155 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

It doesn't happen every day that a game manages to surprise me. Even rarer is the game that manages to surprise me in good ways. The consequences from DAO's decision about who's going to be king of Orzammar qualify. When I noticed the difference between the outcomes for the first ime, I sat there for five minutes, laughing and telling BW in my mind "That was *really* well done!"

I want more of that from DAI.

Why? Because for most decisions, you can tell the outcome of a decision in advance because almost all the time, it's "do the right thing and everything will be ok". "Follow your heart and everything will be ok". Not only is that boring, but I also hate that message. Or rather, I don't hate it as such rather than I hate that it *always* appears to apply, because this is one of the most implausible conceits of conventional storytelling. Never was I so delighted with a single event in a game than when I noticed DAO broke it.

So, for DAI, I do not want to know in advance which decision will turn out better just because one side appears more like "doing the right thing" or "following your heart" than the other. And like in DAO, I want that to apply to big decisions rather than to a token small one like in ME2. I want DAI to send the message "You actually don't know if doing the right thing will turn out well." Preferably, this would be realized by making decision pairs where neither option feels more right or wrong than the other, but I also want the story to be occasionally deceptive.

What does everyone else think about this?

[And before someone brings up ME3's "unexpected" choices, they were different in several ways. I do like ME3's message that there isn't a conventionally good outcome but the point I'm making here is rather "Conventionally good actions shouldn't always be tied to conventionally good outcomes". An example would've been "Sabotaging the genophage cure turns out better for the krogan". Also, ME3 didn't have a believable messenger while you always knew Bhelen was an unscrupulous prospective tyrant with a nonetheless revolutionary bent. You just didn't know that this was what Orzammar needed rather than a traditionalist who followed the law - usually storytelling logic favors the latter. Lastly, ME3 is different because the story of three games went out of its way to re-enforce the conventional story logic. It was a level of deceptiveness that almost broke the story. DA is different].

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 juin 2013 - 09:52 .

[Maria Caliban]

I don't mind unexpected consequences but I prefer to see them played out or implied in game.

At the same time, people seem to love the title cards at the end of the story that give them glances into long-term consequences. The Fallout series is good about using them. The only problem is that players then treat them as gospel.

[5ubzer0]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Why? Because for most decisions, you can tell the outcome of a decision in advance because almost all the time, it's "do the right thing and everything will be ok". "Follow your heart and everything will be ok". Not only is that boring, but I also hate that message. Or rather, I don't hate it as such rather than I hate that it *always* appears to apply, because this is one of the most implausible conceits of conventional storytelling. Never was I so delighted with a single event in a game than when I noticed DAO broke it.
 

I agree. When it is too obvious which choices are considered "good" or "evil" I find it hard to take the story seriously. It's even worse when there is a moral alignment system that rewards you for sticking with one side throughout the game.

In DA I was very surprised by the outcome of the Missing Child quest where you find the boy in Redcliff and he gives you his family sword. I never thought that your decision to keep the sword, pay them, or give it back would have enough impact to be mentioned in the epilogue. It increases replay value for me when seemingly small decisions have an unexpected outcome.

Modifié par 5ubzer0, 26 juin 2013 - 10:18 .

[Ieldra]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I don't mind unexpected consequences but I prefer to see them played out or implied in game.

Sure, if they exist on a timescale encompassed by the game. Here's another small pattern-breaking example from DAO: If you tell Jowan to run at Redcliffe, you'll meet him later and see him helping people escape the Blight. It's not always feasible to do the same for big decisions, though, because they tend to play out either non-locally or over a longer time scale.

At the same time, people seem to love the title cards at the end of the story that give them glances into long-term consequences. The Fallout series is good about using them. The only problem is that players then treat them as gospel.

I love the Fallout epilogues, indeed. DAO did this reasonably well, too, I think. I don't know what you mean when you say players treat them as gospel. If the epilogue tells you something happened, why shouldn't you work from the assumption that this did indeed happen?

[Cheylus]

The Harrowmont/Bhelen case is an aspect of DA:O I like a lot.
Everytime you play the game, you know what to do with Connor, the Circle, the Elves if you want a "good" outcome. That's very convenient.
I don't like a game where everything is easy and happy. The Orzammar questline is very good because you're looking at the game's lore and you need to question your values in the same time. That's not really about consequences in fact...

In the Circle: you can save mages and the Circle goes on (no option to "break" the Circle unfortunately).
In the woods: you can save both the elves and the werewolfes.
In Redcliff: Walk some more, think a little, the child stays alive and the demon is defeated.
In Orzammar : What do YOU want? but also... do you actually want something?
- A ruthless, treacherous but "progressive" king who's willing to kill anyone to gain power and to enable trading with the outer world (freeing dwarves of an old fear) (not unexpected imo)
- A conservative, honorable, reliable but powerless king who's continuing Orzammar's customs, ultimately leading the city to its downfall (that's not "unexpected" imo)
It also depends on the golem issue.

That was very good... The Witcher 2 is also like that, with hard choices without known consequences, where your values, thoughts and principles are required without ideal outcomes.

I also don't care if I can't see every consequences of my choices. I like the uneasiness of choice. 

Modifié par Cheylus, 26 juin 2013 - 10:39 .

[Wulfram]

Meh, the Orzammar example might be interesting if they'd actually depicted Bhelen as competent. But then it wouldn't have been unexpected, really.

As it was, it felt more like it was just a case of going "ha ha, tricked you!"

[KENNY4753]

Also Alec the Sheepherder from Awakening if recruited to the army gets epilogue mention as becoming a great hero.

[Ieldra]

KENNY4753 wrote...
Also Alec the Sheepherder from Awakening if recruited to the army gets epilogue mention as becoming a great hero.

While the scale of the outcome was unexpected, the fact that recruiting him into the army would result in the best outcome was totally unsurprising. Killing him appeared unnecessarily merciless, and letting him go would send a wrong message about stealing. Joining the army means he has to risk his life, which could serve as a sort of redress while also benefitting both sides. An easy decision. 

[Welsh Inferno]

I'd love more consequences like it. I was delighted after picking Bhelen 1st time that I got the better ending for Orzammar. The guy was a complete dick but I hate the caste system a whole lot more. Having to swallow my pride & make a guy I hate king so that the greater number of people could live a good life was a really difficult decision that first time through. I do think however it could have been foreshadowed better.

[Ravnemesteren]

Yeah I agree. It can sometimes be too easy to figure out that action A will have outcome X, and action B will have outcome Y. So it would be nice if it would be more convoluted.

I would also like to see some consequences play out far after you made a decision at some points. Even for smaller things. This has been deen nicely by the Witcher. For example: I let some elves live in the first chapter of the game, but to my surprise this ended up with them having killed a guy I was looking for in a quest in chapter 2.

Most of the time in Dragon Age, you make a decision through a conversation, then you see the consequences play out before you right afterwards, It fits in some scenarios ... but I would like to see the consequences come back to bite you in the ass long after you decided something too.

[Mykel54]

I liked how Bhelen´s reasons for reforming orzammar are anything but altruistic, while Harrowmont is a stand up moral man that defends the stagnating political system. The archetypes were subversed to make both choices appear flawed in some way. I also liked that, like in real life politics, what each candidate is going to do in the future is not spelled outright, but instead it is based around class or group interests, and knowing how to read what other npcs have to say about the candidates.

Modifié par Mykel54, 26 juin 2013 - 01:06 .

[Medhia Nox]

I like it - but I want it directed at the sacred cows of any Bioware game.

The companions.

It's the only way to get the most consistent reaction out of the playerbase.

[Xilizhra]

The problem with Orzammar is that we never heard anything good about Bhelen from the casteless, aside from rumors that he had a favored casteless mistress. The only citizen with good things to say about him was a merchant who wanted expanded trade. Aside from that, the only information sources are their own town criers; granted, listening to what they emphasize can be enlightening, but it feels weak from a narrative perspective to make a decision based on that.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but it needs to be implemented well.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
I like it - but I want it directed at the sacred cows of any Bioware game.

The companions.

It's the only way to get the most consistent reaction out of the playerbase.

Not sure if I understand you here. Do you want something like "Merrill's quest to reactivate the eluvian should have ended successful and well"? That would've been an example of what I'd like to see more of, except that there weren't any signficant decisions to make here.

@Xil:
If you foreshadow too well, it sort of defeats the point of the outcome being unexpected.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 juin 2013 - 01:43 .

[Xilizhra]

@Xil:
If you foreshadow too well, it sort of defeats the point of the outcome being unexpected.

But it also means that the right decision would come down more to luck or circumstances that you were never given a chance to learn, rather than intelligence and logic.

[garrusfan1]

it was cool cause I always picked harrowmont since bhelen is generally an a** but it turns out he does great things after he is a leader. I had no idea until I read the epilouges on dragon age wiki and was surprised. this also adds replay value by alot

[Mykel54]

Xilizhra wrote...

@Xil:
If you foreshadow too well, it sort of defeats the point of the outcome being unexpected.

But it also means that the right decision would come down more to luck or circumstances that you were never given a chance to learn, rather than intelligence and logic.

In the Orzammar decision you are given the chance to learn about both candidates, but it requires extra work for the player. You can´t just sit there and wait the answers to come to you, you have to look for them, going to the shaperate and asking him about both candidates, asking the commoners, asking the aeducan nobles and the not-aeducan nobles, etc.

Even Leliana let you know just how ruthless orzammar politics are, and you have to wonder how long a stand up man like Harrowmont, who refuses to do anything inmoral (by his dwarven standards) would last as king. Also, if you are not a dwarf, don´t expect to have the same insight as one, you just have to deal with the fact that a foreigner can´t make a decision regarding dwarven society as well informed as if you were a dwarf.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

@Xil:
If you foreshadow too well, it sort of defeats the point of the outcome being unexpected.

But it also means that the right decision would come down more to luck or circumstances that you were never given a chance to learn, rather than intelligence and logic.

It is exactly the point that you can't always calculate the outcome, no mater your logic or intelligence. Bhelen has a revolutionary bent, but its weakly foreshadowed so we don't know how strongly this will be reflected in his policy. I'm not saying every decision should be like that, but they should exist.

Edit:
Also, what Mykel said.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 juin 2013 - 02:00 .

[Xilizhra]

In the Orzammar decision you are given the chance to learn about both candidates, but it requires extra work for the player. You can´t just sit there and wait the answers to come to you, you have to look for them, going to the shaperate and asking him about both candidates, asking the commoners, asking the aeducan nobles and the not-aeducan nobles, etc.

I did; you still get nothing substantial. Most of the nobles supporting Bhelen just like him because he's the blood heir.

Even Leliana let you know just how ruthless orzammar politics are, and you have to wonder how long a stand up man like Harrowmont, who refuses to do anything inmoral (by his dwarven standards) would last as king. Also, if you are not a dwarf, don´t expect to have the same insight as one, you just have to deal with the fact that a foreigner can´t make a decision regarding dwarven society as well informed as if you were a dwarf.

Acceptable, but that won't work as a reason in the games where we only have one playable race.

It is exactly the point that you can't always calculate the outcome, no mater your logic or intelligence. Bhelen has a revolutionary bent, but its weakly foreshadowed so we don't know how strongly this will be reflected in his policy. I'm not saying every decision should be like that, but they should exist.

So decisions based in part on luck are a thing you want?

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: Humans are not logical.

Decisions always turning out the way empirical evidence suggests would be terrible storytelling and show an utter lack of understanding about the sapient condition we know.

[Wulfram]

The thing about "unexpected" stuff where the outcome goes against all good sense and established characterisation is that they're extremely annoying on replays. 

I don't like being in a situation where my options are to pick the wrong choice or make a decision where I can't justify my character's reasoning.

The Orzammar choice would be far, far better if it was both balanced and reasonable predictable.  If Harrowmont offered the maintanence of the status quo and order, and Bhelen offered chaos and the prospect of change, rather than Harrowmont being utter failure.  If you actually got the chance to talk to the candidates and their representatives about their intended policies, rather than having to totally ignore the factors you're apparently supposed to be making your choice on.

It would also help a lot if Bioware could do better at portraying people who are supposed to be competent politicians as actually competent.

[Medhia Nox]

@Wulfram: Do you think micromanagement of NPCs makes for better written, believable characters?

[Salaya]

As long as it keeps in this way... it was a surprise to see that the typical "good" option lead to a somewhat grimm disaster in Orzamar. But, I do not want a bunch of unexpected consequences like in The Witcher games, that ultimately feel as random outcomes from past decisions.

So, as little unexpected outcomes, yes; but as a basis, certainly not. The obsession to show grey, difficult moral choices in RPGs tends to make me feel very constrained, since I always devise better solutions.

But I guess it is a matter of taste.

[Wulfram]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Wulfram: Do you think micromanagement of NPCs makes for better written, believable characters?

I don't think I understand the question.

[Karlone123]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I don't mind unexpected consequences but I prefer to see them played out or implied in game.

At the same time, people seem to love the title cards at the end of the story that give them glances into long-term consequences. The Fallout series is good about using them. The only problem is that players then treat them as gospel.

Imagination is a requirement for title cards.