310 réponses à ce sujet

[Imryll]

Having sweated all the way to the tower and back, worrying that the journey would take too long, I was fine with the Redcliffe choices. While it's true that things worked out well, it wasn't at all clear when I made the choice that that would be the case. I would also not complain if they used a behind-the-scenes timer that would sometimes cause the Tower option to fail.

[Zu Long]

AresKeith wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Let me clarify my position,

For certain longstanding issues, having a variety of factors play into their final outcome with additional options opening up based on choices made is fine. (ex. Rannoch)

However not all issues will be so intensively investigated. Sometimes the PC shows up in the middle of a situation and has to make a decision and live with the consequences. (ex. Behlen/Harrowmont, Saving/Killing the Council)

For decisions such as those I believe there should be "wrong" choices. Having the PC infallible is annoying (nobody likes Diomedes over Achilles).

Having "third option" choices in instances similar to the second group of choices is a cheap cop out move IMO.

Saving the council was fine, for me, because I got to feel heroic and it could be argued that potentially sacrificing yourself for the greater good was precisely what those sailors had signed up for when they joined the MILITARY. Again, this is an example of both choices being arguable since they can both be seen as morally correct at the time you make them.

The Harrowmont/Behlen thing though is kind of sadistic since your choice is between "jackass a" and "slightly less of a jackass b." I don't care, because it's still a choice between two jackasses, and I don't feel heroic no matter who I help. Both choices are morally repugnant and so I feel no particular reason to care.

Because it's not about trying to feel heroic, it's about doing what's best

Which is why I liked choices like the Council and Harrowmont/Behlen

I also liked how you get an extra choice or that extra choice taken away based on what you do. Like in the Connor choice and Rannoch

Well, I'm with you on 3 of 4.

As far as not about feeling heroic, I disagree. If I'm roleplaying the hero of a fantasy game world, I would argue that the whole point is that I feel heroic. That's WHY I'm playing the hero, after all.

My biggest gripe with Dragon Age 2 wasn't the combat changes, or the caves, or any of that. I honestly didn't mind. My gripe was that I didn't feel like much of a hero at the end. Because I couldn't do much about anything that happened (Leandra's death, Anders, etc) I didn't have much agency or purpose in it all. The game felt empty as a result.

[LPPrince]

I'm just gonna be quick about it-

I want these games to not be riddled with "pick which negative option is your favorite".

Kinda like ME3's forced negative endings. I don't want that.

I want to be able to save everybody in some cases, like in Connor's situation at Redcliffe.

Doesn't have to be the case all the time, but I feel there should be some cases where going the extra mile results in a small scale everyone's happy scenario.

And you know what? I'd like for that to be an ending choice as well. Thats why I liked DAO's endings- there were so many variations and some of them felt really good. As compared to DA2's which were just silly levels of bad(in my opinion) or ME3's that I mentioned earlier.

[Medhia Nox]

@Zu Long: Your purpose was to be a good assistant to the Main Protagonist (and I use that term liberally for the d-bag) Anders.

Did you watch him blow up the Chantry? Congrats! Now you know what it's like for the NPCs in every other game you play.

There's a real RPG out called "My Life With Master" where you play a minion. Now I know how to properly rp one.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 août 2013 - 02:40 .

[Stella-Arc]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Stella-Arc wrote...

-snip-

If you are going to start insinuating I don't know how to roleplay a game or that I should stop playing Bioware games, then our conversation here is done.

Pointing out an obvious slant on the writers to favor one set of choices/behavior types is not in the least bit demonstrative of how or why I play video games. So, kindly, buzz off.

Sure.

[Sylvianus]

I want choices that matter. What does that mean ? That means there can't be one good solution,  one good choice, and all the other ones suck or are irrelevant. This is almost as linear as a game with no choice.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 août 2013 - 02:46 .

[David7204]

It sounds to me like choosing to be good and having it be effective is a choice that matters very much.

Having a mediocre or even negative consequence regardless of what you pick sounds to me like choices that don't matter.

Or having good and bad consequences that are basically random and carry no correlation your intent at all. Because there's no point in even choosing, then. You can randomly pick choices and have as good of a chance as getting a good outcome as anyone else.

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 02:44 .

[Sylvianus]

David7204 wrote...

It sounds to me like choosing to be good and having it be effective is a choice that matters very much.

I said choices, not one choice.

[Allan Schumacher]

This always amazes me, because on my very first ME2 run, with
essentially no knowledge of Bioware, the only person I lost was squishy
Mordin.

I'm not sure how "knowledge of BioWare" would necessarily apply, however.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 22 août 2013 - 02:45 .

[Zu Long]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Zu Long: Your purpose was to be a good assistant to the Main Protagonist (and I use that term liberally for the d-bag) Anders.

Did you watch him blow up the Chantry? Congrats! Now you know what it's like for the NPCs in every other game you play.

There's a real RPG out called "My Life With Master" where you play a minion. Now I know how to properly rp one.

LOL. Pretty much.

It honestly wasn't terrible as a story, I think it was a worthwhile try on Bioware's part (they should be allowed to experiment, after all). It's just part of my criticism of the game that I don't think it worked very well compared to ME, ME2 or DA:O. ME3 had a similar problem actually, with the ending not letting you feel very heroic no matter what you chose. The difference for me is that ME 3 wasn't Bioware experimenting with new methods of storytelling but was rather trying to score points as "art", which I find to be less forgivable.

Modifié par Zu Long, 22 août 2013 - 02:49 .

[LPPrince]

David7204 wrote...

It sounds to me like choosing to be good and having it be effective is a choice that matters very much.

I'm just tired of games always trying to make a player feel bad or having a ton of scenarios where every choice has a negative outcome. Its one thing if a bunch of bad things happen during the course of the game but if there isn't enough happy things going on or great end results to my actions, why am I wasting my time playing this game?

I'm playing it to feel good, not to have yet ANOTHER "pick this bad choice out of these bad choices" scenario.

When it comes to DA, I want to be happy throughout it, and definitely in the end. I had that with DAO, didn't have that with DA2, and am hoping to have a happy ending to Inquisition along with some feel good "everybody wins" situations throughout the game.

Toss some of those in with those moments where any choice you make ends in someone getting the short end of the stick, and I'm happy.

[Fast Jimmy]

So it's more, of the "choices and consequences" that comes up, your preference lies solely in the choices and really shouldn't dwell on the consequences at all?

No, I think there should absolutely be consequences. But consequences don't have to be right and wrong. They just need to be different.

If you looked at every choice you've made in your life and saw them for what they really were, chances are you'd just see a bunch of different routes you could take, not decisions that would have led to dark, terrible outcomes and ones that would lead to rainbows and unicorns. Maybe if you went to a different college, had a different major, moved to a different town, had different hobbies, life would be radically different. Does that mean if you didn't go to the same university, the universe would be undeniably darker and worse off and you should have been punished for going the other way? Because that's what winds up happening with many of the choices we are talking about. Similarly, if you had a magic crystal ball and saw that one choice you made that you thought was a hard one, but that you made a difficult decision actually wound up being tog wrong... wouldn't you feel you had made the wrong choice? Not different... but truly wrong?

That's what many felt with their renegade choices. Granted, it wasn't their lives, but it was their character. And many felt that their legitimate reasons for doing so, reasons the game went out of their way to give you, we're nothing more than an elaborate trap to be scolded and told "you were wrong." That's not a good way to feel about a choice.

I understand this, and I think there's a place for both. For instance, one aspect I did like about ME3's original ending was that not only can each choice be reasoned as the correct one, we have to make the choice the same way that Shepard does: never knowing the consequences of the choice. This was powerful for me.

Ambiguity, though, is a dangerous tool. There wasn't hardly an inch of the ME series that was totally ambiguous in terms of outcomes, barring perhaps the outcomes of some of the imported chocked pre-ME3. So players went hundreds of hours being used to seeing what happened and then, abruptly, being thrust into almost a different type of narrative, where no answers were given nor outcomes shown. That's a very nebulous place to be and a very drastic shift to make.

My other problem with ambiguity is that, in terms of choice and consequence, it blows the doors off of things. Did saving the Krogan help? Did it hurt? Will they rebel? Will they be peaceful?

While on one hand, this let's the player have free reign with headcanon. In the other hand... this let's the player have FREE REIGN WITH HEADCANON. I could say that the Krogan rebelled and, angry that the cure had been his by the Salarians for centuries, butchered every other race to the last man. I could say that they lived happily ever after, with flower buds and garlands in their hair, singing with the sparrows.

I could say the Citadel was utterly destroyed, shattering into a million pieces and reigning destruction on Earth, causing the death of the human race. I could say that with their huge role in fighting the Reapers, humans were raised to highest ranks and ruled the galaxy as the dominant species.

I could say Shephard dig himself out of the rubble, or cloned himself a new body, or... everything was just a Reaper-induced dream Shephard was trying to wake himself out of.


I hope you can appreciate the incredibly dangerous nature of thing ambiguity to choice and consequence. It suddenly turns consequence into anything the players wants (or possibly even fears) it can be, which means choices can suddenly be invalidated or super-validated with little to no context at all. It can essentially turn the entire exercise into one, big "What if" that the player can be endlessly stuck in, with no way for the developer to throw anyone a life raft.

That's why I think choice and consequence need to operate alongside each other, rather than introduce ambiguity, especially in the final hour.

[David7204]

To be perfectly honest, because it's a often cheap and easy way to try and generate drama.

I was talking about the choice in Skyrim, and it's a perfect example. It's accomplishes utterly nothing aside from lowering the player's opinion of some pretty major characters.

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 02:53 .

[Zu Long]

LPPrince wrote...

I'm just gonna be quick about it-

I want these games to not be riddled with "pick which negative option is your favorite".

Kinda like ME3's forced negative endings. I don't want that.

I want to be able to save everybody in some cases, like in Connor's situation at Redcliffe.

Doesn't have to be the case all the time, but I feel there should be some cases where going the extra mile results in a small scale everyone's happy scenario.

And you know what? I'd like for that to be an ending choice as well. Thats why I liked DAO's endings- there were so many variations and some of them felt really good. As compared to DA2's which were just silly levels of bad(in my opinion) or ME3's that I mentioned earlier.

This is everything I've been saying in a better, more concise form. I am jealous, and doff my hat to you.

[Xilizhra]

No, I don't agree at all. Third options are not a bad thing in many decisions.

[Fast Jimmy]

LPPrince wrote...

I'm just gonna be quick about it-

I want these games to not be riddled with "pick which negative option is your favorite".

Kinda like ME3's forced negative endings. I don't want that.

I want to be able to save everybody in some cases, like in Connor's situation at Redcliffe.

Doesn't have to be the case all the time, but I feel there should be some cases where going the extra mile results in a small scale everyone's happy scenario.

And you know what? I'd like for that to be an ending choice as well. Thats why I liked DAO's endings- there were so many variations and some of them felt really good. As compared to DA2's which were just silly levels of bad(in my opinion) or ME3's that I mentioned earlier.

For the record, players should be able to save the day, in my opinion.

But why even offer the option of saving the day of doing something else, when saving the day is clearly the best option? What's wrong with just making a mandatory moment of glory?

[David7204]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

But why even offer the option of saving the day of doing something else, when saving the day is clearly the best option? What's wrong with just making a mandatory moment of glory?

There isn't. Plenty of video games and other fiction offer just that.

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 02:56 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

David7204 wrote...

It sounds to me like choosing to be good and having it be effective is a choice that matters very much.

Having a mediocre or even negative consequence regardless of what you pick sounds to me like choices that don't matter.

What Jimmy's saying, I believe, is that if you do something stupid just because its good or evil, you should expect that to be reflected. He also objects to having an obvious smart option, because he wants to be required to think this through. You seem not to from your previous posts, which is fine. Just know that I agree with Jimmy on this.

Or having good and bad consequences that are basically random and carry no correlation your intent at all. Because there's no point in even choosing, then. You can randomly pick choices and have as good of a chance as getting a good outcome as anyone else.

What you're missing is that that's largely Jimmy's counter to your above point; you would expect the Lawful Good option in the Save Connor, Save Isolde, Save Both choice to blow up in your face, since no matter what people headcanon I get the impression the Warden does not leave people behind to guard Connor. Which means that the demon not doing anything while it has the chance to either escape or rebuild its army is out of left field. Maybe killing the entire village would be outside its power; killing people or escaping to kill another day are absolutely not. Of course you would only truly understand how out of left field this happy ending is if you played it, though you might get some idea what we're talking about if you'd read our explanation of the choice.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 22 août 2013 - 02:59 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

To be perfectly honest, because it's a often cheap and easy way to try and generate drama.

I was talking about the choice in Skyrim, and it's a perfect example. It's accomplishes utterly nothing aside from lowering the player's opinion of some pretty major characters.

If you are playing Skyrim for choice driven story and deep characters you are going to be supremely dissapointed

[Xilizhra]

For the record, players should be able to save the day, in my opinion.

But why even offer the option of saving the day of doing something else, when saving the day is clearly the best option? What's wrong with just making a mandatory moment of glory?

Ideally, I'd have two choices for different goals, depending on what you're after. For instance, allowing someone redemption because you want to see them redeemed, or killing them because you want to see them dead; the rachni queen choice is similar to this and works quite well. Or, perhaps, choosing between galactic harmony and attempted human supremacy, to continue the Mass Effect theme. For Dragon Age, choosing between mage or Chantry allies to gain help in taking on the templars.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

To be perfectly honest, because it's a often cheap and easy way to try and generate drama.

I was talking about the choice in Skyrim, and it's a perfect example. It's accomplishes utterly nothing aside from lowering the player's opinion of some pretty major characters.

I assume you are talking about the Blades quests, yes? If so, I agree. That was not a hard choice, it was a "I don't like what's going on here anymore, so I'm just going to walk away."

Which, to my knowledge, is never really an option in Bioware games.