quest gone wrong. Much of the criticism is simply that it cannot be avoided. Other criticism is that there's no option to try to do something about it. If those options DID exist, yet still resulted in Leandra's death, would it be more palatable in general?

[Medhia Nox]

@Allan Schumacher: For myself - absolutely... a thousand times absolutely.

That she dies was not the issue for me. I believed - at first, that I had actually caused it by encouraging her to start living again. You get some dialogue where you can be a total brat about it and ramble on about "father's memory" or you can tell her that she should go out and find someone.

It was actually "this" moment that irritated me the most - because I believed I had been the cause of her death by telling her to "go live". I thought I had signed her death warrant with good intentions. It engaged me - and involved me - and I was the catalyst for it. Or so I believed.

That she died could have been powerful for me - but not after I felt it was simply Bioware "telling" me that this moment is horribad.

Again - just opinion.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I agree, it would have to be handled carefully. But isn't that the nature of the world? If you're not careful with what you get yoruself involved in, you may wind up doing something that is either more work than its worth, something that compromises your ethics or that you wind up paying for through the nose in the long run.

Yeah, the world is like that. It really sucks. Why should a piece of escapist entertainment be like that? I know that the obvious answer is that the entertainment need not be escapist. But that's the entire issue: at least some of the fanbase will want escapism.

But the very existence of a quest that you may regret taking seems intriguing to me. 

But not me. It's just a quest that, once I know I've been screwed, will make me never pick it when I replay the game, and if I can't just stab the quest-giver in the throat and watch him/her choke on their own blood, will frustrate me at the game for screwing with me and not giving me the option to hit back. 

[David7204]

I would be very upset and frustrated if a character I genuinely liked betrayed me in a game with a heroic protagonist unless it was for an incredibly good reason. And I mean an incredibly good reason. That comes off to me as a complete slap in the face to meaningful choices and player agency.

It's fine if the protagonist clearly is not meant to be a hero. But having the narrative pretend my character is a hero and yet having him clearly incapable of inspiring and leading his friends is immensely frustrating.

Hmm...well...actually thinking about it, I think I need to refine this. I'm perfectly okay with it in a game like Uncharted 2, and Drake is a hero. But I would absolutely never be okay with it for Mass Effect. Maybe just because Mass Effect is a RPG? Or is it because I simply care a lot more about the characters in Mass Effect than Uncharted?

Modifié par David7204, 10 février 2013 - 06:13 .

[In Exile]

Allan Schumacher wrote..
Leandra's death is something unavoidable, and arguably a quest gone wrong. Much of the criticism is simply that it cannot be avoided. Other criticism is that there's no option to try to do something about it. If those options DID exist, yet still resulted in Leandra's death, would it be more palatable in general?

It would make it feel like it's less forced, certainly. 

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I agree, it would have to be handled carefully. But isn't that the nature of the world? If you're not careful with what you get yoruself involved in, you may wind up doing something that is either more work than its worth, something that compromises your ethics or that you wind up paying for through the nose in the long run.

Yeah, the world is like that. It really sucks. Why should a piece of escapist entertainment be like that? I know that the obvious answer is that the entertainment need not be escapist. But that's the entire issue: at least some of the fanbase will want escapism.

I don't see entertainment as escapism. I see it as entertainment. 

If a game/movie/book has a sad moment in it, you don't say "Sadness? This is fiction - I don't want sadness!" Instead (if done properly), sadness in fiction can be a wonderful story telling tool. It can make us realize how strong our connections with characters are.

Escapism entertainment is like Barney the Dinosaur - so lacking in any real substance because its nothing but happy, happy, happy.

I know that is not what you are suggesting or implying, but denying any type of content because it can be disappointing, difficult or a hardship from any type of entertainment is not the answer, I don't think. Again, it would need to be used with caution, but I think banning it entirely is perhaps overkill.

But the very existence of a quest that you may regret taking seems intriguing to me. 

But not me. It's just a quest that, once I know I've been screwed, will make me never pick it when I replay the game, and if I can't just stab the quest-giver in the throat and watch him/her choke on their own blood, will frustrate me at the game for screwing with me and not giving me the option to hit back. 

 And what if, as I stated in my original post, there was the option where sometimes a quest goes bad, sometimes it goes fine? That a flag can randomly be put on it to determine if it would have negative consequences or not? 

Think like the original Diablo's quests. Sometimes when you went in, you ran into The Butcher and had a corresponding quest. Other times, you ran into devilkin who had stolen the Inn Sign. In the system I am suggesting though, instead you would always be offered all the quests, but sometimes it would have the good outcome, sometimes it would have the bad. That way, each time you play the game could be a different combination of experiences.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 février 2013 - 06:34 .

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

I would be very upset and frustrated if a character I genuinely liked betrayed me in a game with a heroic protagonist unless it was for an incredibly good reason. And I mean an incredibly good reason. That comes off to me as a complete slap in the face to meaningful choices and player agency.

It's fine if the protagonist clearly is not meant to be a hero. But having the narrative pretend my character is a hero and yet having him clearly incapable of inspiring and leading his friends is immensely frustrating.

Hmm...well...actually thinking about it, I think I need to refine this. I'm perfectly okay with it in a game like Uncharted 2, and Drake is a hero. But I would absolutely never be okay with it for Mass Effect. Maybe just because Mass Effect is a RPG? Or is it because I simply care a lot more about the characters in Mass Effect than Uncharted?

DA2 had nearly half of your companions in your group betray you if you took them into the Fade and they were seduced by demons. Did you feel like that was a violation of player agency or character choice?

I don't think it was. I think it was actually one of the coolest sections of the game and a place where I liked my companions the most, since it demonstrated their convictions, as opposed to hearing them whine about them over and over again. 

I would consider this a case of where soemthing bad happened as an unexpected consequence. If you took Anders, Isabella and Merril with you into the Fade, you could wind up fighting all of them and be left by yourself to handle the rest of the level (luckily, by that point, there wouldn't be any challenges left). Still, it was a quest that put you in a situation you did not aniticpate and may have required you to do something ethically you may have not wanted to (like have Feynriel become Tranquil or possessed) due to a tight postion the quest design got you in. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

snip

BTW, congrats, Allan! You have the (possibly dubious) honor of being the first person with a Bioware nametag to comment on one of my "Bioware, Let's Talk About..." threads. 

Your prize is... a lifetime's supply of forum posts*!

*while supplies last

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I don't see entertainment as escapism. I see it as entertainment.  

I know. But some people do. And this kind of feature will be, shall we say... poorly received by anyone who does.

If a game/movie/book has a sad moment in it, you don't say "Sadness? This is fiction - I don't want sadness!" Instead (if done properly), sadness in fiction can be a wonderful story telling tool. It can make us realize how strong our connections with characters are.

This isn't sadness. This is about mockery, being taken advantage of, and frustration. I'm not saying that these types of experiences shouldn't be in a game. But your analogy doesn't work, because one can view sadness differently than, say, powerlessness and being taken advantage of.

Escapism entertainment is like Barney the Dinosaur - so lacking in any real substance because its nothing but happy, happy, happy.

Or it can be like Star Wars: IV.

denying any type of content because it can be disappointing, difficult or a hardship from any type of entertainment is not the answer, I don't think. Again, it would need to be used with caution, but I think banning it entirely is perhaps overkill.

Not if you don't like it, any more than not making a game an FPS is an affront if you don't like FPSs. 

 And what if, as I stated in my original post, there was the option where sometimes a quest goes bad, sometimes it goes fine? That a flag can randomly be put on it to determine if it would have negative consequences or not?  

So I randomly get screwed? Not only have you kept the frustration of the original quest, but now you've made every quest less an enjoyable experience and more an "will I get screwed now?" experience, which I know is exactly what you want, but my point is that this very experience is not fun for some.

Think like the original Diablo's quests. Sometimes when you went in, you ran into The Butcher and had a corresponding quest. Other times, you ran into devilkin who had stolen the Inn Sign. In the system I am suggesting though, instead you would always be offered all the quests, but sometimes it would have the good outcome, sometimes it would have the bad. That way, each time you play the game could be a different combination of experiences.

I haven't played Diablo, so I can't comment. But there's nothign fun about making success a RNG, to me. YMMV.

[Allan Schumacher]

And what if, as I stated in my original post, there was the option where sometimes a quest goes bad, sometimes it goes fine? That a flag can randomly be put on it to determine if it would have negative consequences or not?

I think this feeds into Sid's gamer paranoia. Random chance can be very, very frustrating for people.

Think like the original Diablo's quests. Sometimes when you went in, you
ran into The Butcher and had a corresponding quest. Other times, you
ran into devilkin who had stolen the Inn Sign. In the system I am
suggesting though, instead you would always be offered all the quests,
but sometimes it would have the good outcome, sometimes it would have
the bad. That way, each time you play the game could be a different
combination of experiences.

This is a bit different.  Content is randomized (which is a staple of the original Diablo especially), but the player's success is not.  It was also a criticism of Diablo and Blizzard went away with it in future versions.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 février 2013 - 07:13 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Just to nitpick:

Escapism doesn't mean without substance. It just means that it's a story that lets us escape our own realities for a bit. It doesn't mean that nothing bad or significant will happen in it.

The counterpoint is usually interpretive stories, which are typically considered to have the reader take something away from the story and the reader/observer reflect on reality in some way, after experiencing the story.

[In Exile]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think this feeds into Sid's gamer paranoia. Random chance can be very, very frustrating for people.

Now, I'm obviously biased (cf. my last post) but I think it's not about paranoia - it's just about frustration. Quest outcomes are scripted, instead of about skill/chance combinations like Civ games are (where the interplay between CPU/CPU/Player actions can be complex and lead to effectively stochastic outcomes). 

If, for example, Connor randomly killed everyone in Redcliffe, that would be naturally frustrating. It would just force re-loads. 

[In Exile]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Escapism doesn't mean without substance. It just means that it's a story that lets us escape our own realities for a bit. It doesn't mean that nothing bad or significant will happen in it.

Allan, if this was directed at my post, I didn't mean that nothing bad would happen - just that "escape from the perceived unpleasant ... aspects of daily life", I think, includes an escape from things like powerlessness.