310 réponses à ce sujet

[Stella-Arc]

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.

Bioware spoiled me too much. Even though I enjoy the game a lot, I don't really care much about most of the characters and quests. When I did an horrific act in one quest (won't say just in case I spoil it for someone), I was expecting major consequences. Alas, no such thing. At least I got a nifty looking outfit. 

Modifié par Stella-Arc, 22 août 2013 - 02:58 .

[David7204]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

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.

I hate this complaint because it's flat out wrong. You ended the threat that haunted the galaxy for MILLIONS OF YEARS.

Shepard is a hero in every way conceivable. Shepard is space Jesus, almost portrayed better or more heroic in a way.

Seriously, how many heroes in fiction save not merely the universe, but all future iterations of the universe as well? I'm inclined to say Shepard is the most heroic person ever to arrive in fiction, though I don't know that for sure.

Shepard's heroism was not meaningful.

It did not contribution anywhere remotely close to what it should have contributed to the resolution of the conflict. Everything is solved by the Crucible. Everything is solved by the Catalyst. Nothing Shepard did mattered. I'm pretty sure there was supposed to be a point of the Catalyst giving Shepard the choice because Shepard defied his expecations, but it was so utterly poorly explained that it's basically worthless.

It was not probably reflected in the outcome of the endings.

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 03:01 .

[Steelcan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

We call it Refuse in ME

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Except those ME examples worked to say one viewpoint is better than the others. Which isn't undeniably true, until the game's writing comes out and tells you.

[Medhia Nox]

@EntropicAngel: I'd have been more interested if destroying the Reapers condemned the Universe actually.

There won't be "all future iterations" of the universe anymore.

Shepard calcified the ME universe.

Sorry - tangent and not DA:I related.

To relate it to DA:I - please, do not present a game where I form complex relationships (for a video game) and go on a heroes journey against an impossible foe... and then change the game to "choose between three philosophical concepts you've never discussed throughout the game".

With the three choices at the end of ME 3 - concepts like Synthesis/Control/and Sacrifice of Boons (the Citadel, etc) should have been explored throughout the three games.

I do not feel they were.

Please make DA:I cohesive throughout (easier since it's one game).

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 août 2013 - 03:00 .

[Xilizhra]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

All I want in a Bioware game is for a difficult choice, or one that is not necessarily "good, to be the right one. As in, the "good" choice having a negative consequence and the "bad" choice having a positive consequence for once. If life's problems could really be resolved by talking it out and giving out third chances, then we would be living in a different reality than the current one.

A reality where people might actually want to spend their time. Like... video games, if you will.

However, we already know that not everything can be resolved that way, given the mountains of corpses we generate each game.

Except those ME examples worked to say one viewpoint is better than the
others. Which isn't undeniably true, until the game's writing comes out
and tells you.

Well, clearly; the game was written by people with moral compasses. That doesn't mean that the players need possess them or agree.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 22 août 2013 - 03:00 .

[LPPrince]

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?

Because a player should be given the option of failure.

I don't think they should rewrite something or limit it in some way just because they think a player will reload to get a better outcome. If that happens, let it happen.

I still disagree with the design decision that Hawke's mom couldn't be saved. That she was going to be able to be saved, but testers tried to go back to save her so the option to save her was removed.

I mean, dang. There was nothing good that happened in DA2 except maybe the end result of Act 2. Sibling dies in the beginning because of your choice of class(whaaa), other sibling you lose one way or another regardless of choice through the game, mother dies regardless of choice, Chantry is blown to smithereens regardless of choice, etc etc etc

Then you have ME3 which we were told would not have "ABC endings".

True. They were RGB. And they all sucked.

I don't see the point in choices if they all end in either the same thing happening or all end up with some sacrifice occurring.

I should be able to work hard enough to earn happily ever afters.

Modifié par LPPrince, 22 août 2013 - 03:03 .

[Steelcan]

Shepard's heroism in ME1 wasn't meaningful. It wasn't meaningful in ME2 either.

In ME1 Shepard fights for the Council to see the Reapers as a threat, and ME2 decides "Ah yes..." so all that effort was really for naught.

In ME2 everything that Shepard and co. accomplished makes very little difference to the overall plot.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

All I want in a Bioware game is for a difficult choice, or one that is not necessarily "good, to be the right one. As in, the "good" choice having a negative consequence and the "bad" choice having a positive consequence for once. If life's problems could really be resolved by talking it out and giving out third chances, then we would be living in a different reality than the current one.

Point of order: The Orzammar succession.

[David7204]

We need to be very careful about throwing the word 'realism' around here. I don't want there to be an implication that having your heroism and choices count for nothing is a more 'realistic' story. Because it isn't.

[Xilizhra]

While it is true that video games should never be bogged down completely by realism (I mean it is a video game after all), I do think that tossing in a realistic situation every now and then wouldn't hurt.

Er, I think we've had several realistic situations. Do you mean pessimistic situations? Because we have those too; in DAO, we have to kill a Keeper to reach the optimal outcome for the clan, and then destroy a priceless artifact and kill the wife of one of our own party members to prevent more dwarves from being enslaved. And in DA2, the best you can do at the end is kill every last gorram templar you can get your weapons on.

[David7204]

EntropicAngel wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Shepard's heroism was not meaningful.

It did not contribution anywhere remotely close to what it should have contributed to the resolution of the conflict. Everything is solved by the Crucible. Everything is solved by the Catalyst. Nothing Shepard did mattered.

It was not probably reflected in the outcome of the endings.

Wrong. The fact that Shepard was able to GET there was why the Catalyst expanded the options. The fact that Shepard was able to unite the galaxy and throw ships at the Reapers long enough to set up the Crucible is, within the Mass Effect universe, utterly unique to Shepard in the MILLIONS OF YEARS the Reaprs have been reaping.

It darn well was meaningful.

That's not anywhere even remotely close to good enough. Every ally, every friend, every ship, and every triumph throughout the series should have counted for a hell of a lot more than protecting the Crucible for 30 seconds. Particularly considering such an event doesn't at all stand up under examination.

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 03:06 .

[LPPrince]

David7204 wrote...

We need to be very careful about throwing the word 'realism' around here. I don't want there to be an implication that having your heroism and choices count for nothing is a more 'realistic' story. Because it isn't.

Thank you.

I want happy happy feel goods. So I'll ask for it. In reality and in fiction, it can happen.

So I want it to happen in this fiction.

[Zu Long]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

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.

I hate this complaint because it's flat out wrong. You ended the threat that haunted the galaxy for MILLIONS OF YEARS.

Shepard is a hero in every way conceivable. Shepard is space Jesus, almost portrayed better or more heroic in a way.

Seriously, how many heroes in fiction save not merely the universe, but all future iterations of the universe as well? I'm inclined to say Shepard is the most heroic person ever to arrive in fiction, though I don't know that for sure.

And you do so by

1) Committing genocide against the Geth. You may have done so earlier in the game, but either way it's pretty much mandatory for the Destroy ending, which rankles, especially if you put in a lot of effort to save them earlier.

2) Fundamentally changing every person in the galaxy. Playing god and making choices for everyone else by forcing homogenization does not feel heroic to me, it feels like saving people from the KKK by making everyone white.

3) Seizing control of a power that I personally had spent major portions of the game telling another character no one should ever have.

I'm glad that one or possibly all of those left you feeling like you saved the day. I and many others felt otherwise.

[Xilizhra]

David7204 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Shepard's heroism was not meaningful.

It did not contribution anywhere remotely close to what it should have contributed to the resolution of the conflict. Everything is solved by the Crucible. Everything is solved by the Catalyst. Nothing Shepard did mattered.

It was not probably reflected in the outcome of the endings.

Wrong. The fact that Shepard was able to GET there was why the Catalyst expanded the options. The fact that Shepard was able to unite the galaxy and throw ships at the Reapers long enough to set up the Crucible is, within the Mass Effect universe, utterly unique to Shepard in the MILLIONS OF YEARS the Reaprs have been reaping.

It darn well was meaningful.

That's not anywhere even remotely close to good enough. Every ally, every friend, every ship, and every triumph throughout the series should have counted for a hell of a lot more than protecting the Crucible for 30 seconds.

Well, your squad continually saved your life throughout the entire series, which seems meaningful. The rest is admittedly sort of abstracted into war assets, but it all still decidedly mattered.

[AresKeith]

Zu Long wrote...

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.

It's perfectly fine to roleplay the hero, but there will be choices and situations where you can't make heroic choices 

Sometimes you'll have to make the choice on what you feel is best (Council decision and Harrowmont/Behlen)

[Sylvianus]

David7204 wrote...

We need to be very careful about throwing the word 'realism' around here. I don't want there to be an implication that having your heroism and choices count for nothing is a more 'realistic' story. Because it isn't.

What is realistic however is that for each action and choice from a hero, there could be good and bad consequences according to different areas, positives and bad reactions from different people. It it rarely perfect.

[AlanC9]

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..

How is this different from what ME3 did? Sometimes there's an everyone's happy option, sometimes there is no such option. It just so happens that the ending is one of the times where there wasn't one.

Are you advocating a higher ratio of choices with a golden perfect option? Or that the final choice has to have such an option? Or something else altogether? Or was ME3's implementation actually OK?

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 août 2013 - 03:08 .

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

And in DA2, the best you can do at the end is kill every last gorram templar you can get your weapons on.

Xil referencing Firefly?

[Xilizhra]

Sylvianus wrote...

David7204 wrote...

We need to be very careful about throwing the word 'realism' around here. I don't want there to be an implication that having your heroism and choices count for nothing is a more 'realistic' story. Because it isn't.

What is realistic however is that for each action and choice from a hero, there could be good and bad consequences according to different areas, positives and bad reactions from different people. It it rarely perfect.

I've never once seen a truly perfect outcome.

Xil referencing Firefly?

Not on purpose.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 22 août 2013 - 03:08 .