310 réponses à ce sujet

[TK514]

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.

I would add that by doing certain things, you could also improve your chances elsewhere.  If I recruit these mercenaries over here, I have more time/a better chance to save that villiage over there, becuase the Mercs go and hold the line while I take care of something else.  so not just a simplistic 'as time goes by, things get worse' scenario, but a truely interconnected world of events.  And it wouldn't have to be an A -> B only scenario, you could have choices there as well.  So you might have a choice to send the Mercs to protect the village, or send them to assault a keep, or have them stay put and train for use later.  Or you could choose to save some mages instead of the mercs, and send the mages to the mercs to give you time to deal with some other thing.

Complex choices and results based on what you do and where you go.  It's far too late for this to be included in DA:I of course, but I think BioWare could pull it off down the line.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Foshizzlin wrote...

Though that's a good point, wasn't Connor locked up/comatosed/heavily guarded by the time the Warden had the choice to go to the Circle? Apparently he had no real way to get back out into the real world to do any harm.

It's been a long while since I beat Origins though, so I may not remember this correctly.

Nope, he just stood around in one room till you came back. All the guards were dead.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

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

Because it, essentially, says other choices were wrong. 

Take Tali's side over Legion's, despite having the persuasion option, because Legion illegally hacked into her files? Well, guess what - you've now doomed either the Geth or the Quarians to extinction. 

I'm sorry, but that's f-ing ridiculous. 

[David7204]

Yes. Shepard being a competent speaker is a better choice than Shepard not being a competent speaker. Why is that a problem? It seems rather obvious to me. There's nothing wrong at all with the the narraitve presenting some choices as better than others.

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

[Neon Rising Winter]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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

Because it, essentially, says other choices were wrong. 

Take Tali's side over Legion's, despite having the persuasion option, because Legion illegally hacked into her files? Well, guess what - you've now doomed either the Geth or the Quarians to extinction. 

I'm sorry, but that's f-ing ridiculous. 

That one I don't see as a problem. To me it just represents the idea that if you have taken the time to build trust between your character and key people in these factions, then come that critical moment when push comes to shove they'll take a chance on you. The implementation might be a little rough around the edges, but the idea isn't horrible.

[Il Divo]

David7204 wrote...

Yes. Shepard being a competent speaker is a better choice than Shepard not being a competent speaker. Why is that a problem? It seems rather obvious to me. There's nothing wrong at all with the the narraitve presenting some choices as better than others.

It is if the player finds playing an incompetent protagonist to be boring or uninteresting, especially in cases where the best case scenario is clearly laid out. This is why I thought KotOR handled this a lot better. At least there the player was making an active effort to sow destruction and death everywhere he went. He was at least competent, although immoral.

[Navasha]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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

Because it, essentially, says other choices were wrong. 

Take Tali's side over Legion's, despite having the persuasion option, because Legion illegally hacked into her files? Well, guess what - you've now doomed either the Geth or the Quarians to extinction. 

I'm sorry, but that's f-ing ridiculous. 

Sorry, but that's also essentially meta-gaming.   You don't know the outcomes of the other choices on your first playthrough.   You certainly didn't know that leaving to get the mages carried no risk when you made that choice. 

My first playthrough I sacrificed Isolde because I didn't think the kid could still be saved by the time I got back.   I was VERY pleasantly surprised on my 3rd or 4th playthrough when I realized everything could turn out alright.   That kind of makes for replayability far more than if EVERY decision is going to be a downer regardless of how hard you work or things you may try.

There is no right or wrong for me.   My heartless demon/magic hating dwarven casteless character still slaughters the kid, even though I know there could be a "good" ending. 

[Blackrising]

I like happy ends.
I don't always need to feel like the game is super edgy and dark and conflicting. Sometimes it's just nice to know 'Yep, saved that village. Made everyone happy. Cause I'm a badass hero.'
Otherwise it might just end up feeling like I can't really influence anything. The situation is gonna suck anyway. And players generally don't fancy feeling incompetent.

[David7204]

Il Divo wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes. Shepard being a competent speaker is a better choice than Shepard not being a competent speaker. Why is that a problem? It seems rather obvious to me. There's nothing wrong at all with the the narraitve presenting some choices as better than others.

It is if the player finds playing an incompetent protagonist to be boring or uninteresting, especially in cases where the best case scenario is clearly laid out.

...It's a problem if the player finds an INcompetent protagonist to be boring or uninteresting?

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 10:29 .

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because it, essentially, says other choices were wrong. 

Take Tali's side over Legion's, despite having the persuasion option, because Legion illegally hacked into her files? Well, guess what - you've now doomed either the Geth or the Quarians to extinction. 

I'm sorry, but that's f-ing ridiculous. 

So if the peace option was always there, you'd be OK with it?

How about if the chain of events that led to it being impossible was a little more clear and obvious?

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 août 2013 - 10:29 .

[Il Divo]

David7204 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes. Shepard being a competent speaker is a better choice than Shepard not being a competent speaker. Why is that a problem? It seems rather obvious to me. There's nothing wrong at all with the the narraitve presenting some choices as better than others.

It is if the player finds playing an incompetent protagonist to be boring or uninteresting, especially in cases where the best case scenario is clearly laid out.

...It's a problem if the player finds an INcompetent protagonist to be boring or uninteresting?

I'm not sure why that comes off as surprising. I don't find myself emotionally invested if I purposely choose to annihilate either the Geth or Quarians, if I obviously have the blue (or red) options open to attain a perfect scenario.

The scene becomes devoid of meaning, in those moments. Sure as a character Shepard doesn't know that, but as a player I find myself bored.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2013 - 10:34 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because it, essentially, says other choices were wrong. 

Take Tali's side over Legion's, despite having the persuasion option, because Legion illegally hacked into her files? Well, guess what - you've now doomed either the Geth or the Quarians to extinction. 

I'm sorry, but that's f-ing ridiculous. 

So if the peace option was always there, you'd be OK with it?

How about if the chain of events that led to it being impossible was a little more clear and obvious?

How about you had to take a side and live with it? That would be a REAL choice. 

[David7204]

Having a story that always end in failure or semifailure may be fine for the Walking Dead, where the protagonist is an Average Joe. It may be fine for the Last of Us, where the protagonist is tired and weary and drained of idealism.

It's not fine for BioWare games.

Why?

Because it's a betrayal of the explicit and implicit promises BioWare has given to players.

You look at the trailers, and they're clearly full of heroic imagery. Full of themes and motifs of power. Save the world or damn it? BioWare has promised us a powerful, competent protagonist. Choices that matter. Choosing our ideals, including of course the ideal to be good and to help as many as we can.

Having a story where those ideals turn out to be meaningless because everybody dies anyway is a betrayal of that. Because it turns out all of themes of power were a lie, since we clearly didn't have the power to save anyone. It turns out it was all a joke, since is "hero" is helpless after all.

Now does that mean the journey can't require sacrifices? Of course not. But it does mean there absolutely needs to be the option of real, effective heroism existing and leading to good outcomes.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 10:38 .

[Eyerock]

I'm actually very grateful for some true happy endings. "Gut-wrenching" and tragic outcomes are definitely necessary for a story of this scope, but for my own part it needs to be outweighed by some happiness once in a while. I play these games for escapism, and too much doom and gloom can tire me out.

That's why the endings of ME3 was such a bore (for me at least). Nothing was able to outweigh the thought of Shepard being ripped away from his friends and loved ones no matter how strong or clever he was. I'd choose a happy ending in a heartbeat, no matter how farfetched.

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

How about you had to take a side and live with it? That would be a REAL choice. 

That would be lame, because ME2 foreshadowed peace as a possibility.  And would probably leave ME3 too one note depressing for me to be interested in replaying it much.

The one character I had who couldn't manage peace with the Quarians pretty much cracked after that, what with driving Tali to suicide - though the prior sabotage of the genophage cure/murder of Mordin didn't help of course.  That was a pretty intense playthrough, but not one that I'm particularly interested in going through again for fun.

edit:  I'd be less hostile to losing the option if ME3 was overall more positive.  There's a balance that's needed.

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 août 2013 - 10:51 .

[Il Divo]

David7204 wrote...

You look at the trailers, and they're clearly full of heroic imagery. Full of themes and motifs of power. Save the world or damn it? BioWare has promised us a powerful, competent protagonist. Choices that matter. Choosing our ideals, including of course the ideal to be good and to help as many as we can.

Having a story where those ideals turn out to be meaningless because everybody dies anyway is a betrayal of that. Because it turns out all of themes of power were a lie, since we clearly didn't have the power to save anyone. It turns out it was all a joke, since is "hero" is helpless after all.

Now does that mean the journey can't require sacrifices? Of course not. But it does mean there absolutely needs to be the option of real, effective heroism existing and leading to good outcomes.

Good for them. Then they should cut the crap about there being hard choices in Mass Effect.

Previous Bioware games (KotOR, Jade Empire) offered two different moralities, but each protagonist succeeded at being powerful and competent. They simply had completely opposite goals. By your own admission, more recent Bioware games have then failed in this endeavor. I'd rather Bioware not offer choices between a competent hero vs. an idiotic hero. There is nothing interesting about that dichotomy. If the only thing Renegade accomplishes is having a higher body count than Paragon, then the Renegade alignment is pointless.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2013 - 10:42 .

[David7204]

Maybe they should. It's an advertising gimmick that brings in players probably because they don't understand the full implications of what they're asking for.

Meaningful heroism is not ambiguous. It's not grey. It's simply good and powerful. I'm very glad to have stories that elevate it above other ideals. That's where it belongs.

[Il Divo]

David7204 wrote...

Maybe they should. It's an advertising gimmick that brings in players probably because they don't understand the full implications of what they're asking for.

Meaningful heroism is not ambiguous. It's not grey. It's simply good and powerful. I'm very glad to have stories that elevate it above other ideals. That's where it belongs.

It's also, in many cases, an illusion. Redcliffe demonstrates pretty easily what happens when developers don't even bother to make players fight for the best case scenario.

Don't bother inventing two morality sytems if your only goal is to tell players "Hey, guess what? This one is wrong".

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2013 - 10:49 .

[CuriousArtemis]

ME3 had at least two huge moral choices for me: cure the genophage or not; help the Quarians or the Geth.

Connor or Isolde or save them both... to be honest, I always kill one or the other because it's a hassle to have to complete the Circle quest first (hate that quest). And honestly I have no strong feelings towards either character, and have little connection to even my own character since he basically had no personality (blank face and mute).

[David7204]

Not so. Stories have been doing that since the beginning of time. In fact, I would argue, that's what stories were meant to do.

Harry Potter is a story that carries a theme of 'Love is what makes us strong.' If you disagree with that theme, you're probably not going to enjoy Harry Potter much. That's fine. You don't have to read it.

You read Ayn Rand, all of her work carries themes of the power and importance of the individual. If you disagree with that theme, you're probably not going to enjoy her work much.

All stories of significant length carry such themes.

Why are video games prohibited from carrying themes? Themes that heroism is meaningful and powerful? Or alternatively, themes that heroes are stupid and childish?

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 10:55 .

[Allan Schumacher]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Didn't Gaider once say that if there was one thing he would change if he could go back, it was to change the everybody wins-scenario at Redcliffe? Don't quote me on that however, but if somebody has an idea if I'm referring to something real, then please share and prove I'm not dreaming =)

I was going to comment the same thing.  I was in that thread too.

[Il Divo]

David7204 wrote...

Not so. Stories have been doing that since the beginning of time. In fact, I would argue, that's what stories were meant to do.

Harry Potter is a story that carries a theme of 'Love is what makes us strong.' If you disagree with that theme, you're probably not going to enjoy Harry Potter much. That's fine. You don't have to read it.

You read Ayn Rand, all of her work carries themes of the power and importance of the individual. If you disagree with that theme, you're probably not going to enjoy her work much.

All stories of significant length carry such themes.

Why are video games prohibited from carrying themes? Themes that heroism is meaningful and powerful? Or alternatively, themes that heroes are stupid and childish?

I think you're missing the point. If you want your story to have such themes, go for it. Write what you want. But what those stories don't do is place the player ostensibly in a situation where the game presents two different moralities as being viable. Then exclusively favoring one morality, is not likely to win you points on moral complexity or game design. You're not going to be praised for complex scenarios or moral ambiguity. You basically made a game designed around playing smart or an idiot. Let your player base know that from the start, instead of advertising as if both options have merits and/or are viable.

Hence my point that previous Bioware efforts were better on this front. Closed Fist/Dark Side may have resulted in a darker, more depressing galaxy. But it was pretty clear your character was evil and set out with such intentions in mind. Good and evil players had entirely different galaxy states, but were equally competent in achieving their goals. Renegade as presented in Mass Effect removes the competency from half of the alignment options, turning it into the idiot playthrough.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2013 - 11:04 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

Il Divo wrote...

It's also, in many cases, an illusion. Redcliffe demonstrates pretty easily what happens when developers don't even bother to make players fight for the best case scenario.

Don't bother inventing two morality sytems if your only goal is to tell players "Hey, guess what? This one is wrong".

The Redcliffe good ending is an example of when it feels like the good option has been shoehorned in there. The way it's presented it feels like there should be a negative consequence to choosing to go to the mage's tower, but then there isn't. I'd be curious to know if that option was a late addition, because it does feel like it's been tacked on for the sake of having a good option, whereas the kill Connor/kill Isolde choices fit naturally.