87 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

Regardless, I've learned from ME3, not too get hyped up and be more realistic. I'm still very excited for Bioshock Infinite, but I'm not expecting the whole "never seen this" before, since every developer says this about their game. Also, it's not a trilogy.

[FlyingSquirrel]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

My only real problem with the "Charm/Intimidate" options is when they are exclusively the result of Shepard being a person of a certain repute. For example, while I don't have a problem with the text in Tali's trial speech, the fact that Shepard can suddenly ascend to the heights of eloquence (even though he's not that eloquent) simply because he's been good or bad makes it seem far too easy. That's why I much prefer the option of rallying the crowd, and believe that it should be the only way to successfully complete the mission.

What happens when you rally the crowd and don't Charm/Persuade?

Veetor and Kal'Reegar speak up for Tali and say that the Admirals might as well exile them too if they exile Tali.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Argolas wrote...

I liked it better when we had to invest skill points in Charm and Intimidate like we did in ME1. We had to pay the price of not being able to invest these points in other abilities. That already makes persuasion options feel better earned without being unfair.

I agree, though one problem there was that there were still limits on how many points you could invest in Charm/Intimidate, and there was at least one case - Ethan Jeong - where the threshold is bizarrely high. It always ends up with him pulling a gun and getting shot by Shepard unless you have, I think, 10 on one scale or 12 on the other. He's a corrupt jackass, sure, but he didn't seem insane or stupid enough to try to kill a Spectre.

[wright1978]

Wulfram wrote...

Third options are good to have sometimes. The ME3 story is IMO better with Rannoch as a moment of triumph and hope.

But they have more impact if they're not overused. And sometimes you've got a good difficult choice and it would be better to keep that. And people should feel like they're acting naturally, not getting Jedi Mind Tricked into following Shepard's whims.

Very much this. Third options are good to have but every once in a while throw in a virmire.

[Killdren88]

dreamgazer wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Because the "controversy" generated by ME3's Ending is pure marketing gold.

And apparently it'll become a continuing trend.

A pretty big release hitting next week could very well have a terrible "controversial" ending, too.

Which game is that?

This one.

So pissing off your fans equals sales?

[David7204]

People have made complaints about the mechanics of the persuasion system in all three games, and they're all somewhat valid. Personally, I'm fine with all three systems - basing it off skill points, morality points, or reputation points.

My biggest issue is with ME 1, since as someone mentioned, the charm option on Feros requires the skill to be maxed out, which can't be done without 75% Paragon. I always like to do Feros before Noveria - I think the story flows much, much better. Which means I have to do almost every sidequest before I can really get to the meat of the main story. Plus, you get unique dialogue from Ashley and Kaidan on the Normandy for convincing Jeong, so it's not a charm option to be missed.

Modifié par David7204, 22 mars 2013 - 05:14 .

[SpamBot2000]

How about a persuasion system based on player skill in identifying relevant motivations and arguments?

[David7204]

That would be fine, but remember it's going to be a minigame, and it can't be genuinely difficult or really require strong reasoning. Because then it wouldn't be accessible. No matter what, you aren't going to be thinking up Shepard's arguments yourself.

Games like LA Noire have tried it, and it just does not work.

Modifié par David7204, 22 mars 2013 - 05:21 .

[Argolas]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

How about a persuasion system based on player skill in identifying relevant motivations and arguments?

I would really be satisified with that already, as easy as it may be. You have already won a lot when the player is forced to actually read before clicking.

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't agree with the OP's premise of what heroism is, in literature or otherwise, so the entire argument about the 'fallacy' of it is more than a bit moot.


But if we acknowledge that 'heroism' is a a subjective concept that varies by person, let alone culture, and can accept that big caveat of opinion, then...

...well, I like my heroes succeeding despite the setbacks, not succeeding despite the odds. Those are two ways that many stories try and make their protagonist bigger, but a hero who doesn't back down despite the odds is far less moving and inspirational to me than a hero who is brought low and continues on anyway. One is a farm boy from a desert planet who's a prodigy who blows up a small moon with a lucky-skill shot to go for a medal ceremony, and the other is a farm boy from a desert planet who spends most of a movie struggling to succede, gets his hand cut off while losing a friend, and still pushes on.

Star Wars aside, it's my taste in heroes, as well as narratives, that seeks more Virmires than Collector Bases. Carrying impossible odds is lucky. Carrying the weight of defeat is character revealing. I prefer my heroes more characterized than lucky.

[David7204]

Nobody's saying there can't be defeats and there can't be Virmires. I'm perfectly fine with Mordin dying, Thane dying, Legion dying, losing on Thessia. I'm perfectly fine with Ashley and Kaidan and Liara treating you coldly, with missions often leading to side characters dying, with Earth being under attack and humanity being exterminated.

[Phatose]

....You know, the entire OP could probably be condensed to "games always need to be accessible. If your product is fun for 5% of players and frustrating for 95% of players, then you've failed as a designer." Which is obviously and patently untrue.

[David7204]

If your job is to make an enjoyable product and you make a product that 95% of your market does not enjoy, yeah, I would say you've done a poor job.

And no, that's really not the point at all. The point is that there's no such thing as the gameplay that some people are demanding in order for them to be satisfied, and that their expectations are skewed.

[Dean_the_Young]

David7204 wrote...

Nobody's saying there can't be defeats and there can't be Virmires. I'm perfectly fine with Mordin dying, Thane dying, Legion dying, losing on Thessia. I'm perfectly fine with Ashley and Kaidan and Liara treating you coldly, with missions often leading to side characters dying, with Earth being under attack and humanity being exterminated.

...except, the thing is, most of what you're listing aren't setbacks for the character. They're costs of otherwise victorious missions: tragic, to be sure, but not failures or defeats. About the only one of that list that could really qualify would be Thessia.


So when you're quoting a series of 'victory comes with a cost' examples, like Thane's blaze of glory or even the Virmire 'an otherwise exceptional victory' scenario, I'm not exactly sold on you attempt at agreement.

[MrFob]

This thread is based on the notion that ME3's ending is dark, which is debatable after the EC but let's go with that notion for now.
IMO, the problem is not that a story has a dark ending.
crimzontearz said it very well:

There is nothing wrong with those kinds of narratives, at all, there are many examples out there like Game of Thrones....the problem presents itself when this specific crowd begins to advocate that a previously "epic heroic saga" should be converted to a "tragic heroic saga" because that is what they like better.

Such thing is pure idiocy...like people advocating that rocksteady should kill batman in B:AA because it is more mature and deep. The reverse is true as well, Demon souls is a BLEAK game, advocating to turn it to a LOTR style narrative is juat unfair.

Now the problem is that ME3 can be played in different ways. The ending (especially pre-EC) fits very well to a renegade player, especially one who doesn't always use persuasion options. In that case, the whole trilogy is rather dark, you sacrifice a lot of people to reach your goal and it makes perfect sense that in the end Shep has to make the ultimate sacrifice.
However, this is not the only way to play the game and therefore, it's not the only basis for the narrative. If you play paragon and use all the charm options, you do experience the story as an epic. Shepard succeeds in an incredible way against overwhelming odds without too many losses (there are a few but those are needed even in an epic as counterpoints). If you play like this, Shepard is the ideal hero, willfull, charismatic, capable to take on any situation imprint his own will on it (that last part is important).
Because the story can be experienced in such diverse ways, it makes no sense that all the endings go very much into the same direction. None of them allows Shepard to do what he really wants to do and at least for the paragon player described above, that's what causes the disconnection.
If ME3 always had a happy end, no matter what, I'd also be disappointed. I was hoping that BW would reflect the different experiences, the player can have during the game in their endings but that didn't happen. That's what's causing my dissatisfaction, the lack of variety, not my preference to a certain type of narrative.

Modifié par MrFob, 23 mars 2013 - 01:43 .

[Eterna]

The problem is that most third options act as get out of jail free cards that undermine the conflict. I mean, the peace option between the Quarian and Geth totally undermined the entire ending of the game.

[Phatose]

David7204 wrote...

If your job is to make an enjoyable product and you make a product that 95% of your market does not enjoy, yeah, I would say you've done a poor job.

And no, that's really not the point at all. The point is that there's no such thing as the gameplay that some people are demanding in order for them to be satisfied, and that their expectations are skewed.

The problem is that you're assuming the market is all gamers, and it is not.  "Accessibility" is actually nothing more then targeting a broad market instead of a specific one.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with targeting a specific niche - and what you're describing in your OP isn't a design failure, it's a design success for a particular target market.

Since the rest of the OP is heavily dependent on the idea that games have to be accessible - that the gameplay you claim doesn't exist cannot exist - that mistake undermines the entire rest of the argument. 

Modifié par Phatose, 23 mars 2013 - 02:29 .

[Iakus]

Phatose wrote...

David7204 wrote...

If your job is to make an enjoyable product and you make a product that 95% of your market does not enjoy, yeah, I would say you've done a poor job.

And no, that's really not the point at all. The point is that there's no such thing as the gameplay that some people are demanding in order for them to be satisfied, and that their expectations are skewed.

The problem is that you're assuming the market is all gamers, and it is not.  "Accessibility" is actually nothing more then targeting a broad market instead of a specific one.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with targeting a specific niche - and what you're describing in your OP isn't a design failure, it's a design success for a particular target market.

Since the rest of the OP is heavily dependent on the idea that games have to be accessible - that the gameplay you claim doesn't exist cannot exist - that mistake undermines the entire rest of the argument. 

ME3 was designed to be as accessible as possible.  That's why there's multiplayer.  That's why there's Action Mode.  That's why "ME3 is the best place to jump in"

Too bad it turns out it's not as accessible as tehy claimed...

[Phatose]

And if he were making a Mass Effect specific claim, not a general one, I'd likely agree. But that doesn't seem to be what he's doing.

[David7204]

Phatose wrote...

David7204 wrote...

If your job is to make an enjoyable product and you make a product that 95% of your market does not enjoy, yeah, I would say you've done a poor job.

And no, that's really not the point at all. The point is that there's no such thing as the gameplay that some people are demanding in order for them to be satisfied, and that their expectations are skewed.

The problem is that you're assuming the market is all gamers, and it is not.  "Accessibility" is actually nothing more then targeting a broad market instead of a specific one.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with targeting a specific niche - and what you're describing in your OP isn't a design failure, it's a design success for a particular target market.

Since the rest of the OP is heavily dependent on the idea that games have to be accessible - that the gameplay you claim doesn't exist cannot exist - that mistake undermines the entire rest of the argument. 

You can't make a AAA game and market it exclusively to people who share the skills of the character. Trying to do that would just be completely ridiculous. It would be idiotic from a business perspective. Not only does it necessitate that your target audience can do it, it necessitates that your target audience will enjoy doing it. In addition, it doesn't solve the problem, it just softens it slightly. The core of the argument is that you cannot make a game as challenging for the player as it is for Shepard. Appealing to a 'niche market' doesn't come close to solving that. Even if by some miracle you made, for example, a computer hacking game, that requires incredibly difficult computer science and electrical engineering skill and successfully market it to the .0000000001% of the population that would not only be able to do it, but enjoy doing it, you can't possibly replicate the multiple approaches to problem solving that occur in real life. And that doesn't even touch gameplay such as combat, which is out-of-bounds, period.

Modifié par David7204, 23 mars 2013 - 07:00 .

[Raiil]

 

If ME3 always had a happy end, no matter what, I'd also be disappointed. I was hoping that BW would reflect the different experiences, the player can have during the game in their endings but that didn't happen. That's what's causing my dissatisfaction, the lack of variety, not my preference to a certain type of narrative.

I still think they would have been better off if they gave us a number of choices. Hell, they could keep the current 4 in, in different incarnations.


1. Low EMS Destroy. Rocks fall, almost everyone dies, basically the same as it is now. Synthetics die. This is the 'no risks taken' ending- you sacrifice must to save everyone.
2. Low-ish EMS Destroy. Rocks falls, not quite as many people die, you manage to save at least a few squaddies. Synthetics dies.
3. Control becomes an option. Shepard is uploaded into the Great Reaper Slushie in the Sky, same as in game.
4. Medium EMS Destroy. Rocks fall, a lot of people die, but you manage to save the council.
5. Medium Control. Shepard is permanently mindlinked to the Reapers but remains in a human body. This creates a 'what will happen in the future' scenario. For lulz, put Shepard into a coma that they're trying to wake them out of.
6. Synthesis becomes an option. Shepard polevaults into the Green Steam o' Doom, space magic happens.
7. High EMS Destroy. Rocks fall, Reapers die. Synthetics live.
8. High Control. Shepard's personality is uploaded, but Shepard remains in their own body. The Reapers, now working on Shepard logic, act according to Paragon or Renegade beliefs.
9. High Synthesis. Shepard touches the Green Stream, their DNA is dispersed. Space magic with a still alive Shepard.
10. Refuse. This option should technically be avaliable at the beginning, but if you have everything JUST in place, with insanely high War Assets, almost everyone on board, you are able to direct a frontal assault on the Reapers. Many die, but the war is won on the Galaxy's terms.

[RocketManSR2]

Valentia X wrote...

I still think they would have been better off if they gave us a number of choices. Hell, they could keep the current 4 in, in different incarnations.


1. Low EMS Destroy. Rocks fall, almost everyone dies, basically the same as it is now. Synthetics die. This is the 'no risks taken' ending- you sacrifice must to save everyone.
2. Low-ish EMS Destroy. Rocks falls, not quite as many people die, you manage to save at least a few squaddies. Synthetics dies.
3. Control becomes an option. Shepard is uploaded into the Great Reaper Slushie in the Sky, same as in game.
4. Medium EMS Destroy. Rocks fall, a lot of people die, but you manage to save the council.
5. Medium Control. Shepard is permanently mindlinked to the Reapers but remains in a human body. This creates a 'what will happen in the future' scenario. For lulz, put Shepard into a coma that they're trying to wake them out of.
6. Synthesis becomes an option. Shepard polevaults into the Green Steam o' Doom, space magic happens.
7. High EMS Destroy. Rocks fall, Reapers die. Synthetics live.
8. High Control. Shepard's personality is uploaded, but Shepard remains in their own body. The Reapers, now working on Shepard logic, act according to Paragon or Renegade beliefs.
9. High Synthesis. Shepard touches the Green Stream, their DNA is dispersed. Space magic with a still alive Shepard.
10. Refuse. This option should technically be avaliable at the beginning, but if you have everything JUST in place, with insanely high War Assets, almost everyone on board, you are able to direct a frontal assault on the Reapers. Many die, but the war is won on the Galaxy's terms.

Sure would've been nice to have those options.

[Obadiah]

OP, I have of late realized that Bioware games are just generally a huge ego stroke. All you have to do is clip your nails for someone to tell you how great you are. There is nothing wrong with putting the best possible ending behind a difficult challenge, and letting folks get a pretty good ending if they aren't willing to work for THE best. That doesn't make the best ending a chore, it makes it an achievement.

But, frankly, just to take two of the examples I've seen in this thread, getting the best ending in the Mass Effect trilogy is not that easy unless you have a guide.

Saving everyone in the suicide mission is not obvious if ME2 is played cold. It is not obvious that Garrus, Miranda, and Jacob make the best leaders out of the bunch. It is also not immediately obvious that going to get the Reaper IFF gives the player only 2 more missions they can do to make the squad loyal without sacrificing the crew.

For peace between the Geth and the Quarians, you have to have Legion and Tali loyal, Tali not exiled, and with resolved differences in ME2, and Admiral Koris saved instead of his crew in ME3.

[Phatose]

David7204 wrote...


You can't make a AAA game and market it exclusively to people who share the skills of the character. Trying to do that would just be completely ridiculous. It would be idiotic from a business perspective. Not only does it necessitate that your target audience can do it, it necessitates that your target audience will enjoy doing it. In addition, it doesn't solve the problem, it just softens it slightly. The core of the argument is that you cannot make a game as challenging for the player as it is for Shepard. Appealing to a 'niche market' doesn't come close to solving that. Even if by some miracle you made, for example, a computer hacking game, that requires incredibly difficult computer science and electrical engineering skill and successfully market it to the .0000000001% of the population that would not only be able to do it, but enjoy doing it, you can't possibly replicate the multiple approaches to problem solving that occur in real life. And that doesn't even touch gameplay such as combat, which is out-of-bounds, period.

Actually, I give you a game harder for the player then it is for the player's avatar.
Populus.
The avatar is god. 

[David7204]

Then we're just arguing what's easy and what isn't. If you're satisfied with the difficultly of those two examples, that's fantastic. That's what we want. So I am. But I don't think I'd call either of them particularly difficult. I accomplished both of them the first time through without a guide.

Modifié par David7204, 23 mars 2013 - 07:23 .