168 réponses à ce sujet

[Blazomancer]

@Jimmy - I get it now. Such a quest design would really add a lot to replay value and allow for a more personal experience. I think I'd support such a system.

[Medhia Nox]

I'm only in disagreement with you Jimmy on the point of telling a player how they should experience a game. Otherwise - what you're looking for sounds awesome.

I get more impact when I fail to achieve the best possible ending - for that, there must be a best possible ending - not just your choice of crap endings.

What you were suggesting with timelines is great stuff - and would have potentially appealed to the Origins aspect of the game. I'd suggest even putting in "Your own stuff" as something you could do first to the detriment of the greater quest.

However - without the possibility for the perfectionists to get their happy ending - I can't get my tough choices. I think metagaming must be possible (because a "best ending" must be possible) for the deepest impact - but I do get what you're saying about getting "best ending" in specific parts of the game by sacrificing other parts. Good stuff.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Plus, EA could just sell microtransactions that remove all the negative consequences from the SP campaign. /troll

Actually, I've seen people begging for a DLC that would remove negative consequences from a certan ending.....

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Plus, EA could just sell microtransactions that remove all the negative consequences from the SP campaign. /troll

Actually, I've seen people begging for a DLC that would remove negative consequences from a certan ending.....

Honestly? If the ME team did an actual endings DLC that really gave everyone what they want (since it sounds like from comments Bioware has made recently - that the next ME game will not come before, during or after the original trilogy  - then they aren't going to concern themselves with those endings anyway), Bioware would make money hand over fist and regain some of the lost fans for the ME franchise. 

The one time I think being greedy would really pay off for them and the fans... and artistic integrity gets in the way. Go figure.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 février 2013 - 01:57 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Foolsfolly wrote...

I just beat Telltale's The Walking Dead game (bleeding fantastic. Although I don't think I have the emotional fortitude to replay it for some time) and in that game there were a few choices I made that bit me in the ass. I didn't think the game was out to get me for it.

What gives?

Is it the setting? The characters? The sheer amount of bleakness anyway in the game? I mean some choices I made seemed to decimate the group and others I'm entirely unaware of how my choice helped anything.

The setting itself probably does contribute.  The Walking Dead is definitely not a warm and fuzzy setting where bad things happen to good people all the time.

Still, it's tough to gauge an anecdote.  You didn't mind, but were there other people that got upset?  I remember some people getting upset because some characters seemingly just went insane and started acting "out of character" (it was on this forum actually)

[TEWR]

nightscrawl wrote...

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.

Ah. Well, it would've for me. All the time I was playing DAII and doing these quests, I was thinking to myself "Oookay, why can't I warn Leandra about Mr. Senor Pyschopath out there?" 

[jillabender]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The one time I think being greedy would really pay off for them and the fans... and artistic integrity gets in the way. Go figure.

Hehe... I think most of us have little problem with a developer being greedy if it also happens to get us what we what! At least you're willing to admit it! ;D

Modifié par jillabender, 11 février 2013 - 03:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

nightscrawl wrote...

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?

Ser Cauthrien.

I can also think of encounters where that sort of thing could have been done, certainly.

In TotSC, the BG expansion, there's an optional combat encounter with the wizard Shandalar (he ties into a number of quests in the expansion).  Shandalar, after three rounds, will escape from that encounter.  So you have 18 seconds of gameplay in which to kill him.  Whether he escapes could easily be a jumping off point for more quest content.

Imagine if, in DAO, Jarvia had an escape route she would have followed after a fixed amount of time.  Or if that hail of arrows that knocked out the Warden at the top of the Tower of Ishal was a regular combat encounter, and defeating it meant you had to fight your way out of Ostagar rather than getting rescued by Flemeth.

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

I'm not saying it works on all possible quests.  I'm saying that quests can be designed in this way, and I'd like to see more of it.

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.

I completely agree that game content should not flagrantly violate the rules established by previous quests.  I've complained extensively about how the Rock Wraith's AoE attack does that very thing.

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!"

I would never advocate that sort of timer.  Even the timer on the Ilos trench run in ME was a poor idea, I think.

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

Why do we care about metagaming?  If people want to metagame, let them.  If people want to reload to get their preferred outcome, let them.  Why would we be at all concerned with how people play their own games?

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.

I think combat would work best.  Many games do this with escort missions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Almost any resolution mechanism would be fine as long as its well documented.  If I know how the game calculates combat outcomes, then I can make intelligent strategic decisions.

I'm not going to think the game is cheating if I know how it did what it did.

[MoMan313]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Still, it's tough to gauge an anecdote.  You didn't mind, but were there other people that got upset?  I remember some people getting upset because some characters seemingly just went insane and started acting "out of character" (it was on this forum actually)

Random comment is random... but... o_o why does this wreck of anders' character? XD
The whole goes insane part. >_> Not saying I agree or disagree... but it sounds like someone would complain about that

(oh, fyi my opinion stands that's anders is( or became after his little "must save justice" bit) a manipulative bastard in tricking me into blowing up the chantry, and doing it with PICKING UP POOP FFS. (unforgivable sin with unforgivable doo-doo D:<) And those efing puppy eyes ¬¬ fenris doesn't got nothing on those eyes right after you knife him :| Which I srsly almost cried over.)


AAaaass to add to this quests thing...

I'm all up for it XD
Half of the emotional value in my first playthrough was the fact that anders manipulated me into picking up poop in the thought that I was helping him or the mages in their rebellion.. but was really setting up the grand cleric's death.... and Bringing the WRATH of my Fiance on me to choose between him or my best friend ;A;

Oh, and the fact that I BARELY made it out with bethany alive in my first playthrough, then have her shoved in the circle had another bbaawww factor to it.

You're looking for those.... whats it called.. choices that have well intentions but come out bad.. well.

DA2 kinda already has them.. and if all things are not set in stone for DA3, I would like to see them come back xD

OOooohh and especially about the LI or what not using/setting you up for betrayel.

That just is a major YES for me.

I'd be pissed, but at least I can't deny the art value in it.

Oh, like

*SSSWWWWOOOOTTOOOORR SITH WARRIOR SPOILERS*
















Malavai Quinn Leading me to this empty place in the galaxy to where he would try to kill me...

RIGHT. AFTER. HE. FREAKING. PROPOSED. TO. ME.

Blasted Hotty Agent loves the Empire, ney, BARASS more than ME ;A;





*End Spoilers

Well stuff like that.

Modifié par MoMan313, 11 février 2013 - 10:02 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Blazomancer wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Building in-game mechanics to prevent navigating to a totally, 100% happy outcome takes the sting away from any choice. If, instead, happiness comes at a cost, ANY cost (like making it so your character isn't a power-leveled UBER demigod by the end of the game, for example), then it makes the choices you make seem that much stronger and more powerful.

So you're basically saying that no matter how many times a person goes through the game, there should at least be one choice which is going to make the player regret it, because otherwise from a metagaming perspective, it is hard not to shoot for the best ending?

I suppose I am. For the record, I'm also in support of a system that makes goals harder to accomplish or even possible to achieve, depending on the order you do them.

For instance, what if you chose to do the Brecillian Forest first in DA:O, and the Mage's Tower last? Maybe that means you can achieve the happy ending, where the werewolves are free and the Dalish are healed. But maybe that means that by the time you do the Mage's Tower, abominations are everywhere, and there are no sane Mages left, save maybe the First Enchanter, giving roughly the same ending as if you had performed the Right of Annulment. Maybe even you hear that abominations escaped from the Tower and wound up killing innocents or threatening nearby settlements. For a pro-Templar character, that wouldn't be THAT bad of an ending. For a pro-Mage, it would be pretty bad... but if you are a pro-Mage character, why would you send help to the Circle last?

ME1 tried to make it seem like this was a possibility with their CG trailer, where It showed Shepherd denying help to the Feros colony to save another area. It didn't work that way in game, of course (except for the one scene with Liara's recruitment if you waited too long), but the idea that the order you do major quests should impact how things turns out during a crisis like the Blight. Instead, the demons in the Tower wait until you show up to attack Wynne. Harrowmont and Bhelen are fighting in the streets if you go to Orzammar first or last. The werewolf curse has affected X number of elves if they had months without help or mere days.

So yes, I am of the mind that you should not be able to look at a player's guide to tell you how to get the best ending. I'm all for, instead, having the PLAYER decide what are the factors, the morals, the priorities that make them choose the ending that makes sense for them. I'd prefer it be impossible to have a "good" playthrough or a "bad" playthrough. If a player wants a character to be morally pure, they might have to define what that means for them, personally. Does it mean you believe elves shouldn't be treated poorly because of their race and help them recover their homeland? That seems like a "good" thing to do. But what it it came at the price of Mage Freedom? Or Dwarven survival? Or the Qun being spread across Thedas?

None of these questions have easy, clear cut answers. Which would make them great questions to make the player ask themselves.

I have to say, I'm not a huge fan of the 'too many things are happening at once for you to deal with' approach. I'm something of a completionist and all this approach makes me want to do is punch everyone until they form a neat, orderly line.

[legbamel]

I found ME3 enormously frustrating when I lost side quests unexpectedly. My first run drove me wild because it was completely unspoiled and I didn't know there were gates for them or quite how to accomplish some of them. Then I either couldn't find the item needed or, when I went to turn it in later, the quest-giver had disappeared.

While I'd like to have outcomes vary depending on the order in which you chose to do main story quests, I don't like the idea of losing the ability to do everything, eventually, or to at least have the choice to pass on a quest if it's something my PC would not do.

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The setting itself probably does contribute.  The Walking Dead is definitely not a warm and fuzzy setting where bad things happen to good people all the time.

Still, it's tough to gauge an anecdote.  You didn't mind, but were there other people that got upset?  I remember some people getting upset because some characters seemingly just went insane and started acting "out of character" (it was on this forum actually)

I find this sort of thing to be most problematic in games where I make a decision and then get to passively watch it play out.  If it's an active situation that develops organically, that's different.  Someone was talking about these "random" events on the Obsidian forums, and they gave the example of fighting off zombies using an explosive device that had a random chance of a number of different outcomes.  The thing is, it'd be much better if instead of *playing a different cinematic based off a die roll*, you set up the zombies with some generalized behavior and then let the player watch them and try to gather them up and make use of the explosive in the most timely and appropriate fashion.  THAT's good gameplay, and it WILL play out slightly differently every. single. time.  But since the player has control over their own actions, they're more likely to be accepting of slightly negative outcomes.  I did this in Redcliffe--I liked to try and keep EVERYONE alive, but even if people died I usually didn't reload the game.  If there'd been some kind of cinematic involving a random roll over whether you save the village or not, I definitely would have reloaded until I got what I wanted, and I'd have been seriously annoyed over it, too. 

That was what bugged me about Leandra's death (apart from the AWFUL telegraphing and the even worse pacing in how that whole quest series played out).  There wasn't any suspense because there was no uncertainty regarding the obvious binary outcome option--either she'd live, or she wouldn't.  There wasn't any real complexity to it, just some melodrama with Hawke's reaction.

If there'd been actual drama to what happened, it would have been a thousand times better.  What I mean by that is, if there'd been some sort of internal conflict about what to do.  But there weren't any options in how to proceed or WHY you might want to proceed that way.  (Yes, you could in theory do that whole little side thing with Gascard duPuis, and that changed what, exactly?)  Virmire was set up better because you actually had to make some kind of decision that impacted the result.  I think it would have been BETTER if you'd had a third option to at least TRY to rescue both of them, even if it meant that they both very likely got killed as a result.  Even better if there'd been a fourth option where you intentionally abandoned BOTH of them to go after some important third objective.  Still better if you'd had the option to split your 3-man team in 3 to try to go after ALL of them, even though this might end in catastrophe as you try to solo content designed to need 3 people.  See what I'm driving at here?  What makes these situations interesting and dramatic is actually having to make a tough call.  Choosing between one companion and another when it's a flat arbitrary game-imposed either-or is not a "tough call" (although it's still better than "follow this breadcrumb trail to see it play out"!)  Choosing between "try to rescue both and likely lose both" and "rescue one definitely" and "try to accomplish important third objective" is quite difficult--particularly if getting the third objective is by no means assured.  

And you can make it even MORE difficult if you want to by having it impact stuff later on in the game:  lose this companion, and you've lost the person who lets you upgrade your ship.  Lose the other, and now you're without the person who knows a ton about alien cultures.  Skip the third objective, and maybe you lose the evidence that would have made it possible to stop two factions from basically destroying each other.  You don't need die rolls to make that a randomish outcome--people will make different decisions based on how they like to play.

[Swagger7]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sure thing. Here it is.

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

Awesome, thank you!  I will rip the audio to my MP3 player and have something to listen to at work tomorrow.

[Swagger7]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

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.  

Wait, your college offered a board game design class?!?  (Insane amounts of jealousy) 

[Sable Rhapsody]

Swagger7 wrote...

Wait, your college offered a board game design class?!?  (Insane amounts of jealousy) 

Yeah.  USC is pretty strong in the video game and computer science department, but requires all of its students who want to work in the video game industry to take a class designing board games first. 

I just took the class for fun   It turned out to be about a frillion times harder than I thought it would.

[Dave of Canada]

Swagger7 wrote...
Wait, your college offered a board game design class?!?  (Insane amounts of jealousy) 

Having taken a similar course, it wasn't as fun as it sounds.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

[quote]nightscrawl wrote...

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]An example of this is the Fighter's Guild questlne in Oblivion, where you are asked to spy and infiltrate a rival group, the Blackwood Company. As your initiation, you are sent to kill goblins and are given a special potion to help your prowess in battle. Turns out that the potion is a hallucinogenic and the band of goblins you killed was actually an entire town of innocent viallgers.

This quest is pretty brutal in that, by your actions, you have actually ruined (and ended) the lives of innocents. In the very next quest, you use this information to take the organization down. Still... the fact that the game gave you the option to take the quest makes it questionable if you should do it at all. After all... that village would have remainied alive if you never activated that quest line...[/quote]
I actually think this sounds like a fantastic quest! It seems that the writers purposely set out to mess with the players' heads and accomplished just that. [/quote][/quote]

My head was quite messed with, yes. He didn't mention the best part though. The best part is you actually knew one of them. You'd helped her during a previous quest.

Another quest from Oblivion that qualifies is the Dark Brotherhood questline. The DB is the assassin's guild, and you eventually become one of the five assassins still on active duty who are trusted enough to be controlled with drops instead of supervised directly. Naturally, the drops get intercepted at the third drop, and you are sent to kill members of the guild. You can tell exactly when it happens just by reading transcripts of the notes, due to a change in the writing style. I think there should have been an option to notice that, but there wasn't. I guess that was okay, though, compared to the Red Dead example below. At least I wasn't railroaded into falling for any traps glaring enough that you see them coming the first time playing through the game. (Or, I didn't. There's probably at least one person complaining that they saw it coming the whole time.)

[quote][quote]
[quote]The problem with this type of quest is that it A) involves an evil quest giver - not inherentlly all that bad and it brings nothing of real value to the table. The XP gained from killing these "trolls" is negligible, as is the monetary reward. It is part of a quest that helps you complete the Fighter's Guild questline, but that in and of itself doesn't bring a lot to the table except an extra rank, a small monthly sum of gold and a completionist's peace of mind. So have we really done anything worthwhile? Its a debatble question.[/quote]
I think you are looking at that particular example in the wrong way. I think with that one that the journey is more important than the final "reward."

[quote]Say the quest giver stabs you in the back and robs you blind - with no recourse to hunt the traitor down. Say the quest itself destroys a high-level item of yours and offers no compensatory loot at all. Say the quest causes a permanent damage to stats or attributes, with no cure or remedy.[/quote]
I think this is too severe.
[/quote][/quote]
So do I. Especially with the "no recourse to hunt down the traitor" thing. Why is that a good idea?

This brings to mind the story of Red Dead Redemption. At a certain point, the corrupt government you're working for brings you on a trip to (so they claim) get you the American fugitive you've been hunting, and instead they knock you on the head and are about to execute you when the rebel faction you've been two-timing them with saves you. Now, I would think this was an awesome touch, except the trap was so obvious even the protagonist saw it coming, and yet I couldn't avoid it. The only way this could have been more annoying would be if I didn't get to cap the bastard behind it. (Though the fact that the trapmaster is executed immediately after giving information under torture, and before the information is verified, rubs me the wrong way anyway. As you've probably guessed from my tone, this goes wrong. And I saw that coming too.)

Edit: Just saw Mr. Schumacher's post on the subject of too costly betrayals. Thank you for that.

[quote][quote]
[quote]One, you mix in the good quests with the bad, where a player will never know if they do X side quest, it will result terribly, or if they do Y side quest, it will pan out. A flag being set that has things ending up good or bad. This can seem a little arbitrary, but it would certainly make people hesistant just to be a completionist.[/quote]
I'm not sure I understand your suggestion here. Do you mean that each quest has a chance to "go bad" via a 50% dice roll? If so, I do think this is interesting. The problem I see with having quests that are set with bad endings is that on repeated plays people will avoid them because they have that meta knowledge. [/quote][/quote]

Like how I usually make Bhelen king, rather than Harrowmont, for instance?

Actually, that's probably a good example of what he's thinking.

[quote][quote]
[quote]Two, you accomplish some in-game good. Sure, your Epic Sword of Pwnage that cost you a quarter of your total gold is destroyed... but those orphans are sure glad their home isn't being closed down! Or, you helped freed the slaves... its a shame that blood mage cursed your soul and now you have 10% less health.[/quote]
To be honest, unless the intangible reward (ie freeing slaves) is VERY good and compelling, I don't think most players will opt for it if they know the consequences. You can comment on meta knowledge all you like, about players ruining their own first-play experience by looking things up, but the reality is that it DOES happen. People don't want to get burned because of perceived "mistake" on their part. It happened with friendship/rivalry, and it will happen with this, only on a much more severe scale. [/quote][/quote]

I would probably do this, yes.

[quote][quote]
To my point about the intangible reward being really rewarding, I would have taken a considerable hit to my personal power level if I could have saved Leandra's life. Something on that level is worth it to me. With other examples that you cite, it would depend on my mood at the time and the amount of such quests I have to deal with. I'm willing to play the hero and take a hit for those kinds of causes, but how many hits can I take before I start to severely damage my progress in the game? [/quote][/quote]

I would probably do a playthrough of each. Several playthroughs in, I might even consider taking all the hits to my power. You know, when I'm good enough to handle it...

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]Do you like quests that fall apart?[/quote]
I actually think this is somewhat separate from the rest of your post. I think the story aspect of a quest can fall apart, with the result not turning out like you expect. Leandra's death being a main example of this since you are unable to save her, despite the various paths that the quest can take. I don't much like a tangible hit to your character because it feels like a punishment, instead of just an action consequence.[/quote][/quote]

Thank you.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 12 février 2013 - 12:02 .

[Mark of the Dragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I think that there is a difference here. I would be angry if I invested a whole bunch of time into a character or romance just to have it blow up in my face. Why? Because I probably spent many hours getting to know and understand that character. Having them betray me or back fire would make that feel wasted.

With that said I am ok with random quests being bad. I mean logically not everthing goes as planned and sometimes things are disastorous so I would be ok with some side quests that randomly turn out like this. However I kind of feel by the secong playthrough most people would meta game and avoid those quests all together.

Also on the topic of companions I am ok with some level of tragedy as long as my actions can fix it ot make it ok. In DA2 Isabela can betray Hawke and disappear with the Tomb of Cousland. For people wanting to romance her that sucks but knowing that there actions could have changed that outcome made it interesting. It made player choice matter. I am also ok with my LI dying, being kidnapped or the likes IF I have the ability to stop it should I make the right descisions. This scenario could be made more interesting if more then there life or well being was on the line. For example what if you have to choose to save a whole town or to save them.

Changing points a little I am actually a huge fan of having the player character have to make a choice between leaving or staying with an LI even if it isnt in there best interest. I think this descision would work best at the end of the game. This is a different scenario but still has a level of tragedy in the companion/ LI area. I think it is one of the ways that allows for a happy ending while also haveing a level of sacrifice. For example what if you stop the antagonist but the main character has to leave and taking there LI would only hurt them? What do you do? Sorry Im getting on a different topic so I will end my rant

[Shya]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

U can't make everyone happy. Just keep making the games u do. I say ur doing something right or this many people wouldn't play them(or come to complain about them)

[Harle Cerulean]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I think that there is a difference here. I would be angry if I invested a whole bunch of time into a character or romance just to have it blow up in my face. Why? Because I probably spent many hours getting to know and understand that character. Having them betray me or back fire would make that feel wasted.

With that said I am ok with random quests being bad. I mean logically not everthing goes as planned and sometimes things are disastorous so I would be ok with some side quests that randomly turn out like this. However I kind of feel by the secong playthrough most people would meta game and avoid those quests all together.

Also on the topic of companions I am ok with some level of tragedy as long as my actions can fix it ot make it ok. In DA2 Isabela can betray Hawke and disappear with the Tomb of Cousland. For people wanting to romance her that sucks but knowing that there actions could have changed that outcome made it interesting. It made player choice matter. I am also ok with my LI dying, being kidnapped or the likes IF I have the ability to stop it should I make the right descisions. This scenario could be made more interesting if more then there life or well being was on the line. For example what if you have to choose to save a whole town or to save them.

Changing points a little I am actually a huge fan of having the player character have to make a choice between leaving or staying with an LI even if it isnt in there best interest. I think this descision would work best at the end of the game. This is a different scenario but still has a level of tragedy in the companion/ LI area. I think it is one of the ways that allows for a happy ending while also haveing a level of sacrifice. For example what if you stop the antagonist but the main character has to leave and taking there LI would only hurt them? What do you do? Sorry Im getting on a different topic so I will end my rant

Yikes, Isabela stole the Cousland family tomb?  How did I miss that?!  

...heeeey, wait, don't they burn their dead in Ferelden?    She must be a really good thief.

[Fast Jimmy]

[quote]Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

So do I. Especially with the "no recourse to hunt down the traitor" thing. Why is that a good idea?[/quote]

I want to address this, as it seems more than a few people have raised questions about why I said this. I don't think it would be bad if we could hunt down the people's responsible... but at that point, it just becomes a questline. A cool sounding questline, don't get me wrong... but it involves more content. If doing a side quest results in a bad thing and you can then follow up and seek vengeance, that's not really having something bad happen. That's just setting up more content. 

I wouldn't want a player to feel punished that they can't see content without losing half their gold. And I wouldn't want to have a quest where you lose half your gold, chase down the people responsible, strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger, and get all your money back (plus some XP and a sense of righteous awesomeness). That would completely defeat the purpose of what I outlined. The general gist is that "taking every quest, without any thought to if you should or not or if that quest really does represent something you think is right may not, in fact, be the best thing for an adventurer to do, despite nearly three decades of video games telling us differently."

[quote]I'm not sure I understand your suggestion here. Do you mean that each quest has a chance to "go bad" via a 50% dice roll? If so, I do think this is interesting. The problem I see with having quests that are set with bad endings is that on repeated plays people will avoid them because they have that meta knowledge. [/quote][/quote]

Like how I usually make Bhelen king, rather than Harrowmont, for instance?

Actually, that's probably a good example of what he's thinking.[/quote]

This is not exactly what I was going for, no. 

In your above mentioned choice, many people feel that choosing Bhelen is the "good" ending, since Harrowmont winds up either making things worse for the castless, or even eradicating them completely if he controls the Anvil, which are seen as pretty bad things. 

But, no matter how many times you choose Harrowmont, these bad things happen. No matter how many times you choose Bhelen, he helps out the casteless. All is good (or bad, as the case may be) with the world.

I'm talking about where a quest like smuggling lyrium for the Carta to the Circle, except instead of everything going just as planned the entire time, there was an X% chance of things going bad. Let's say a greedy Templar muscles in on your Circle contact, making them unable to buy your lyrium, meaning you've just taken it in the teeth for the money you paid (because your average vendor doesn't buy pure lyrium for much at all, coppers on the sovereign to what you get by completing the quest). Or say the dwarven carta thug winds up paying you not in sovereigns, but in a "rare piece of equipment" that winds up being next to worthless or even has a curse on it that hurts your character's stats.

Point being, it would add variability, so that you never knew, even with meta-game knowledge, what actions were safe and which ones were risky. This wouldn't apply (in my mind, at least) with main quests, only with side quest content. But just a twist where things don't play out exactly rosy as they do most times when you complete a quest. After all... how many games have we all played over the years that just winds up being running around to try and squeeze money and gear out of the Quest Giver vending machine?


But many people in this thread have already lambasted that idea, hating it. Saying that a random percentage they have no control over is not enjoyable at all. So it may be pointless to keep discussing it.

[Estelindis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Not sure if you're talking about Jacob or Thane here.  I tend to think Jacob because it was clear from the start that Thane was dying.  While I know that many people would not be a fan of his cheating on Shepard even if it was written well, I do think that a huge part of the issue here was that it was written poorly.  Jacob cheats on Shepard and Shepard's only two possible responses are "Aw, I forgive you," and "Noooo, I still want you!"  There is no "Really, Jacob, you couldn't wait?"  There is no "You double-timing piece of ****!"

This is ignoring the double standards in the romances that were chosen to have sad/fail endings.  Straight male Shepard gets more options than straight female Shepard, yet straight FemShep is the one who has two romances that *cannot* succeed?

Take care of those two issues and all you really have left to decide is whether the outcry from players at unsuccessful storylines is a price you're willing to pay for investigating interesting dramatic options.  I think that Dragon Age has generally done a better job of handling the balance of success and failure here.  My city elf was dumped by Alistair in DA:O but she knew why and they were both still in love.  My Hawke called things off with Anders when he warned her he'd just end up hurting her ("Well, okay then, guess I'll listen to your warning instead of casually brushing it aside!"), and went on to have some relationship troubles with Fenris before eventually getting back together with the broody elf.  I find those relationship quirks interesting and challenging.  Stories where there's the actual posibility of failure give a much deeper sense of danger and drama, and a far better payoff if you actually do manage to succeed.  More of these please.

Modifié par Estelindis, 12 février 2013 - 04:00 .

[Direwolf0294]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I just beat Telltale's The Walking Dead game (bleeding fantastic. Although I don't think I have the emotional fortitude to replay it for some time) and in that game there were a few choices I made that bit me in the ass. I didn't think the game was out to get me for it.

What gives?

Is it the setting? The characters? The sheer amount of bleakness anyway in the game? I mean some choices I made seemed to decimate the group and others I'm entirely unaware of how my choice helped anything.

Glad someone brought The Walking Dead up. The Walking Dead was set up as bleak and depressing from the start and maintained that feeling through out the entire game, so when bad stuff happened it was expected and felt more emotional rather than the game kicking you in the teeth and screwing with you.

If you're going to have that bleak and depressing stuff in your game, or in any story really, you've got to set it up from the start. You can't suddenly decide in the last chapter that everything's going to go to hell, that's not good writing and you're going to alienate your audience if you do it. That's part of the reason ME3's ending sucked so much, a suddent, unexpected shift in tones, where in the last 10 minutes the story moved away from heroes journy/hollywood blockbuster/hope filled story to, you're all screwed, nothing you did mattered, enjoy death.

If DA3 wants to avoid the mistakes of ME3, but still wants to pull out those suddent deaths and bleak situations, then it's something they've got to set up from the start. Creating a likeable character, then kill them off in the first few hours gameplay. Having something traumatic happen to the PC. Have the PC try and help someone and then everything goes to hell and nothing works out like they planned. That way, failing quests and a grimdark ending aren't going to feel so much like the game's just screwing with you.

DA2 did this a bit, but it also failed in several ways. You can't just suddenly kill a character off like they did with your sibling at the start of the game, you've actually got to get to know that character first before their death means anything (I know Allan thinks the sibling thing was handled fine, but I really have to disagree with that assessment). The way DA2 fragmented the story between acts didn't help with establishing emotional connections with the characters or their situations. Now before someone says it, yes, The Walking Dead was episodic and also split the story up, but the different sections of The Walking Dead's story flowed a lot better into each other than DA2's did. The Walking Dead's chapters all felt like different chapters in the same book, DA2's acts felt like completely different books.

Part of it is also, DA2 is an RPG with a lot of filler content between major story elements. A lot of sidequests, a lot of dungeon crawling, where as The Walking Dead is all about the one main story and its characters. It's a lot easier to develope and emotional attachment to the characters and their situations in The Walking Dead than DA2 because there's less filler content. It's a lot harder to care about a characters death or their bleak situations when you spend 5 hours running around a city fighting faceless bandits and collecting various knick-knacks for people before you talk about it again. "Oh, my mum died, that sucks, but I've got to go sell all this junk in my backpack, flirt with Merrill for a bit (during which no mention of my dead family will be made) and then help a guy kills some dragons in his mine. I'll get back to talking about mum in, oh, let's say, four hours time".  And look, maybe this is a problem suffered by all RPGs. DA2's certainly not the only game that does it. I love RPGs, and I've played a lot of them, and none have made me feel that sense of loss the The Walking Dead made me feel. Don't get me wrong, they made me feel stuff, hanging out with Garrus and shooting stuff is still one of my favourite video game moments, but they make me feel different things in a different way, and I can't help but wonder if RPGs should stop trying to make the player feel things through loss of a character, and instead focus on making us feel through other means.

I should also note, DA2 had what I'd consider a happy ending, which is funny considering that it did try hard to establish a grimdark setting. The thing of note though is that, most people don't like it when a happy game has a sad ending, but they'll be fine if a sad game had a happy ending, so my message to the DA3 writers is, just because you've established a grimdark setting, don't be afraid to shine a little light at the end, or, at the very least, do a better job and balancing the bittersweet than ME3 did.

I completely lost my train of thought and started rambling about things this topic has nothing to do with, and I apologise for that, but I wrote it all up and I'm not going to just delete it all now.