260 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

The player has to pick their class very early in the game. It would be impossible to properly foreshadow that characters they like may die or whatnot at that point. Even if it were possible, I wouldn't do it. I would still consider it very poor design? Why? Because I want players to have the freedom to play a class they enjoy. A class they actually have fun with. A class they identify with, perhaps. Not a class they feel will lead them to the best outcome. That is not fun. A video game should not be a chore to get the best story.

As for what sort of effect they would have, it doesn't matter. Any significant effect on the story is too much.

To answer the last one, I'd have to talk about the Theory of Narrative Causality. The short answer is that you're mixing up your cause and effect. Gratifying and meaningful things do not happen to characters because they're stories. They're in stories because things happen to them. Having incredible things happen to characters that are 'unlikely' is therefore not only an acceptable part of great storytelling, but a necessary one. 

Modifié par David7204, 25 février 2013 - 01:39 .

[Indy_S]

Ideally, there would be no 'best story'. All of them would be equal. The choice should have both positive and negative consequences.

[David7204]

The player is perfectly free to consider the 100% Renegade ending the 'best' story, if they so choose. And indeed, quite a few people on the BSN do. If you believe them anyway.

But no, I'm not having every ending lead to a general same amount of heroic themes and outcomes.

[adayaday]

Indy_S wrote...

Ideally, there would be no 'best story'.
All of them would be equal. The choice should have both positive and
negative consequences.

Check this outwww.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par adayaday, 25 février 2013 - 01:44 .

[David7204]

I'm not watching a 15 minute video. But I will say that I think Fallout 3 did just about everything better than New Vegas, including the story. (And definitely the atmosphere and tone which the video seems to be about from a glance.) Except maybe the companions, but there are still quite a few low-hanging fruit there.

Modifié par David7204, 25 février 2013 - 01:46 .

[Indy_S]

I hold them the other way around. New Vegas was better in my opinion, even the story.

As to the culmination of the endings, I understand. I disagree, but I understand.

[M Hedonist]

I just can't picture it. Too far-fetched.

[AllThatJazz]

Jassu1979 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Gee, just like people blatantly ignore the 'searching for rocks' missions in ME 1 and the 'mineral scanning missions' in ME 2 whenever they want to shill how much better the missions in those games were? 

The difference being that those games *did* in fact feature a wide array of missions and conversations on the side, instead of: "oh, I heard you talking about [item]: here it is. Have a nice day."

Personally, I've never put too much effort into finding rocks or insignia in ME1. I'm nowhere near obsessive-compulsive enough for that.
Planet scanning in ME2 drew lots of complaints from just about anyone - but that was not a side mission, or even pretending to be one. It was a farming mechanic, basically. Which was why everybody hated it.

I don't see the fetch quests in ME3 as side quests at all - just as a slight extension of the scanning/farming mechanic. Instead of scanning for minerals to get upgrades or looking for piles of rocks/crashed probes in the Mako, you scan for War Assets and deliver them to the appropriate person. Or don't, since it's optional. More optional than scanning in ME2, because without minerals you can't get your upgrades - and upgrading was about as RPG as ME2 got. The most valuable war assets are all found as parts of the 'proper' quests anyway.

And the 'proper' sidequests (AY monastery, Tuchanka bomb, Grissom Academy, rescuing Admiral Koris etc) are really good and well-integrated - as another poster said, so well-integrated that some players confuse them for bits of the main quest. The N7 missions, not quite as good in ME3 for me, because there were no non-combat missions which I enjoyed in ME2. I liked the mini-quests on the citadel though (Balak, Kasumi, Zaeed, Aria's mercenaries, the Salarian photo-journalist etc). While ME1's main story was compelling (the most so of the three games, for me), I thought the sidequests were generally not good, with a few exceptions. For me they mostly felt like xp farming so I could get that extra point in Charm/Intimidate or whatever.

OT: Honestly, ME3 is RPG enough for me, for the type of game it is and has always been marketed as since ME1- which is action RPG. I do think that ME1 is the best RPG of the series, but I don't think its stronger RPG elements did it any favours in terms of gameplay - which I think was the weakest of the series. I guess in the end, I would rather play a decent game with fun combat etc that is not a great RPG, than an alright RPG (which is all ME1 was anyway, imo) that is a clunky and frustrating game.

I don't think Bioware has ever got the Action/RPG balance right (though personally I think ME3 was the closest, even with stupid amounts of autodialogue) - but I don't think any Devs have got it right so far. TW series are decent RPGs, with good story and crafting and horrid combat (imo); Alpha Protocol was an amazing RPG and really good story/characters with significant gameplay problems. Skyrim is a lovely exploration sim with simplified RPG elements, slightly boring combat and  a story and characters that I forget 5 minutes after playing. I thought ME3 nailed the combat, nailed the emotional resonance of its main story arc (ending controversy aside) and did well with the characters, did reasonably with some RPG mechanics (better than ME2, anyway), but fell short with Shepard's dialogue and exploration.

I await the day a Developer gets it spot on (if ever), but until then, I do think Bioware are closer than most.


Edit: Fallout New Vegas, best hybrid ever so far, for me But even then, I didn't think that the exploration element was that good. There seemed to be a lot on the map, but when I got to a large number of these places, nothing was happening.

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 25 février 2013 - 02:17 .

[The Night Mammoth]

David7204 wrote...

The player has to pick their class very early in the game. It would be impossible to properly foreshadow that characters they like may die or whatnot at that point.

You're the only one suggesting that characters would die as a result of these choices.

Even if it were possible, I wouldn't do it. I would still consider it very poor design. Why? Because I want players to have the freedom the play a class the enjoy. A class they actually have fun with. A class they identify with, perhaps. Not a class they feel will lead them to the best outcome. That is not fun. A video game should not be a chore to get the best story.

Why are you only talking about classes? Why are you assuming that choosing a class would have a large impact on the story? 

As for what sort of effect they would have, it doesn't matter. Any significant effect on the story is too much.

And what if the effect isn't significant? 

To answer the last one, I'd have to talk about the Theory of Narrative Causality. The short answer is that you're mixing up your cause and effect. Gratifying and meaningful things do not happen to characters because they're stories. They're in stories because things happen to them.

In a linear narrative, yeah sure, but it's not quite as relevant to choice based game, and I fail to see how this makes a choice with a positive outcome meaningful in an RPG. 

[David7204]

If it's not a significant effect, then it's fine. I'm perfectly fine with a few lines of dialogue. I would be perfectly with, for example, a tech class getting a special interrupt to take out a few enemies before a fight begins, since that doesn't affect the story (although I think the work would be better spent on content every player sees.)

Ah, I almost forgot. It shouldn't affect the player's characterzation. Because I don't want my Soldier Shepard to be a thug who likes to punch things. I don't want my Engineer Shepard to be a nerd who mumbles equations. I don't want my Infiltrator Shepard to be sneaky and...I dunno, pull pranks or something. I want my character to be smart and noble and heroic no matter what. (I'm betting it would be pretty impossible to write distinct traits for the Sentinel, Adept, and Vanguard anyway.)

As for the last part, it's just as relevant. You always want a story to have powerful and meaningful themes and events and such. Well, assuming your goal is to write a heroic story anyway, but that's certainly Mass Effect. If you'd like proof, simply look through the forums. The most praised, most lauded, most satisfying and triumphant parts of the series of the parts where the player makes a 'positive' choices and it leads to a positive outcome. In other words, where the player's choices and Shepard's heroism are meaningful. Most of the romances, for starters. And look. When that doesn't happen, as with Thane or Jacob, people get upset.

Modifié par David7204, 25 février 2013 - 02:41 .

[Bleachrude]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

The side missions in ME3 were brilliant.

From the material you reference here, I take it you are blatantly ignoring the "overheard conversations/scanning random planets and receiving a static picture"-type of side quest.
Can't say I blame you. I'd repress that memory, too, if I thought that it helped improve my impression of ME3.

As it is, though, it's *those* side quests we are talking about. You know, the ones that turn Shepard into a nosy stalker and/or do not really give you the option to even TALK to people before you go and fetch some random item for them that you won't even get to see?

But those aren't side quests though...that's part of the mini-game a la the scanning for minerals in ME2. AND I actually consider them (ME3) superior to ME2's in that they weren't as frustrating as tedious as scanning was.

Even with a game guide, you can't even do anything about the  slog of scanning for minerals and worse, you HAVE to do the scanning missions since that supplies the materials for most of your uprades...without scanning, is it even possible to get enough upgrades for the normandy?

In Me3, not only were those quests truly optional but a game guide can significantly cut down on the time it takes to actually do them...

Now...are you talking about the mini-missions that utilize the MP maps? The combat mission minquests I thought were also better integrated into the storyline as Hackett gave you some reasoning for why you might want to go to place X whereas in both ME1 and ME2, such missions were totally divorced and I actually thought made little sense.

(Apparently, Saren is going to wait for you tto hunt down all those trinkets like the turian colony markers even though they have no connection to the main quest).

I don't even consider the "eavesdropping/overhear" method bad since apparently, I'm the only one living in the age of cellphones and actually in an environment with people under the age of 30 (aka, EVERYONE has cellphones these days and walk around and yes, you can find out what someone is talking about even if you intentionally aren't trying to listen in...people seem to talk at a volume that practically everyone 3 feet around them can clearly hear them)



My problem is with the journal...now THAT, that was in serious need to reworki