72 réponses à ce sujet

[spike08]

Actually weight to decisions like witcher. Getting differently developed paths of quests regarding morrigan if the Dark ritual was accepted, not dialogue alone. Save Connor? Maybe he turns into an abomination anyways and there is an arc to stop him. Didn't save him? Don't have to worry about it.

I'm not saying to do this for everything but you know what I hate in import stories? Save the Rachni queen? Have this quest. Didn't save her? Have the same level/quest in the same area, but different dialogue. And oh yea later in passing, get betrayed in EMS numbers. Woulda rather there be no Rachni quest if you killed them. As a consequence.

Wouldn't it be possible to write a script where the game can end in different locations, in different times, with different quests? Yes the climax might be a big boss showing at a fixed time and place. But why not allow past decisions in the game decide how much further that conflict goes. Maybe I stop the baddie on top of the fortress. Maybe I was more prepared and  stopped him on the ground. Maybe I wasn't prepared at all and he flew off to a mountain which I must now trek with the survivors a month later.

TLDR. While keeping main themes converging at end, have more divergence of time, location, specific final levels.

Modifié par spike08, 12 août 2013 - 08:18 .

[David7204]

It's a lot of work.

I think you had better get used to the reality that most of your decisions are not going to lead to alternate levels.

[Eterna]

David7204 wrote...

It's a lot of work.

I think you had better get used to the reality that most of your decisions are not going to lead to alternate levels.

Yep. It just isn't feasible to assume that your choices will lead to completely different outcomes or storylines. It is simply too much work and development time. 

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

If my decision to get 3 nugs for the nug wrangler doesn't come into play in DA:I's main storyline I'm going to be SO pissed.

[spike08]

EntropicAngel wrote...

What you're suggesting is horrible. It's much more, sometimes twice as much, work, for minimal role-playing gain. Consequence doesn't matter as much as 

ok I'll give you twice as much work for two different levels. But what about a quest being inaccessible due to a choice before? That actually requires less work, as there would be less dialogue changes. The quest just isn't there. For important things though, not minor side quests.

i would argue that it has maximum role playing game value as this would increase replay value for the whole series, not just one game.

I am not asking for all choices or even small choices. I just want a branching story somewhere, not just altered. JUst once

Modifié par spike08, 12 août 2013 - 08:31 .

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

Spike, then people would complain about not having equal amounts of content.

[Fast Jimmy]

This is why the Save Import can become an impossible situation.

For DA:I, we are going to be five years (2009-2014) and three games later and they will be still dealing with player choices from DA:O. DA2 had very little choices to worry about, but the game was criticized for not having meaningful choice.

Let's not forget that the stated goal by the ME3 dev team was to have the game respect and reflect your previous choices and making special considerations for the Big Decisions of the past games.

Destroyed the Genophage Cure? Magically, there is now a cure anyway just six months later (oh, and you kill the one female able to lead the Krogan peacefully - nice job, jerk).

Killed the Rachni Queen to keep the universe safe? Too bad - the Reapers magically make a clone that they enslave and use against you anyway. Oh, and if there is this clone, even if you help her, she betrays you and sabotages the Crucible project (you jerk).

Let any of your companions die during ME2? They get replaced by random NPCs with nearly identical roles, dialogue and purpose, but don't know Shephard (and, of course, give less EMS - you jerk).


If these are the consequences of a game designed to reflect past game choices... what does that say about the chances for future DA games, which have no pre-set end in sight?

[spike08]

Everyone would have the same amount. You'd just have to play a different story. Isn't that what replayability is about?

[Taleroth]

spike08 wrote...

i would argue that it has maximum role playing game value as this would increase replay value for the whole series, not just one game.

That increases replay requirements, not value.

It's baggage.

[Allan Schumacher]

The biggest aspect for this is valuing breadth vs. depth.

I like mutual exclusion (even if I didn't actually replay The Witcher II, knowing it was there was still valuable).

Even if we do a completely different level, it means that we take from the overall length of any single playthrough. It's a balancing act, because for some they have to feel that a playthrough takes X hours for it to be satisfying.

For example, assume we have enough budget to do about 40 hours of gameplay. We could do 40 hours of straight linear, or we could have the first 10 be roughly the same, have two different 10 hour splits in the middle, bring it back together for the final 10. (Similar to the Witcher).

For someone that plays through once, they get about 30 hours. Which may be okay, may not be okay. For someone that replays, they'll get 60 hours, and presumably a more enjoyable 60 hours than the 80 hours they'd get replaying the "40 hour linear" version.


I like branching, it's just challenging to do without combinatorial explosion. Unless you account for said explosion by making the game shorter. I do think it'd be interesting to have a game that takes 2-3 hours to play through, but has dozens of ways to branch through it.

[Sjpelke]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The biggest aspect for this is valuing breadth vs. depth.

I like mutual exclusion (even if I didn't actually replay The Witcher II, knowing it was there was still valuable).

Even if we do a completely different level, it means that we take from the overall length of any single playthrough. It's a balancing act, because for some they have to feel that a playthrough takes X hours for it to be satisfying.

For example, assume we have enough budget to do about 40 hours of gameplay. We could do 40 hours of straight linear, or we could have the first 10 be roughly the same, have two different 10 hour splits in the middle, bring it back together for the final 10. (Similar to the Witcher).

For someone that plays through once, they get about 30 hours. Which may be okay, may not be okay. For someone that replays, they'll get 60 hours, and presumably a more enjoyable 60 hours than the 80 hours they'd get replaying the "40 hour linear" version.


I like branching, it's just challenging to do without combinatorial explosion. Unless you account for said explosion by making the game shorter. I do think it'd be interesting to have a game that takes 2-3 hours to play through, but has dozens of ways to branch through it.

What you write there makes sense and can totally agree with that point of view.

Trying to make a game that is enjoyable for a wide range of gamers that tries to serve their needs while being clear in every playstyle adressed. Being 'complete' in adressing certain playstyles not just tipping on them.

At least that is how I read it.

A lot of games start off slow as there are not much abbilities learned yet (which are gained through distributing exp and/or getting through quests and such) and that first part is something that most gamers are glad to have finished.

Modifié par TsadeeHekate, 12 août 2013 - 09:21 .

[Fast Jimmy]

For example, assume we have enough budget to do about 40 hours of gameplay. We could do 40 hours of straight linear, or we could have the first 10 be roughly the same, have two different 10 hour splits in the middle, bring it back together for the final 10. (Similar to the Witcher).

Conversely, it could be looked at as saying "we have budget to do 40 hours for X level of Production. But that same budget could be 120 hours of Y level of Production. So we could do 10 hours intro the same, have 10 hours of Branches A, B and C, have secondary branches of 10 hours doing D, E and F, then have endings reflecting variations of five hours each integrating the above six combinations, resulting in Endings G, H, I, J, K and L.

Now THAT would be a game to see. Even if it was a lower budget, isometric-IE type game.

[Thomas Andresen]

Something about this thread makes me think someone still believes this somehow will be the final game in a trilogy.

spike08 wrote...

Didn't save her? Have the same level/quest in the same area, but different dialogue.

But that's what you did get. The dialogue with the rachni thing was fundamentally different if you killed the queen in the first game. And then later, when you ask Hackett how the rahcni have turned out, his answer will change too. You didn't pay much attention, did you?

As far as the Thread title goes, I don't think there's much more to say beyond what Schumacher said, except to say that he's very likely not the only one on the DA team who'd like that sort of thing.

[BangBoom]

It's important to note that the Witcher's exclusivity was internal. Making that a consequence of save imports excludes people who didn't buy the prior games and play them "correctly". Furthermore, you had an alternative if you didn't go that way. Pointlessly locking off entire levels is unsatisfying for everyone. 

[Urazz]

Yeah, in ME3, your choices did matter to an extent. The Rachni choice did affect things as you still don't get the Rachni as allies if you saved the cloned queen and it actually hurts you for saving the cloned queen in ME3. So we still face rachni husks in ME3, big deal. Bioware wanted to have the Rachni be part of ME3 regardless of your choice but at least they recognized your choice from ME1 and made it have consequences to your choice with the Rachni in ME3.

[Fast Jimmy]

But that's what you did get. The dialogue with the rachni thing was fundamentally different if you killed the queen in the first game. And then later, when you ask Hackett how the rahcni have turned out, his answer will change too. You didn't pay much attention, did you?

Yes, yes... because when someone destroyed the Rachni, it wasn't to preserve the safety of the galaxy or them making a hard choice for the benefit of all other species... the player CERTAINLY made that decision because they wanted half a dozen extra lines of dialogue in a future game. Nothing says impact and reactivity like that!

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 août 2013 - 09:19 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Conversely, it could be looked at as saying "we have budget to do 40 hours for X level of Production. But that same budget could be 120 hours of Y level of Production. So we could do 10 hours intro the same, have 10 hours of Branches A, B and C, have secondary branches of 10 hours doing D, E and F, then have endings reflecting variations of five hours each integrating the above six combinations, resulting in Endings G, H, I, J, K and L.

Now THAT would be a game to see. Even if it was a lower budget, isometric-IE type game.

Your moving into "changing the point of the discussion" with this though.  Be careful with hypotheticals because it's easy to hypothetically imagine that the things you want go as seamlessly as possible and without diminishing returns.  I contend that it wouldn't be a "lower budget, isometric-IE type game" but rather a "higher budget, isometric-IE type game" since, by your analysis, the budget was unchanged and just applied in a different way.

It goes without saying that the amount of content depends on the quality of the content.  I just picked a number to help illustrate, as it also reasonably fell in line with The Witcher 2.

[Alonebadman]

I think in the last ten years the only games I've seen do this successfully are the Way of the Samurai Series. Despite its flaws, there's a game that has definite consequences and leads you to divergent paths. The downside is the content for each path is maybe an hour or two for story but when you add it up its a solid 20-30 hours game.

The Witcher followed the split decision at the end of Act One that affected Act Two in a pretty divergent manner. The major problem with all these "hard" consequences is the insane amount of plot branches you have depending on so many variables. Let's be honest, there's no feasibly way at the moment to create a game with that amount of divergent content and conclusions. The amount of time, money, and manpower would make something like that balloon in its budget and take years to make. You're looking at something that'd need at least 4-5+ years of development to make that amount of divergent plotlines, quest, and conclusions based on two previous games.

I do agree there should be some elements of divergency within the game itself but still follow the arching narrative ala the Witcher II. Certain things like OGB could work as a series of sub plot quests that have a definite ending within the game but be inaccessible like in DAII if you didn't. There should be more elasticity and content but designed in a secondary manner.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Conversely, it could be looked at as saying "we have budget to do 40 hours for X level of Production. But that same budget could be 120 hours of Y level of Production. So we could do 10 hours intro the same, have 10 hours of Branches A, B and C, have secondary branches of 10 hours doing D, E and F, then have endings reflecting variations of five hours each integrating the above six combinations, resulting in Endings G, H, I, J, K and L.

Now THAT would be a game to see. Even if it was a lower budget, isometric-IE type game.

Your moving into "changing the point of the discussion" with this though.  Be careful with hypotheticals because it's easy to hypothetically imagine that the things you want go as seamlessly as possible and without diminishing returns.  I contend that it wouldn't be a "lower budget, isometric-IE type game" but rather a "higher budget, isometric-IE type game" since, by your analysis, the budget was unchanged and just applied in a different way.

It goes without saying that the amount of content depends on the quality of the content.  I just picked a number to help illustrate, as it also reasonably fell in line with The Witcher 2.

Agreed. I was merely demonstrating the concept that when you begin to shift your focus from one aspect of development to another (such as production value versus divergent narrative), it can result in very different games. Currently, Bioware's idea of Production Value roughly mirrors that of CD Projekt, where they sacrifice game length to provide divergence. I was simply pointing out the opposite of that, where Production Value is dropped, game length remains the same, but divergent narrative is vastly increased. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 août 2013 - 10:15 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yes, yes... because when someone destroyed the Rachni, it wasn't to preserve the safety of the galaxy or them making a hard choice for the benefit of all other species... the player CERTAINLY made that decision because they wanted half a dozen extra lines of dialogue in a future game. Nothing says impact and reactivity like that!

Sorry, read the quoted line as "this is what I want," rather than "this is what I got, and I don't like it."

What I think is that the reactivity we have got in BioWare's games so far, while leaving much to be desired, is far better than no reactivity at all.

Modifié par Thomas Andresen, 12 août 2013 - 09:59 .

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Agreed. I was merely demonstrating the concept that when you begin to shift your focus from one aspect of development to another (such as production value versus divergent narrative), it can result in very different games. Currently, Bioware's idea of Production Value roughly mirrors that of CD Projekt, where they sacrifice game length to provide divergence. I was simply pointing out the opposite of that, where Production Value is dropped, game length remains the same, but divergent narrative is vastly increased. 

I'm not sure it's quite right to say that game length is being sacrificed to provide divergence. Judging from the low DA:O completion rates, I get the feeling that 30-40 hours is all anyone should shoot for anyway. I'd phrase the tradeoff as length being held constant with divergence being traded off for production value.

Which leaves your proposal exactly the same, of course

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 août 2013 - 10:25 .

[sunsphere5]

Personally I have experienced two different ways to approach this topic that I've enjoyed quite a bit.

First, there's the DAO way.  A lot of variety in the first part of the game (the origins) which are reflected in minor but noticeable plot points/quests/dialog throughout the game, but the rest of the game is constant.  In this mode, additional replay (which is presumably what people mean by having their choices from a previous game manifest in the next game; otherwise who cares?) is encouraged by either the depth of the world (explore every nook and cranny) or by the depth of NPCs/companions (affinity/romance/rivalry/whatever).  In my mind, this is quite enjoyable and provides a deep game while avoiding the explosion/permutation issues.

the second option is to have the style of play provide the variety, ala Dishonored or Infamous.  In that scenario, specific "choice points" are bifurcated, but the overall story remains constant.  Variety/responsiveness to decisions comes from how the world responds to the 2 opposing style choice, rather than (again) multiple branching forests.

It should be noted that the impact of choices can appear throughout the game; there's no requirement the ending be the point at which all choice consequences manifest themselves.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Agreed. I was merely demonstrating the concept that when you begin to shift your focus from one aspect of development to another (such as production value versus divergent narrative), it can result in very different games. Currently, Bioware's idea of Production Value roughly mirrors that of CD Projekt, where they sacrifice game length to provide divergence. I was simply pointing out the opposite of that, where Production Value is dropped, game length remains the same, but divergent narrative is vastly increased. 

I'm not sure it's quite right to say that game length is being sacrificed to provide divergence. Judging from the low DA:O completion rates, I get the feeling that 30-40 hours is all anyone should shoot for anyway. I'd phrase the tradeoff as length being held constant with divergence being traded off for production value.

Which leaves your proposal exactly the same, of course

Right. If we envision video game narrative as some magical, hypothetical mathematical equation of:

(L X D)^V = Z

where L = Game Length, D = DIvergent Content, V= Production Value and Z = equals the narrative zots of a game, we'd see that none of these values could be increased with consuming more zots.


You  could say the V value of Bioware [V(bio)] is roughly the same as the V value of CDProjekt [V(cdp)]. Therefore, the only way to increase D while still maintaing the same relative Z (cost) is to decrease D (the length of the game).

However, if you decrease the value of V, you could increase the value of L and D equally (I would imagine a good example of this is Arcanum, which had a lot of reactivity and options, while also being well over the traditional RPG 40+ hours of length), you could drastically increase the value of L (an indie game like Grimoire, which has, LITERALLY, tens of thousands of maps you could spend a lifetime wandering through) or you could drastically increase the value of D, which would give you the game I described, with around 35 hours of content, but with drastically divergent paths.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 août 2013 - 11:02 .