310 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

This is a video game.

Not an exam. Not a chore. Not a headache. Not work. A game.

Yes, there can be challenges, but remember what this is. A game. A mass produced product designed to be beatable with a mimimum of frustration by even a very mildy competent player.

And as Weekes said, the optimal way to play a game should never be doing something that isn't fun.

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 12:31 .

[Zu Long]

Oh, hey, it's this topic.

I'll do what I always do and come down hard on the side that railroaded "hard choices" is annoying.

Connor was a prime example of a choice I actually liked. People complain that you're leaving him alone, but I always liked to imagine I'd left half the crew with Morrigan or Wynn to sit on him while I went and got help since you can only bring four people with you anyway.

My example of a ham-handed "no good choice" example will be pulled from Mass Effect: Bring down the Sky. You are presented with the no good options choice of letting the terrorist Balak go, or stopping him, but all the prisoners are killed. Yet a good option does exist. You are on an asteroid. You have FRIGATE currently orbiting said asteroid. Tell him you're letting him go, disarm the bombs, then radio Joker and have him blow Balak's shuttle out of space. Done and done. (This also would have worked for Vido Santiago's gunship in ME 2.)

"Gut-wrenching" options like leaving Ashley or Kaiden to die generally leave me feeling more hollow then gut-wrenched, because I can usually think of better options, right there on the spot, than the ones I'm presented with. Having the player railroaded into morally ambiguous choices for the purpose of making the world more grimdark and edgy isn't good writing or good game design, IMO, and I respectfully disagree with Gaider that having no good outcome at Redcliffe would have improved DA:O.

Modifié par Zu Long, 22 août 2013 - 12:34 .

[AresKeith]

Jayne126 wrote...

You missed the point so hard you almost hit the moon.

Nice try anyway.

David doesn't like to think about the choices before making it

[Steelcan]

I wonder if the mods can kick people out of particular forums....

[Steelcan]

AresKeith wrote...

Jayne126 wrote...

You missed the point so hard you almost hit the moon.

Nice try anyway.

David doesn't like to think about the choices before making it

He also hasn't played DA

[Medhia Nox]

But THIS complaint about Connor - leads to MY complaint about that stupid Leandra quest in DA2.

I've seen Bioware reps state that any chance to save was removed, or were never considered, because everyone who could have - would have just reloaded a save and taken the best ending.

Why am I being "punished" (I use the term broadly and in the context of entertainment) with railroading because some people don't know how to roleplay?

If you cannot practice self-control... and take the choice you feel is the most sensible - even IF that choice is to run to the Tower - why should I have to have less options?

The first time I played the Connor event - I didn't even consider going to the Tower, precisely because it seemed like too much of a risk.

I MUCH prefer a game where I can 1) make rping choices based off my character and 2) people who want to write a story instead of roleplay can look online or reload and choose their favorite outcomes.

Railroaded tough choices aren't "tough" at all. Why would it be? You were never given a chance to succeed. Degrees of failure aren't "tough".

I felt nothing for the Leandra even (or the death of the sibling at the beginning) because there was no actual failure on my part - it was just a story being told to me without participation.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 août 2013 - 12:40 .

[David7204]

Jayne126 wrote...

You missed the point so hard you almost hit the moon.

Nice try anyway.

What 'point' is that, exactly?

[Sylvianus]

David7204 wrote...

And as Weekes said, the optimal way to play a game should never be doing something that isn't fun.

There's basically nothing that tells me he's talking about consequences here. Is it even in context ? What it isn't fun exactly ? Choices with consequences ?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 août 2013 - 12:46 .

[Ash Wind]

While I enjoy gut wrenching decisions, there also has to be some easy ones. I liked the Connor quest just because it seemed major, and you actually felt like you won for once. No one as sacrificed, no one destroyed.

If every major decision is going to involve the PC deciding who gets sacrificed, that gets real old, real fast. It gets predictable and boring. The best ones are the ones that sneak up on you, but if it happens every time, those major times when it does happen become lesser for it. Surprise me with a “I actually won’ quest every now and then. Why is it for some someone has to die for something to be meaningful and deep? Hint... it doesn't.

[David7204]

For example, you shouldn't make the player complete an incredibly frustrating and difficult combat encounter to get the best story outcome. You shouldn't require them to complete a very tedious task, such as go find a thousand rocks or whatever.

Nobody wins in those situations. The average player either gives up in frustration, or endures it and doesn't enjoy it.

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 12:43 .

[Steelcan]

Ash Wind wrote...

While I enjoy gut wrenching decisions, there also has to be some easy ones. I liked the Connor quest just because it seemed major, and you actually felt like you won for once. No one as sacrificed, no one destroyed.

Except for that damned Orlesian..

TEAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN.

[Fast Jimmy]

Medhia Nox wrote...

But THIS complaint about Connor - leads to MY complaint about that stupid Leandra quest in DA2.

I've seen Bioware reps state that any chance to save was removed, or were never considered, because everyone who could have - would have just reloaded a save and taken the best ending.

Why am I being "punished" (I use the term broadly and in the context of entertainment) with railroading because some people don't know how to roleplay?

If you cannot practice self-control... and take the choice you feel is the most sensible - even IF that choice is to run to the Tower - why should I have to have less options?

The first time I played the Connor event - I didn't even consider going to the Tower, precisely because it seemed like too much of a risk.

I MUCH prefer a game where I can 1) make rping choices based off my character and 2) people who want to write a story instead of roleplay can look online or reload and choose their favorite outcomes.

Railroaded tough choices aren't "tough" at all. Why would it be? You were never given a chance to succeed? Degrees of failure aren't "tough".

Offering no choice is not better than offering a magic third option. It is, in effect, two sides of the same coin. One is forcing an outcome on the player, the other is endorsing an outcome with no negative side effects at all that anyone with any knowledge of the game has a hard time justifying any other choice. 

The game isn't saying "do you prefer an progressive tyrant over a conservative incompetent?" Or "is the suffering of a few worth the survival of the many?" It winds up saying "here's the happy ending... now search for it!" It's more of a promotional of Prima video game guides than it is interesting story-telling.

Similarly, saying "this bad thing is going to happen, so FEEL THINGS." That's similarly bad writing and not well thought out design. It's all bad, with no choice. As bad, if not arguably worse, than the magic third option.


A choice should be just that - something you have to choose. Not force fed to you and not something of such a no-brainer consequence that you don't think about it, but a choice. 

[Il Divo]

David7204 wrote...

For example, you shouldn't make the player complete an incredibly frustrating and difficult combat encounter to get the best story outcome. You shouldn't require them to complete a very tedious task, such as go find a thousand rocks or whatever.

Nobody wins in those situations. The average player either gives up in frustration, or endures it and doesn't enjoy it.

Basically, the player should have victory handed to them on a silver platter at all instances. What a wonderful day for Heroism.

[Zu Long]

Jayne126 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What 'point' is that, exactly?

You'd knew if you played Origins.

I've played Origins, and you don't seem to have one, other than taunting people.

[David7204]

You seem to be contradicting yourself, Jimmy. Earlier you were arguing to me extensively that options should have vastly different outcomes, with 'smart' choices leading to the best ones. And now it sounds like you're saying such choices are 'magic' because they don't have enough consequences.

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 12:51 .

[David7204]

Il Divo wrote...

David7204 wrote...

For example, you shouldn't make the player complete an incredibly frustrating and difficult combat encounter to get the best story outcome. You shouldn't require them to complete a very tedious task, such as go find a thousand rocks or whatever.

Nobody wins in those situations. The average player either gives up in frustration, or endures it and doesn't enjoy it.

Basically, the player should have victory handed to them on a silver platter at all instances. What a wonderful day for Heroism.

Why don't you cut the very silly strawmen and address my point. Am I wrong? Are you advocating frustration and boredom as good design?

Modifié par David7204, 22 août 2013 - 12:50 .

[Teahuppoo]

The requirement for the "save everyone choice" should be something really hard to achieve.

that connor quest was too damn easy, you just had to go with the flow of the story

[Ash Wind]

Steelcan wrote...

Ash Wind wrote...

While I enjoy gut wrenching decisions, there also has to be some easy ones. I liked the Connor quest just because it seemed major, and you actually felt like you won for once. No one as sacrificed, no one destroyed.

Except for that damned Orlesian..

TEAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN.

LOL!! Oh she was so awful, but if offing her made your quest a victory, you had that option.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Abandon Redcliffe and it gets destroyed.

Side with the werewolves and you get to destroy the elves and experience a gameplay section you wouldn't otherwise.

Loose or surrender to Ser Catherine and you experience a section of the game you wouldn't otherwise.

We need more consequences like these in Inquisition. It sounds like Bioware are going in this direction as they mention a village you can either save or destroy. I'd imagine it'll be a Redcliffe type scenario only with more depth. Saving it (instead of being all beneficial) could lead to you making an enemy of a certain group.

[AresKeith]

Teahuppoo wrote...

The requirement for the "save everyone choice" should be something really hard to achieve.

that connor quest was too damn easy, you just had to go with the flow of the story

Not if you sided with the Templars 

[Il Divo]

David7204 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

David7204 wrote...

For example, you shouldn't make the player complete an incredibly frustrating and difficult combat encounter to get the best story outcome. You shouldn't require them to complete a very tedious task, such as go find a thousand rocks or whatever.

Nobody wins in those situations. The average player either gives up in frustration, or endures it and doesn't enjoy it.

Basically, the player should have victory handed to them on a silver platter at all instances. What a wonderful day for Heroism.

Why don't you cut the very silly strawmen and address my point. Am I wrong? Or are you advocating frustration and boredom as good design?

Calling it a strawman does not make it so. I was however being condescending, as I think your point is extremely bad.

I'm suggesting that rewarding players for doing absolutely nothing is absolutely bad design. Someone before mentioned a great example in Human Revolution. One of your allies is in danger and you can either save her or abandon her to save your own ass. Saving her is difficult, and hence when finally accomplished rewarding.

It's the same basis for why absurdly easy boss fights make for anticlimactic encounters. If I can one shot the boss, I don't feel heroic, I feel bored.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 août 2013 - 12:54 .

[Zu Long]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

But THIS complaint about Connor - leads to MY complaint about that stupid Leandra quest in DA2.

I've seen Bioware reps state that any chance to save was removed, or were never considered, because everyone who could have - would have just reloaded a save and taken the best ending.

Why am I being "punished" (I use the term broadly and in the context of entertainment) with railroading because some people don't know how to roleplay?

If you cannot practice self-control... and take the choice you feel is the most sensible - even IF that choice is to run to the Tower - why should I have to have less options?

The first time I played the Connor event - I didn't even consider going to the Tower, precisely because it seemed like too much of a risk.

I MUCH prefer a game where I can 1) make rping choices based off my character and 2) people who want to write a story instead of roleplay can look online or reload and choose their favorite outcomes.

Railroaded tough choices aren't "tough" at all. Why would it be? You were never given a chance to succeed? Degrees of failure aren't "tough".

Offering no choice is not better than offering a magic third option. It is, in effect, two sides of the same coin. One is forcing an outcome on the player, the other is endorsing an outcome with no negative side effects at all that anyone with any knowledge of the game has a hard time justifying any other choice. 

The game isn't saying "do you prefer an progressive tyrant over a conservative incompetent?" Or "is the suffering of a few worth the survival of the many?" It winds up saying "here's the happy ending... now search for it!" It's more of a promotional of Prima video game guides than it is interesting story-telling.

Similarly, saying "this bad thing is going to happen, so FEEL THINGS." That's similarly bad writing and not well thought out design. It's all bad, with no choice. As bad, if not arguably worse, than the magic third option.


A choice should be just that - something you have to choose. Not force fed to you and not something of such a no-brainer consequence that you don't think about it, but a choice. 

But is forcing the choice with consequnences really a choice if third option DOES exist, the player just isn't allowed to take it? And where does one draw the line? Trying to narrow down the players options to the point where two questionable choices are all they realistically have without the player feeling they've been railroaded into the situation (ie Mages vs Templars, because Anders blew up the Chantry and you couldn't see it coming or stop him.) is pretty hard.

Isn't the better path to look at the scenario and the events which have lead up to it, then examine the player's options realistically in the context of decisions they've already made, and if the ability to solve the problem with a "best" choice exists, then so be it?

Modifié par Zu Long, 22 août 2013 - 01:01 .