72 réponses à ce sujet

[ames4u]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

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.

The problem with the Rachni Queen was the fact that even if you killed her, there was still a Rachni Queen. That was the problem, not the tweaks to conversation. They were the same character and by having a 'clone' of the Queen, it rendered a tough choice moot in the end and was a blatant cop out on the concequences. It's like snapping a pencil in half, only to be given another one and being told that it is vastly different from the one you had-because you needed to sharpen it first before using it. That's what I find disagreeable about this approach.

Modifié par ames4u, 13 août 2013 - 09:14 .

[kinderschlager]

yeah.....this topic is WAY beyond me

[AlanC9]

ames4u wrote...

The problem with the Rachni Queen was the fact that even if you killed her, there was still a Rachni Queen. That was the problem, not the tweaks to conversation. They were the same character and by having a 'clone' of the Queen, it rendered a tough choice moot in the end and was a blatant cop out on the concequences. It's like snapping a pencil in half, only to be given another one and being told that it is vastly different from the one you had-because you needed to sharpen it first before using it. That's what I find disagreeable about this approach.

But the new pencil really is different from the old one. It only writes what the Reapers want it to.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

But the new pencil really is different from the old one. It only writes what the Reapers want it to.

Yes, but people want a pen or they don't feel that their purchase is significant. Honestly, I think that's Bioware's real problem. They hear "choices must have consequences" and they seem to parse it analytically instead of emotionally. 

[AndrahilAdrian]

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.

The thing is that some (most?) people will only play the game once. And under your model, we're not really getting our money's worth. I for one really like to knock out all (or at least the vast majority) of the game content in one go. That way, there's no need to replay levels to get to everything. It also means we can play the whole game with one character, which makes it more special. 

[In Exile]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

The thing is that some (most?) people will only play the game once. And under your model, we're not really getting our money's worth. I for one really like to knock out all (or at least the vast majority) of the game content in one go. That way, there's no need to replay levels to get to everything. It also means we can play the whole game with one character, which makes it more special. 

But, from a business POV, the people that will be pushing your product via WOM and giving it reviews are the ones that play it 4 times. So it's important to cater to these people.

As for the ones that only play once (many don't even finish/start the game), why would it matter that they can't see 100% of the game? How would they even know? 

[AndrahilAdrian]

In Exile wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

The thing is that some (most?) people will only play the game once. And under your model, we're not really getting our money's worth. I for one really like to knock out all (or at least the vast majority) of the game content in one go. That way, there's no need to replay levels to get to everything. It also means we can play the whole game with one character, which makes it more special. 

But, from a business POV, the people that will be pushing your product via WOM and giving it reviews are the ones that play it 4 times. So it's important to cater to these people.

As for the ones that only play once (many don't even finish/start the game), why would it matter that they can't see 100% of the game? How would they even know? 

It matters because (to use Allan's example) we're only getting a 30 hour game instead of a 40 hour game.

[In Exile]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

It matters because (to use Allan's example) we're only getting a 30 hour game instead of a 40 hour game.

If you're only playing it once, how do you know it's 30 hours? And if you only care to play it once, why wouldn't you just save before the branch and replay the branch? 

Not trying to be combative, just trying to understand your POV (because I love games with branches, it's something that basically makes a game a must buy for me). 

[AndrahilAdrian]

In Exile wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

It matters because (to use Allan's example) we're only getting a 30 hour game instead of a 40 hour game.

If you're only playing it once, how do you know it's 30 hours? And if you only care to play it once, why wouldn't you just save before the branch and replay the branch? 

Not trying to be combative, just trying to understand your POV (because I love games with branches, it's something that basically makes a game a must buy for me). 

I know it's 30 hours because I read a review online. But that's not important. Whether or not I know its an inferior product won't change the fact that its an inferior product (for someone who only plays it once). As for why I won't save and play both branches from there, well, can you imagine if a movie pulled something like that? OK, here's what happens if Luke kills Darth Vader, and here's what happens if Darth Vader kills Luke...it would be rediculous. Since I play games as consistent narratives, the same applies to them.

[Fast Jimmy]

It's only an inferior product if you base your game value on length alone.

DA:O had a solid 50 hour campaign if you didn't skimp every conversation and allowed for exploration and I loved it enough to fully complete 8 playthroughs. DA2 was a 25-30 hour campaign that I struggle with to play again in hopes of giving it a fair second chance. If DA2 was longer, like a 50 hour campaign, I would have been even MORE unlikely to finish it and enjoy it.

I find divergent/branching content incredibly valuable. Just like InExile, it is one of the driving factors in if I buy a game (versus just renting it for a few weeks) and is what keeps me coming back to some of my old favorites.

I'd like a long campaign that also offers lots of reactive choices, but if I had to choose one over the other, I'd take a game that reacts over a game that is long, if quality and enjoyment are equal.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

For me personally, longer is better.

I don't know, maybe it's my bad experience with those "choose your own adventure" books.

I'm laughing, trying to imagine a bad experience with a CYOA book. 

[Maria Caliban]

ames4u wrote...

The problem with the Rachni Queen was the fact that even if you killed her, there was still a Rachni Queen.

No, the problem is fans not putting 2 and 2 together.

Reapers alter humans and turn them mutant monstrosities. Reapers alter Protheans and turn them into a slave race.

We're told in ME 1 that the Reapers were behind the Rachni, which means they got a hold of some Rachni at some point.

What would the Reapers do with Rachni they captured and controlled?

For some reason, the fanbase thinks it should be "Destroy them all because Shepard blah blah blah Player Choice."

[HiroVoid]

Without having played ME3, if they were able to make another rachni if you killed the one in the first game, shouldn't there have been two in the Paragon playthrough?

[Maria Caliban]

HiroVoid wrote...

Without having played ME3, if they were able to make another rachni if you killed the one in the first game, shouldn't there have been two in the Paragon playthrough?

There are.

There's the one that's free and helping you and there's the Reaperized queen.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

If you're only playing it once, how do you know it's 30 hours? 

I'd presume that my first playthrough took as long as the game typically takes, unless the game gave me reason to think otherwise -- for instance, if I had bailed on the main quest the way you can in PS:T or SoZ.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It's only an inferior product if you base your game value on length alone.
 

It's more accurate to say that it's inferior if you don't find branches very valuable. In which case something you do like has been traded off for something you don't like.

Having said that, the tradeoff isn't likely to be all that significant. In the 40/30 example we'd have some players who won't finish even at 30 hours, so going from 40 to 30 can't hurt them. We'd have players for whom 40 hours is worse than 30 ( I'm starting to think DA:O should have been shorter myself). We'd have players who don't really care that much, since they're gonna replay anyway and their metric is total gameplay rather than any particular run. And so on. I'm not sure the players who are actually hurt by 40/30 rather than just plain 30 woukd be all that numerous.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 août 2013 - 06:23 .

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

Yes, but people want a pen or they don't feel that their purchase is significant. Honestly, I think that's Bioware's real problem. They hear "choices must have consequences" and they seem to parse it analytically instead of emotionally. 

Come to think of it, a lot of Bio's recent controversial design decisions strike me as being controversial because they don't try to conceal how the sausage is made. I'm thinking of things like ME1's fake dialogue wheel interactions going away, or the way DA2 tone icons only made explicit the way Bio had been writing the dialogue all along.

It's like they don't think any of us need the illlusions anymore.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Without having played ME3, if they were able to make another rachni if you killed the one in the first game, shouldn't there have been two in the Paragon playthrough?

There are.

There's the one that's free and helping you and there's the Reaperized queen.

Wait... what? 

I'm contesting this accuracy. The Mass Effec Wiki is saying the clone only exists of you did not spare the queen in ME1. There are not two queens in either scenario - just the original and the magical clone. 

I'd need to see either a YouTube video or exact dialogue quotes or a dev comment on the matter. 

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Yes, but people want a pen or they don't feel that their purchase is significant. Honestly, I think that's Bioware's real problem. They hear "choices must have consequences" and they seem to parse it analytically instead of emotionally. 

Come to think of it, a lot of Bio's recent controversial design decisions strike me as being controversial because they don't try to conceal how the sausage is made. I'm thinking of things like ME1's fake dialogue wheel interactions going away, or the way DA2 tone icons only made explicit the way Bio had been writing the dialogue all along.

It's like they don't think any of us need the illlusions anymore. 

 

I'd (slightly) disagree. I think the issue is that Bioware's design - namely, the Save Import function - leads fans to have HUGELY over-inflated expectations. People expect prior characters, decisions, choices and world states to result in every side character, plot and option to be not only mentioned, but expanded on as its own story.

The only way to hedge back these expectations would be to pull the curtain back and say "hey, we can't give you wildly different setups because of X, Y and Z reasons." Otherwise, fans think they were promised something that Bioware isn't delivering. 
This, I think, extends out to all design decisions. People have gotten used to the freedoms, options and abilities of previous games, so she a. New feature doesn't allow for it - for example, paraphrases and the dialogue wheel versus full text - it causes fans to feel they had something that they no longer are getting, so Bioware is showing us "how they make the sausage" to demonstrate that they can only give us so much and that these features were intended to be better( even if fans contest if they really are or not).

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 août 2013 - 02:13 .

[MarchWaltz]

For my first play-through, Origins took me around 60 hours, as did the trash of DA2.

One consistent thing with Bioware (for me anyway) is that I get my "bang for my buck". And I always replay the game, at LEAST three times.

Modifié par MarchWaltz, 14 août 2013 - 02:16 .

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This, I think, extends out to all design decisions. People have gotten used to the freedoms, options and abilities of previous games, so she a. New feature doesn't allow for it - for example, paraphrases and the dialogue wheel versus full text - it causes fans to feel they had something that they no longer are getting, so Bioware is showing us "how they make the sausage" to demonstrate that they can only give us so much and that these features were intended to be better( even if fans contest if they really are or not).

Sure. My point above was that we never actually had some of the options that we thought we had. But some things really are lost too --- even though all  PC lines in DA:O often produced the same NPC reactions and subsequent lines, it's still a real choice.