Aller au contenu

Photo

The danger of giving players too MUCH control


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
292 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Doctor_Jackstraw

Doctor_Jackstraw
  • Members
  • 2 231 messages
Recently I had sort of an epiphany that by giving players so much control over the game that bioware actually ended up shooting themselves in the foot because players got lulled into thinking they were the alpha and omega of the universe and didnt like being able to make certain decisions early but then not those decisions later.  This extends through ME2 AND 3 for me.  Namely the fact that its SO EASY to end up with a perfect suicide mission in 2.  Alot of these super perfect solutions ended up backfiring in ME3 when quarian/geth peace became really common and easy to achieve, for example.  (I still think shepard being able to convince them to stop their war was silly)


what should have happened was the choices in 2 should have been weighted more.  there are a few things that should have been actual choices in 2 that they kind of gave in on and let the player just jesus through it.  I also feel like quarian/geth peace was another "this was way easier than i thought it'd be, guys"


The big things in ME2 that stand out to me are:
The Crew's Survival
Loyalty Missions
Character Conflicts
Ship Upgrades

These four elements should have been revisited to force the player into making hard decisions.  the upgrades you get from the investigate prompt should have been in the mission.  the 3 big ones that allow characters to survive the suicide mission or not should have had some exchange within the mission that comprimises character loyalty.

example: Admiral Xen stops you on your way off of the na'rya and asks you for the geth research, which would damn tali's father in the trial, but in exchange she offers you the sheilds upgrade research data.  this would be the only way to get the normandy sheilding which would prevent you losing someone in the debris feild in the suicide mission, but you'd end up losing tali's loyalty in the process.  Being able to argue away tali's guilt in the trial was kind of lame too, and meant that nobody would get her exiled or lose her loyalty.  it should have been more about that decision. 

Garrus's cannons upgrade should have been something harkin bargins with you on, if you accept it and harkin gets away then garrus won't trust you but if you turn down his offer you can track down sidonis and get garrus's loyalty.  Not that he is no longer loyal to you, but it could end with garrus being frustrated that sidonis got away, leaving him unfocused for the final mission.  "We need to have every advantage we can get, garrus, even if it means letting slime like Sidonis walk free."  (Loyalty should have been changed to "Focus" for this reason)

The armor upgrades could have been something jacob's father bargains with you on in exchange for a weapon.  "Our research, we were supposed to take it back to the alliance before our ship went down.  its yours in exchange for a decent weapon to defend myself with if you forget everything you saw here and leave"  Jacob loses respect for you in exchange for getting armor to protect the normandy when you pass through the relay.

The lesser research should have just been  found in missions, like grunt's shotgun or legion's sniper rifle or jack's biotics boost, those ones dont need to have loyalty conflicts associated with them like the other 3.  The major research for the ship having loyalty conflicts associated would have given the game a unique sense of choice and personal investment for that final mission where everyone ends up with different people dead and the "everyone survives" outcome would be much harder to achieve.


The Jack/Miranda and Tali/Legion conflicts shouldn't have allowed you to please both parties.  it should have been a choice, with no ability to patch it up afterwards.  The Grunt/Mordin conflict should have made it in too.  The conflicts should trigger upon completion of either mission, reguardless of if you


The crew survival should have gone like this: When you get the reaper iff mission shepard can say "I'll think about it" to which TIM and edi/miranda/jacob respond "The reaper is orbiting a dwarf star and is estimated to fall into it within the next day or so, this is our one chance"  forcing you to take the mission then and there.  then when the crew is taken you end up having only completed a few loyalty missions before having to decide between "Doing more loyalty missions or trying to save the crew"



This would have wound up with the ability to do every mission in the game, but lose the crew, not have any upgrades, and have lost 2 or more characters' loyalty.  Acquiring all 3 upgrades but losing garrus, tali, and jacob's loyalty would have left you with few options for a good fire team leader (miranda if you side with her against jack) and less options for a good tech expert (if you dont side with legion when he and tali have their conflict) 

Securing loyalty could have been a little more complex in each mission too.  some of the easy outs felt like it negated the novelty of the decision.  Zaeed's mission should have lost loyatly if you take the paragon route, reguardless of your dialogue choice.  It should have been fruitless to try to "trap" the admirals into pardoning tali without using the evidence (it should have just extended the dialogue, with quarian political stability being at risk, rather than a get out of jail free card)  Samara should have lost her loyalty if you're Renegade when she says "Your wicked actions would compel me to hunt you down after completing my service to you"  You should still get alternate costumes and powers just for COMPLETING the mission, even if you didnt secure their loyalty.  Also, Morinth should have had a negative affinity towards the biotic shield, while still displaying "Loyal" in the squad screen (Maybe giving her a hold the line score of zero no matter what)  the idea of paragon backfiring with zaeed and renegade backfiring with samara, i think, is really cool, since they both represent the far swings of renegade and paragon, respectively.  (its practically in the game already)


having this much variability, while being forced to make REAL decisions in ME2 and making a full survival suicide mission difficult to pull off would have left things in a VERY interesting spot going into 3, bioware would have probably handled the me2 characters in 3 differently because thered be a much  more unique spread to the survival rates for suicide mission.



to reitterate: 
  • Character/Ship upgrades should have been linked to the loyalty mission, with the 3 big upgrades requiring you to sacrifice the jacob/tali/garrus's loyalty to get the armor/shield/cannon upgrade. 
  • The reaper iff mission should have triggered IMMEDIATELY after the derilect collector ship mission on the grounds of "If we let it sit there it'll fall into the brown dwarf".  This would force you to make a hard decision between saving the crew and doing the rest of the loyalty missions.
  • You shouldn't have been able to secure loyalty from BOTH characters in conflicts, even after the fact.  They're basically pointless as they are.  Also Grunt/Mordin's conflict should have been in the game.  This would leave all players lacking in at least 3 loyalties, forcing them to plan arround that for the finale to save these characters
  • Zaeed and Tali's missions should have not given you pursuation/intimidate cheats to bypass the actual choice.
  • Samara should lose loyalty to a renegade shepard over time, reflected by what she says at the end of her dialogue tree as the game is now.
  • Morinth should have a 0 HTL score and unable to sustain the biotic bubble.

This would have lead to starting the suicide mission with 3 unloyal characters, plus potentially 3 more unloyal, and then either 3 more unloyal characters or 3 dead characters.  This would be in exchange for the crew.  if you go after the crew early you have far less chances to secure loyalty reguardless.

COOL PART HERE

So an average playthrough could see this:  (This is making some assumptions about squad makeup as well)
miranda unloyal, legion unloyal, grunt unloyal.  zaeed unloyal, samara unloyal.  jacob loyal.  garrus loyal.  tali loyal.  mordin loyal, jack loyal, thane loyal, kasumi loyal.

jack dead, kasumi dead, thane dead during approach.

tali in the vents.  kelly and the crew dies.  losing a squadmate to the swarms with samara on bubble  (lets say zaeed and grunt squad, loses grunt).  garrus on fire team.  sending jacob to escort chakwas and the colonists.  taking miranda and garrus to the final boss.  Miranda dies to the boss, garrus survives.  legion, zaeed, samara, tali, and mordin left to hold the line wiht a score of 7 for 5 squadmates.  this would result in losing 2 squadmates (I believe unloyals first, so it'd be samara and legion die)  This shepard would come out of the suicide mission with only garrus, jacob, zaeed, tali, mordin, and chakwas surviving, with grunt unloyal.  That sounds like a pretty serious suicide mission to me, and a steep cost for loyalty.

I'm probably going to go over this later and see what combination would allow for a full 12 to survive  (would it be possible under these conditions to get all 12 AND the whole crew?) 

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 12:20 .


#2
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
No. I am absolutely opposed to Shepard being less competent and more helpless in any way. And that's exactly what this is.

The conflicts and the story are better for Shepard being a hero. Not worse.

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 12:19 .


#3
NCommand

NCommand
  • Members
  • 190 messages
Agreed, people got too used to having the ability of always overcoming obstacles, it didn't bother me personally, but I'm certain a lot of people got angry during the ending because a pyrhic victory was forced upon them, now I thought it was good having a ending showing that you can't escape losses, but I'm afraid too many hoped for something a bit more... cheerful

#4
o Ventus

o Ventus
  • Members
  • 17 223 messages
Since I'm on a phone right now I can't be bothered to detail why this is wrong, so I'll just leave it at "no."

Also, lol @ you wanting Morinth to be unable to hold the biotic bubble.

Modifié par o Ventus, 13 mars 2013 - 12:25 .


#5
Doctor_Jackstraw

Doctor_Jackstraw
  • Members
  • 2 231 messages

David7204 wrote...

No. I am absolutely opposed to Shepard being less competent and more helpless in any way. And that's exactly what this is.

The conflicts and the story are better for Shepard being a hero. Not worse.


o Ventus wrote...

Since I'm on a phone right now I can't be bothered to detail why this is wrong, so I'll just leave it at "no."



no because it sets a poor expectation.  You might as well be arguing for shepard saving both ashley AND kaiden on virmire.  "Belay that, joker, we're going back for the leutenant, then we're getting the hell off this planet with the genophage cure"  See what that does to virmire when you start just making everything a "yes or no" outcome?  Having to make difficult choices puts you in the head of your character, deciding whether you want the good or bad outcome just means everyone picks the good one and choice is irrelevant.  the bad outcome doesnt even need to be there now.  thats the failing of giving the player an easy-out.  it nullifies the stakes and removes emotion from decisionmaking.  it turns the supporting characters into the lead's "puppets" and removes elements of realism from the world, bit by bit.


NCommand wrote...

Agreed, people got too used to having
the ability of always overcoming obstacles, it didn't bother me
personally, but I'm certain a lot of people got angry during the ending
because a pyrhic victory was forced upon them, now I thought it was good
having a ending showing that you can't escape losses, but I'm afraid
too many hoped for something a bit more... cheerful


Yeah, part of that expectation comes from the game "giving in" far too often leading up to that.  ME1 had a ton of moments where you had to make the best call you could, and not every decision was a complete victory.  it made it feel like you were choosing against other characters' emotions and the stakes of the world, rather than against the writer and game designer.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 12:26 .


#6
dreamgazer

dreamgazer
  • Members
  • 15 742 messages

David7204 wrote...

No. I am absolutely opposed to Shepard being less competent and more helpless in any way.


That's ... boring.

#7
Dr_Extrem

Dr_Extrem
  • Members
  • 4 092 messages
taking away one of the key features of the game is not really a good idea.

the perfect suicide mission was the reward for playing every mission. limiting the ways how to play the game, takes out a lot of the rpg-aspects of the game.

the perfect suicide mission should have been harder to achieve but not impossible. not rewarding a player for giving his/her best, is a bad idea.

#8
o Ventus

o Ventus
  • Members
  • 17 223 messages

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. I am absolutely opposed to Shepard being less competent and more helpless in any way.


That's ... boring.


It also makes perfect sense.

Nobody wants to play a hyper-lethal space commando, who just happens to be fundamentally retarded.

#9
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
No, it doesn't. You know what it does? It props up 'choice' at the cost of running heroism over with a bus.

When I play as Shepard, I'm not terribly concerned with choice. I want to do the right thing, and that's the end of it. I want my friends to survive, and that's the end of it. I want my heroism to matter, and that's the end it.

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 12:28 .


#10
Doctor_Jackstraw

Doctor_Jackstraw
  • Members
  • 2 231 messages

Dr_Extrem wrote...

taking away one of the key features of the game is not really a good idea.

the perfect suicide mission was the reward for playing every mission. limiting the ways how to play the game, takes out a lot of the rpg-aspects of the game.

the perfect suicide mission should have been harder to achieve but not impossible. not rewarding a player for giving his/her best, is a bad idea.


thats what i'm saying, I have to do a little figuring out based on the rules i laid out but what I'm suggesting would have made a perfect victory DIFFICULT but possible.  You'd have less easy answers and would have to actuall budget characters for the situation to achieve the impossible.



it doesnt feel like an achievement if you didnt have to try that hard to get it.


o Ventus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. I am absolutely opposed to Shepard being less competent and more helpless in any way.


That's ... boring.


It also makes perfect sense.

Nobody wants to play a hyper-lethal space commando, who just happens to be fundamentally retarded.


I see you didnt read my post, because I dont take anything away from shepard.  merely i reinforce existing side characters so they have the weight that ashley and kaiden did when you were standing on virmire looking at that one or the other decision.  Ashley told you "No, go save the leutenant" and kaiden said "No, go back for ash"  they didn't just abandon their mission to come help you.  you had to decide what was important to you on a personal level and it became one of the most memorable moments of the trilogy that people STILL talk about.


David7204 wrote...

No, it doesn't. You know what it does? It props up 'choice' at the cost of running heroism over with a bus.

When
I play as Shepard, I'm not terribly concerned with choice. I want to do
the right thing, and that's the end of it. I want my friends to
survive, and that's the end of it. I want my heroism to matter, and
that's the end it.


So you just want an easy victory?  What I wrote up are suggestions to make that victory require more from shepard to achieve total victory.  Doesnt THAT make you even MORE heroic?  Because you managed to make the right choices with limited resources and still come out with everyone alive.  (this is basically what the war hero backstory is described as having done)

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 13 mars 2013 - 12:31 .


#11
dreamgazer

dreamgazer
  • Members
  • 15 742 messages

o Ventus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. I am absolutely opposed to Shepard being less competent and more helpless in any way.


That's ... boring.


It also makes perfect sense.

Nobody wants to play a hyper-lethal space commando, who just happens to be fundamentally retarded.


Do we have to operate within extremes?

#12
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. I am absolutely opposed to Shepard being less competent and more helpless in any way.


That's ... boring.


I'm sorry you feel that way. There are plenty of stories that feature incompetent 'heroes.'

#13
Bill Casey

Bill Casey
  • Members
  • 7 609 messages
Basically, you want to change the entire trilogy to suit the ending rather than the other way around?

#14
Michotic

Michotic
  • Members
  • 300 messages

Dr_Extrem wrote...

taking away one of the key features of the game is not really a good idea.

the perfect suicide mission was the reward for playing every mission. limiting the ways how to play the game, takes out a lot of the rpg-aspects of the game.

the perfect suicide mission should have been harder to achieve but not impossible. not rewarding a player for giving his/her best, is a bad idea.


^^

If a player puts in the time and effort to do as much in the game, why shouldn't he or she be rewarded as such?

I like being the hero. I like defeating my foes and saving the world/galaxy/town/whatever. If I'm set up from the get-go to be forced to screw over some of my people...meh. That's not as much fun to me. If the option is there, great! It shouldn't be the standard.

#15
Big Bad

Big Bad
  • Members
  • 1 714 messages
Confession: I've never had a "perfect" ME2 playthrough. I always manage to screw something up so that I end up losing at least one character. I don't think I've experienced ME3 with Zaeed not being dead yet. Some day, though. Some day...

#16
dreamgazer

dreamgazer
  • Members
  • 15 742 messages

David7204 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No. I am absolutely opposed to Shepard being less competent and more helpless in any way.


That's ... boring.


I'm sorry you feel that way. There are plenty of stories that feature incompetent 'heroes.'


Less competent and more helpless =/= incompetent and completely helpless.

#17
o Ventus

o Ventus
  • Members
  • 17 223 messages

dreamgazer wrote...


Do we have to operate within extremes?


Considering that the OP's suggestions seem to range from "make Shepard dumber" to "contrive binary no-win options to random choices", yes.

#18
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
The fallacy here is the assumption that you can ever put 'real' work or 'real' intelligence into a video game. You can't. The only thing you can ever do is play it. A video game needs to be accessible, and it needs to be fun. You can't 'require' things from the player beyond very basic reasoning.

A video game like this can't require genuine suffering or genuine work. Because then it wouldn't be a game, would it? It would be work.

You are not saving the galaxy. You aren't. Shepard is. You're sitting on the couch pushing buttons. Shepard's heroism matters. Not yours.

Modifié par David7204, 13 mars 2013 - 12:40 .


#19
Dr_Extrem

Dr_Extrem
  • Members
  • 4 092 messages

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

taking away one of the key features of the game is not really a good idea.

the perfect suicide mission was the reward for playing every mission. limiting the ways how to play the game, takes out a lot of the rpg-aspects of the game.

the perfect suicide mission should have been harder to achieve but not impossible. not rewarding a player for giving his/her best, is a bad idea.


thats what i'm saying, I have to do a little figuring out based on the rules i laid out but what I'm suggesting would have made a perfect victory DIFFICULT but possible.  You'd have less easy answers and would have to actuall budget characters for the situation to achieve the impossible.



it doesnt feel like an achievement if you didnt have to try that hard to get it.


thats true. 

linking the "golden ending" to only one particular combination of choices, is limiting the game and could violate the rpg aspects too much. if players are forced ooc, they lose their appetite and shut off the game.


i agree that the golden ending in me2 was too easy to achieve. mass effect 3 does not even have one - this is equally bad.


every game should have a golden ending for players, who give everything. it should be hard to achieve but ingame. it gives players another stimulus to replay the game.

mass effect games (especially 3) have the ability to have golden endings, due to their design and freedom. if you have the ability to implemnt them with ease, you should do it.

#20
Doctor_Jackstraw

Doctor_Jackstraw
  • Members
  • 2 231 messages

o Ventus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...


Do we have to operate within extremes?


Considering that the OP's suggestions seem to range from "make Shepard dumber" to "contrive binary no-win options to random choices", yes.


I dont see a single part where i made shepard dumber.  I merely moved choices arround.  instead of the ship armor coming out of nowhere it ends up as a bartering chip from a character in a mission.  a paragon will turn down the "tainted" offer, while a renegade will see that the ends justify the means.  none of these decisions nullify shepard, they just make the CHARACTERS stronger.  ie: Jack not willing to comprimise over what happened to her in the past, zaeed not letting vido's death go, samara's confession that she would have to hunt a renegade shepard down after the mission actually meaning something...none of these do ANYTHING negative to SHEPARD, the reinforce your squad and characters in missions to be truer to who they are.



Michotic wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

taking away one of the key features of the game is not really a good idea.

the
perfect suicide mission was the reward for playing every mission.
limiting the ways how to play the game, takes out a lot of the
rpg-aspects of the game.

the perfect suicide mission should have
been harder to achieve but not impossible. not rewarding a player for
giving his/her best, is a bad idea.


^^

If a player puts in the time and effort to do as much in the game, why shouldn't he or she be rewarded as such?

I
like being the hero. I like defeating my foes and saving the
world/galaxy/town/whatever. If I'm set up from the get-go to be forced
to screw over some of my people...meh. That's not as much fun to me. If
the option is there, great! It shouldn't be the standard.


This rewards actual heroism.  Knowing when to make the right choices is being a hero.  Bumrushing something, grinding out a victory, isnt heroic at all.


Bill Casey wrote...

Basically, you want to change the entire trilogy to suit the ending rather than the other way around?


No, I want to reinforce the founding principles of the first game in the second game.  The LINE from the me1 comercial was "Many choices await you, none of them easy"  as shepard turns down one distress call for another.  that line stuck out in my head so strongly and ME1 didnt dissapoint me.  I didnt feel like I accomplished a victory in ME2 when i got everyone out alive because i didnt have to use my brain to make an actual decision.  it was TOO easy to perfect  (like throwing the fire down on dracula in Castlevania 2)

#21
RedBeardJim

RedBeardJim
  • Members
  • 257 messages

Bill Casey wrote...

Basically, you want to change the entire trilogy to suit the ending rather than the other way around?


That's pretty much what I got from it, yeah.

#22
Rulid

Rulid
  • Members
  • 217 messages
I completely agree with the OP.

In fact, Bioware should have dropped the so-called "thousands of variables" from the get go and simply diverged at major points.

In fact there was no either/or situation like the Virmire Survivor since ME1.
You should really have absolute polar contrasts of crew members weighing in on variables and then Bioware might actually have had a significant amount of variation in their endings.

Quarian-Geth, Genophage-KroganExplosion, Rachni-orNot, Cerberus-orNot
Just even factoring these four variables would actually lead to at least 16 different endings
with an added flavor of suicide mission survivals.

As the OP stated, the whole Geth-Quarian peace situation is akin to choosing Ashley but
picking up Kaiden on a flyby. That's stupid.

Anyway. Big thumbs up to OP.

#23
mopotter

mopotter
  • Members
  • 3 742 messages

Big Bad wrote...

Confession: I've never had a "perfect" ME2 playthrough. I always manage to screw something up so that I end up losing at least one character. I don't think I've experienced ME3 with Zaeed not being dead yet. Some day, though. Some day...


i had 1 or 2 perfect games out of the many I played. One I accidently hit on the right combination and once I looked at the guide.  But I had much more fun picking the NPC I felt should be able to do the job, not picking the one that bioware picked as the one who could do the job.  I was however, always aware that everyone could survive and that was important to me.  :)

The one thing I do in every game is get the crew immediately.  I have a game where I didn't and I missed Gabby and the other crew.  Never again.    I don't think I would have played it as much as I did/do if i had less control.

Modifié par mopotter, 13 mars 2013 - 12:41 .


#24
drinkurmilk

drinkurmilk
  • Members
  • 231 messages
I agree, OP, and it is for this reason that I do not ever leave with a full squad from the Suicide Mission or aim for a 'perfect' play through. Though I doubt not having the option to do right by everyone and everything in-game would go down well here.

The renegade/paragon requisite was a game mechanic in its infancy in ME1/2: the player should not need to negate their choices to fulfill some arbitrary 'good' and 'bad' metre to unlock options later in the game. The 'reputation' system in this seemed like a step forward in this regard. Thessia and others in ME3 served at least partly to show Shepard as being fallible, but it would be good if in the future, Mass Effect could apply agency to these 'failures' - as the SM did with the ship upgrades. Though, I think there is room for further exploration here next time.

I'm all for games maturing, I think a natural progression would be for developers to move away pushing towards the all-seeing, all-conquering character. Give us more of a chance to fail, make it meaningful.

Modifié par chrisutd, 13 mars 2013 - 01:01 .


#25
AdmiralCheez

AdmiralCheez
  • Members
  • 12 990 messages
OP: The real problem with "too much choice" is having to cover for all the possible outcomes. And yes, I believe ME3 struggled in some respects with this, but overall did an acceptable job.

The "danger" you are talking about, however, is more a matter of a creative work bypassing its creator's intentions. Things have a way of evolving on their own, often beyond the scope of what was originally planned. Thus, it's important to constantly re-examine your work and make sure the intended message is coming across. In Mass Effect's case, the "no victory without sacrifice" theme tended to get buried under an exploitable dialogue system and part of the player base's tendency towards hyper-completionism.

But this is where our opinions differ: I believe that, if the story you wound up telling is no longer the one you wanted to tell in the first place, then don't try to shoehorn in your original idea. The work itself is more important than your intentions. Likewise, if you have a really cool idea, but it doesn't fit your current project, just save it for later. A lot of what's wrong with ME3 results from too much focus on trying to make it one thing or another, with not enough love and attention for what it is. All this "we want the CoD crowd" and "we want a non-traditional, speculative ending" stuff ultimately did ME3 harm.

PS: As for a hero being too powerful or whatever, that's sometimes okay.  A lot of people play videogames to temporarily escape the letdowns and failures of everyday life.  There's nothing wrong with winning so long as the player made enough of an effort.  Not that tragic protagonists are any better or worse, mind you; it's just that we have our Mary Sues for a reason.  They can win when we can't, and sometimes that gives us enough faith in ourselves to get out there and try again.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 13 mars 2013 - 12:49 .