168 réponses à ce sujet

[Fredward]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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 would offer up my firstborn for something like this.

[Allan Schumacher]

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).

Sid's talk was more general than just being applied to Civ games. It's the idea that the game is "out to get the player" when things happen unpredictably. I think we're discussing the same thing though, since it's the frustration of uncontrolled things happening that leads to the gamer suspicion.

[nightscrawl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If those options DID exist, yet still resulted in Leandra's death, would it be more palatable in general?

YES!

[Allan Schumacher]

nightscrawl wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If those options DID exist, yet still resulted in Leandra's death, would it be more palatable in general?

YES!

Lets go even more extreme.  Would it still work for Mass Effect 3?

[TEWR]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
 If those options DID exist, yet still resulted in Leandra's death, would it be more palatable in general?

By the Paragons, YES.

It would've made Hawke and Aveline seem more competent.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 10 février 2013 - 07:41 .

[In Exile]

Allan Schumacher wrote..
Sid's talk was more general than just being applied to Civ games. It's the idea that the game is "out to get the player" when things happen unpredictably. I think we're discussing the same thing though, since it's the frustration of uncontrolled things happening that leads to the gamer suspicion.

What I'm trying to get at is that there's a difference between being frustrated at uncontrollable things happening and feeling the game is out to get you. Not that gamers aren't like that often - just that you can feel the game is fair and feel frustrated by it.

[In Exile]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Lets go even more extreme.  Would it still work for Mass Effect 3?

More palpable isn't palpable. 

The key to get from A to B is, to borrow from a... wise and venerable poster :

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)....

[nightscrawl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Lets go even more extreme.  Would it still work for Mass Effect 3?

I haven't played any of the ME games, so I can't answer to that specifically. However, I am of the mind that the illusion of choice is a powerful thing if done well. You try and you try and you can't "fix" whatever the problem is, in this case, Leandra's death.

I actually don't think All That Remains was done badly. I liked that there were these different options throughout: killing Gascard or letting him live, telling/not the templar about him, following the blood trail or having Gascard use blood magic. I think there is an overall perception that Hawke does not try hard enough. Some have suggested that perhaps there could have been a dialog warning your mother about a killer. I'm not sure that would have made much of a difference to be honest, even if people think it might in hindsight.

For some players, All That Remains is a culmination of several events that leaves them being unsatisfied. Some don't have a strong emotional connection to their Hawke or Leandra, so they aren't affected by it as they feel they should be. Hawke, no matter the dialog options chosen at the death scene or post-death mansion scene, has a very lackluster emotional response to the whole thing. They can't save Leandra, so they feel they have "lost" or "made a mistake".

They may blame different aspects on different things: the voiced protagonist, the writers forcing a more "personal" story, or the dialog system, but they all converge on that ONE quest and leave many people unhappy. I don't think unhappiness is itself a bad thing as a result of a quest, but it should be because the content of the quest leaves you feeling unhappy, not that you feel the game cheated you out of something.

This is the reason, going back to Jimmy's suggestions, that I think players would not like or appreciate tangible, bad results to a quest. They become frustrated with the game, instead of frustrated with the story.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 10 février 2013 - 07:57 .

[TEWR]

Some have suggested that perhaps there could have been a dialog warning your mother about a killer. I'm not sure that would have made much of a difference to be honest, even if people think it might in hindsight.

Doesn't really need to. What matters is that Hawke warns his mother of something very important that does affect her. Hawke knows who the killer tends to target after talking to Gascard. She'd be warned, say she'd be careful and that she's glad Hawke's looking out for her, but in the end is still taken by Quentin.

As I recall, she met Quentin because he was injured and helped him. How he got that way I don't know, but even with the warning it's not like Leandra would be able to tell that he was the murderer right off the bat. Not until it's too late.

It doesn't have to change the end result, but it would make Hawke seem like he's taking this thing seriously. But it's not just that. There are also other things in the entire quest arc that should be possible to make Hawke (and others) appear like they're taking this seriously.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 10 février 2013 - 08:12 .

[HiroVoid]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If those options DID exist, yet still resulted in Leandra's death, would it be more palatable in general?

YES!

Lets go even more extreme.  Would it still work for Mass Effect 3?

To be fair, a lot of people took the option as an insult rather than it being an option(or standard gameover) since the developers even went to the trouble to make it so that the ending would happen even if you shot said figure which was a favorite act of those that disliked the ending.

As for the topic in question, one example would be the Awakening side-quest where you hunt down apostates.  While I may have a character that wouldn't do the quest, I wouldn't actually know if I would have more options down the road such as helping the apostates until I actually get there.  In this one, you're forced to fight the apostates even if that might not have been your intention.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 10 février 2013 - 08:20 .

[nightscrawl]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Some have suggested that perhaps there could have been a dialog warning your mother about a killer. I'm not sure that would have made much of a difference to be honest, even if people think it might in hindsight.

Doesn't really need to.

I'm not saying that your action make a difference in the actual ending, I'm saying that those people think they would have felt better. This is something people have suggested in hindsight, so you can't really know whether that would have made a difference in people's reaction, or not.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why can't the quest outcome be based on gameplay?

I've suggested before that the Virmire choice in ME would have been better if there had been an option to try to save both Kaidan and Ashley, even if choosing that option guaranteed both deaths.

But why should the choice of which objective to pursue determine the outcome at all? If the choice exists to try to save Leandra, I don't think that should necessarily save her or necessarily result in her death. I think whether the plan succeeds should be based on how well the plan is executed through gameplay, and not merely be a scripted outcome.

And before anyone says that people would just reload to get the best outcome (or the one they want), do they reload to try to save Leandra in DA2? No. Because the cutscene makes it clear that this outcome was inevitable. So why not still do that? There's no reason to tell the player that he failed.

[Arppis]

I think people should be dissapointed by outcomes now and then.

So this is a good idea imo. As long as the cost isn't TOO great. You can't win them all and I liked that in DA2.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why can't the quest outcome be based on gameplay?

I've
suggested before that the Virmire choice in ME would have been better
if there had been an option to try to save both Kaidan and Ashley, even
if choosing that option guaranteed both deaths.

But why should
the choice of which objective to pursue determine the outcome at all?
If the choice exists to try to save Leandra, I don't think that should
necessarily save her or necessarily result in her death. I think
whether the plan succeeds should be based on how well the plan is
executed through gameplay, and not merely be a scripted outcome.

And
before anyone says that people would just reload to get the best
outcome (or the one they want), do they reload to try to save Leandra in
DA2? No. Because the cutscene makes it clear that this outcome was
inevitable. So why not still do that? There's no reason to tell the
player that he failed.

I'm with you here. This is also a good idea, if not better than what Jimmy proposed. But sometimes I think you shouldn't be able to win everything.

Modifié par Arppis, 10 février 2013 - 09:47 .

[Swagger7]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

Was this a talk, an article?  Would you happen to have a link?  It sounds really interesting.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sure thing. Here it is.

It's interesting to hear about his recounts of how people would respond to information presented.

[nightscrawl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But why should the choice of which objective to pursue determine the outcome at all? If the choice exists to try to save Leandra, I don't think that should necessarily save her or necessarily result in her death. I think whether the plan succeeds should be based on how well the plan is executed through gameplay, and not merely be a scripted outcome.

This seems like it would be extremely difficult to implement. Do you have an example where you've actually seen this done in a game?

Using the exact details of the All That Remains quest, how would they have that game mechanic?

Would it be a timed event? While realistic, I don't think players would like that, especially if there is not an indication that this quest is bound by time restraints, unlike every other quest in the game. Naturally, you should expect Leandra to die if, on getting the All That Remains quest, you then go out to do three more quests before going back to All That Remains, but people have been trained that the game waits for them, even if the narrative feels rushed -- "I have to hurry and go to this place or something bad will happen!"

Would it be completing the events in a certain order? While this isn't too bad, it's highly prone to meta-gaming.

Would it be based on some seemingly arbitrary bit of dialog you had much earlier in the game? Again, also prone to meta-gaming, but not as bad because it is more or less hidden... until the game has been released for a while.

Would it be based on some sort of stat or skill that the PC possesses? Cunning or intelligence would, in this case, be helpful.

"How well the plan is executed through gameplay" can be based on several factors that would have to be calculated by the computer to determine if you are successful in your plan. If you are sitting around your DnD campaign and you come up with a creative plan, the DM, who is a human, may like and appreciate the thought and effort you put into that plan and so will make the determination that you have been successful, but that can't happen with a cRPG.

I know how you think about issues like this, but the success or failure has to be based on something that the computer can determine.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 10 février 2013 - 10:47 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Lets go even more extreme.  Would it still work for Mass Effect 3?

Now here's an interesting question.  I was fine with the scripted death of Leandra and Anders blowing up the Chantry.  I did not like ME3's ending choice, even though that gave me more control over the outcome of the game.

Here, as best as I can articulate, is the difference. I understand the context of these scripted DA2 plot events; I understand why they happen, how they affect the dramatic tension, and I'm given an opportunity to roleplay a response even if it doesn't impact the game plot.  There's plenty of foreshadowing (arguably a game's worth in Anders' case), and I have a good amount of time to wrap my head around what's happening.

ME3's original ending handed me a choice where I had little context and even less time to figure out what the options actually were or meant.  If a choice doesn't make sense or mean anything to me as a player, how impactful can that decision really be?  And it took away the ability for Shep to react as a roleplayed character rather than a plot agent picking red, green, blue, or none.  What are (IMO) fairly reasonable reactions of skepticism, hostility, confusion, curiosity, etc. simply aren't there.  Roleplaying for me isn't just about ticking off A, B, or C in plot branches or endings; I could just play about with Booleans if that was the case  The character is also what s/he does, says, and thinks on a day to day basis, even if those don't result in separate plot or quest outcomes.

tl;dr: Yes, it would've worked in ME3.  I have no illusions about ever having full control over the plot events or outcomes, but I'd like more control over the character.  Let me at least try, even if I can't succeed.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 10 février 2013 - 11:10 .

[AlexJK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And before anyone says that people would just reload to get the best outcome (or the one they want), do they reload to try to save Leandra in DA2? No. Because the cutscene makes it clear that this outcome was inevitable. So why not still do that? There's no reason to tell the player that he failed.

I did, most obviously to co-operate with Gascard instead of chasing him away (this seemed like the kind of decision which might, with the benefit of hindsight, alter the quest outcome).

Although, truth be told, the decision to reload and try to change the outcome was not really based on a belief that it might be possible, but on a feeling that the outcome was so hopelessly bleak that if it wasn't possible to avoid it I might just give up playing since clearly I couldn't affect the outcome of anything else in a meaningful way. (Actually turns out to be the case, pretty much, but that's a different discussion!)

Modifié par AlexJK, 10 février 2013 - 11:28 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sure thing. Here it is.

It's interesting to hear about his recounts of how people would respond to information presented.

It's cool to see that you kept that video, Allan. Did you ever run across more of a similar vein?

[bEVEsthda]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sure thing. Here it is.

It's interesting to hear about his recounts of how people would respond to information presented.

A spontanous reaction of mine would be that Sid's games were more interesting before he started to contemplate about these things. (original Amiga versions (much better than PC versions) of Pirates and Railroad Tycoon vs "Sid meier's" remakes of these for examples. And don't even get me started on C64 'Silent Service', the only sub simulator).
...but I haven't listened to the end of the video yet.

[Allan Schumacher]

I disagree. The remake of Pirates is excellent with tons more character (I have played every version of Pirates), and Civ IV is probably the best game of the franchise.

Thing is, people still said the same things in the original Civ (I once had a battleship lose to a 1/1/1 militia myself), even though by the rational rules it's not actually surprising. Just rare.

[bEVEsthda]

I was also surprised by Sid Meier's lack of sophistication regarding the "psychology" of 2 vs 1 and 20 vs 10.
The players expectations are completely correct, from the perspective of wanting a realistic game or a simulation type of game. The odds of 1 winning against 2 is only 16.7%. Not 33.3%.
Further, the odds of 10 winning against 20 (everything else being equal) is infinitesimally small. It's not at all the same as 1 vs 2, as Sid Meier suggests. Most strategy games players are aware of this. They would be, from playing RTS games and the likes. That Civilization did this differently and players perceived it as doing this wrong, is not a question of Sid being "mathematical and scientifical" and the player to have an egomanical, psychological reaction. The analysis is wrong.

Now, I'm fine with a game taking a simple die approach like Civ 1, but don't tell me it's realistic.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 10 février 2013 - 01:02 .

[Allan Schumacher]

The odds of 1 winning against 2 is only 16.7%. Not 33.3%.

You'll have to fill me in on the specifics for this, since it's been almost a decade since I took stats classes.

EDIT: I know odds = (1-p)/p but that doesn't get your probability.  (If we say the odds of winning are 2/1 with your example, then rearranging the equation is still going to get a probability of 1/3)

Unsurprisingly using your number gives me 5:1 odds

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 février 2013 - 01:25 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

bEVEsthda wrote...
Now, I'm fine with a game taking a simple die approach like Civ 1, but don't tell me it's realistic.

I'm pretty much willing to suspend a good amount of disbelief for any game mechanic as long as it fits well with the other game mechanics and doesn't give me a headache.  Which might be a higher standard than it seems.

After the (surprisingly challenging) board game design class in college kicked my ass during playtesting and balancing, I'm inclined to lean toward simplification.  

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 10 février 2013 - 01:10 .

[Cimeas]

The fan rage if Garrus betrayed you would be absolutely delicious.

I really liked Garrus as a character, but I'm WISHING the devs had done this because it would be beyond hilarious.