310 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

That's just not true in the slightest. Shepard is dying. Being 'competent' doesn't mean you get to be a God. She's not going to be able to pull out blueprints and hack the Crucible. Nor magically inspire the fleets to do 10x damage. That would just be ridiculous and stupid. There's no way you could expect Shepard or anyone else in Shepard's position and state to do more than Shepard did at the end.

Now, granted, that end should never have existed in the first place. But that's an entirely different issue that rests on Narrative Causality.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 09:52 .

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

Where does ME 3 have this problem?

Rannoch, where peace can be achieved if you hit the blue Dialgoue choices enough in the series. Tuchanka, for the same reasons. 

Arguably, Synthesis, since it is presented as having zero of the downfalls such a horrific outcome would actually entail. 

I could go on.

[David7204]

That's not the problem I was talking about. And as I said, the player character being competent (which absolutely includes the persuasion options) is not a Get out of Jail Free card. Even if it wasn't, Tuchanka wouldn't belong on the list since you have to choose between the krogan and salarians.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 09:49 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Narrow Margin wrote...

krul2k wrote...

Would it work that once you sort of get in to the "main theater" map everything on the map has all options/choices open to them but the longer you stay away from one the less choice in outcome you can have? or is that 2 messed up

I rather like that idea. At the start of the game all options are open, and you have plenty of time to achieve varied results, but as you complete ths story, the situation becomes more set and the options available for the remaining plot reduce. Which could be interesting in a game where it was very open what order you complete things in.

The sadist in me says, and factor in all your travelling time. Forget the towers of hanoi, let's have a loosened up version of the travelling salesman problem chugging along throughout the whole game.

Agreed. In war, time to do everything is your most scarce resource. To let the hero have time to get the fairy tale ending if they so choose with zero consequence is a bit "children's hour" type design. 

[David7204]

There are very good reasons why very few RPGs have time limits.

As Weekes said, the optimal way to play a game should never be doing something that isn't fun. Players should not be punished for daring to actually explore the world developers worked hard to create. That's silly.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 09:51 .

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

That's not the problem I was talking about. And as I said, the player character being competent (which absolutely includes the persuasion options) is not a Get out of Jail Free card. Even if it wasn't, Tuchanka wouldn't belong on the list since you have to choose between the krogan and salarians.

If you have solve a fight with Legion and Tali in ME2, this leads you to being able to talk down two groups who have been warring for centuries while they are on the cusp of eradicating each other, sparing you the choice of siding with one versus be other. 

That's not a Get about of Jail Free card?

[Maria Caliban]

simfamSP wrote...

Connor's choice was one I was both relieved and frustrated at. On one hand, it gave players that extra choices, but on the other, there were no consequences, it was really just as easy as heading down to the shops to buy a can of Coke. No one died, and everyone lived happily ever after.

Yeah. Some options are better than others. Annulling the Circle in Ferelden has a serious downside while allowing it to remain lets you be a big goddamn hero.

And I'm fine with that.

I've never understood people saying they want choices and consequences, and then complaining when some consequences are bad while others are good.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 21 août 2013 - 09:54 .

[Taleroth]

David7204 wrote...

That's just not true in the slightest. Shepard is dying. Being 'competent' doesn't mean you get to be a God. She's not going to be able to pull out blueprints and hack the Crucible. That would just be ridiculous and stupid. There's no way you could expect Shepard or anyone else in Shepard's position and state to do more than they would they did at the end.  

I can and do expect someone in Shepard's position to get help from experts. I can and do expect that when arming a bomb you don't know what it does, you get the people who helped build it on hand.

Shepard sent all of his help away for no reason. And nobody bothered sending any more, even when it was feasible, such as when the arms opened.

Nobody had any clue what they were doing. It was the definition of incompetence.

Modifié par Taleroth, 21 août 2013 - 09:54 .

[Taleroth]

dopple post

Modifié par Taleroth, 21 août 2013 - 09:53 .

[David7204]

Not in the slightest. First of all, peace depends on more than just solving a fight. Secondly, don't act as if peace is a sudden thing. It's been encouraged and talked about since ME 2. Shepard's point is legitimate.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 09:54 .

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

There are very good reasons why very few RPGs have time limits.

As Weekes said, the optimal way to play a game should never be doing something that isn't fun. Players should not be punished for daring to actually explore the world developers worked hard to create. That's silly.

There doesn't need to be an actual timer involved. If ME1 had different events if you went to Feros first rather than last (as the ME1 trailer hinted would be the case), then it would simpy be a sequence of events factor, like Alpha Protocol. You can take 2 hours or 20 hours with a mission, but the game only reacts to the order in which you chose to do the primary missions in terms of reactivity. 

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's not the problem I was talking about. And as I said, the player character being competent (which absolutely includes the persuasion options) is not a Get out of Jail Free card. Even if it wasn't, Tuchanka wouldn't belong on the list since you have to choose between the krogan and salarians.

If you have solve a fight with Legion and Tali in ME2, this leads you to being able to talk down two groups who have been warring for centuries while they are on the cusp of eradicating each other, sparing you the choice of siding with one versus be other. 

That's not a Get about of Jail Free card?

Not really, as that is not all you need to do to ensure peace on Rannoch.

[Neon Rising Winter]

David7204 wrote...

There are very good reasons why very few RPGs have time limits.

As Weekes said, the optimal way to play a game should never be doing something that isn't fun. Players should not be punished for daring to actually explore the world developers worked hard to create. That's silly.

Agreed you couldn't simply judge it on play time expended. If you've thrown a wodge of the budget on exploration and sidequests you want people to explore. You could tie it into say percentage of the main plot completed as an indicator of how much time the game considers you've expended. Bring the idea of deciding what order to do things in as an aspect of the game, opening and closing options depending on what order you follow.

[David7204]

I really can't think of circumstances where that would make sense aside from "These two villages/cities/planets are under attack, choose which one to help and the other dies!"

That would get really tedious very quickly.

I would be okay with it once. But I sure as hell wouldn't want the entire game built on it. And there absolutely needs to be foreshadowing of the consequences so it isn't just a dice roll for the player.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 09:59 .

[Wulfram]

The possibility of peace in Rannoch was foreshadowed in ME2. And it also provides a valuable moment of "up" in a generally downbeat game.

I do think it's a bit too perfect - there should be more outstanding issues and tension going on, and maybe Gerrol should refuse and get himself killed or something - but I really dislike the notion that it shouldn't exist.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

Not in the slightest. First of all, peace depends on more than just solving a fight. Secondly, don't act as if peace is a sudden thing. It's been encouraged and talked about since ME 2. Shepard's point is legitimate.

Shephard's position IS legitimate, yes. After all, what kind of morons would start a blood feud war right when galactic genocide is imminent?

But Shephard only gets to make that argument if the game lets him. If you completed the (fairly standard) set of requirements in ME2 (basically the loyalty missions for Tali and Legion), you get the option of peace, the insta-win, no possible downfall solution. Legion is lost, that's it. 

Thats an even bigger Get Out of Jail Free option than the Connor one the OP brought up. 

[Maria Caliban]

Foshizzlin wrote...

The Walking Dead had very strict dialogue time limits, but it was incredibly fun and your choices were impactful. I think in more intense scenarios, a time limit would be useful.

In the Walking Dead episode 1, you have the choice between saving a man or a woman. In the next episode, the person you save shows up for five seconds to chat with you and then disappears. In the episode after that, the one you save is killed right at the beginning.

This is exactly like Virmire, only your choice has even less impact in the end.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 21 août 2013 - 10:01 .

[David7204]

Yes. What's the problem with a hero earning an outcome with no downsides?

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Foshizzlin wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Foshizzlin wrote...

The Walking Dead had very strict dialogue time limits, but it was incredibly fun and your choices were impactful. I think in more intense scenarios, a time limit would be useful.

In the Walking Dead episode 1, you have the choice between saving a man or a woman. In the next episode, the person you save shows up for five seconds to chat with you and then disappears. In the episode after that, the one you save is killed right at the beginning.

This is exactly like Virmire, only your choice has even less impact in the end.

Implying those are the only choices or decisions in the entire game.

It is a good example of an illusion of impactful choices. In the first episode you get a choice to save Ducky or Hershel's son, but both end in Ducky's survival, and all roads lead to his eventual death. I like the game, but the choices weren't really impactful. Another example is Ben dying no matter what.

[David7204]

I played the first episode of the Walking Dead, and wasn't impressed at all. It looks like I made the right choice.

[Sylvianus]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The player character being competent is not a Get-out-of-Jail-Free card.

Some of the worst moments in games are where I've been forced with a supposedly awful choice that could have and should have been easily solveable if my supposedly powerful, persuasive, capable player character were a little more competent. Or could bring up a point that the game doesn't allow. Or ask questions to clarify an issue that needs to be clarified. Thankfully, Mass Effect did an outstanding job steering clear of that. Not so sure about Dragon Age.

You have zero idea what you are talking about. You know nothing of the choice that is being discussed. 

It is not at all a competent choice to leave a castle occupied by a possessed Mage child who had already slaughtered all the castle residents and most of the town (until your character arrived to save them) to his/its own devices while you spend weeks venturing to the nearest Circle, complete its long quest (shorter in time only to the Deep Roads section), return back with the help needed and expect nothing bad to happen. After weeks of terrorizing and killing, the demon's entire killing spree is suspended for over a month and then picked back up again as if nothing had happened. That is the anti-thesis of competent choice.

This. This is more than being incompetent. It is dumb. There should have been consequences. And as I'm someone weak, obviously like almost everyone else, I chose the perfect option in my other playthroughts, seeing how I couldn't have wrong with that choice.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 21 août 2013 - 10:08 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

David7204 wrote...

I really can't think of circumstances where that would make sense aside from "These two villages/cities/planets are under attack, choose which one to help and the other dies!"

That would get really tedious very quickly.

I would be okay with it once. But I sure as hell wouldn't want the entire game built on it. And there absolutely needs to be foreshadowing of the consequences so it isn't just a dice roll for the player.

How about more, help city state A first and you'll be defending it against the oncoming attackers, with the hope of having a broadly functioning and effective government left at the end. Help them later and you're trying to free an occupied area that's had much of its infrastructure destroyed. City state A is in turn allied with kingdom B whose reaction to you will depend on how quickly you responded to their allies in their time of need.

If it's just a choice between happy ending or everyone dies, then I'm a happy ending person sure, but there's a lot of middle ground that could be covered by negative consequences without dragging everything into the pit of despair.

Modifié par Narrow Margin, 21 août 2013 - 10:08 .

[David7204]

That sounds like basically the same thing. Only unstead of just dying, the city is occupied and decaying.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 10:11 .